> Duh! That is EXACTLY WHY the VAST MAJORITY of people choose to
join ANY
> subcuture. Sheesh! maybe we will market to people who dig being
perceived
> as ugly, awkward, and stupid.
Okay, so coming back to the real purpose of this listserv, I'm
hoping that everyone here will take the time and the $25 to pick up (if you
haven't already) Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics. I post the URL from
Amazon only as a signpost; pick it up at your local comic book store.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Mr. McCloud.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060953500/o/qid=982795048/sr=8-2/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_2/107-9858951-7738150
In this excellent tome, Scott lays out a manifesto of sorts for the
future of the comics industry; it addresses issues that are IDENTICAL to the
issues that we are discussing here. The main problem that the gaming
industry has is that it is feeding on itself instead of finding new blood.
As Scott points out in his book, this follows the Law of Diminishing
Returns. Since gaming (in its current form) only attracts a certain type of
customer (the "gamer" stereotype, whatever that is), that person, after they
are into gaming, are inculcated into the culture of the hobby. Should that
person then go on to write gaming material, their influences tend to
gravitate back to that culture (i.e. gamers who grow up on D&D become game
writers that write games similar to D&D).
Scott's call is to break that cycle by getting more people, and
hence more viewpoints, into the culture. Games written by and for women,
minorities, different religious viewpoints ... whatever ... will more
likely connect with a wider audience because they represent a wider
audience. Now mind you, Scott McCloud is talking about comics, which is a
more flexible medium than gaming, and can attract wider audiences because it
requires no activity outside of reading the comic. Role-playing is an
activity, and as such has issues that comics don't (which boils down to
role-playing "stage fright" if you will).
So the problem is attracting this new audience while not alienating
the current one, which would (financially) cut the legs out from under the
publisher.
For comics, Scott recommends the end of genre, or at least the
diminishment of the importance of genre. Role-playing may well want to
consider that. Instead of writing a new "sword-n-sorcery" game or sci-fi or
horror game, games need to start looking outside "box" to find more
wide-reaching audiences. There's only one example that I can think of off
the top of my head that points the way - The Sims.
The Sims was a great-selling, critically acclaimed game, and all you
do is live someone else's life. It's a great metaphor for role-playing,
made even better by the Livin' Large add-on pack, which allows you to do
things like play Frankenstein and become a rock star (et al). While the
day-to-day play of The Sims can get tedious, it is GRIPPING to play, because
the identification is there. By stripping the game of genre, The Sims
proves that a good game does *not* have to be action-packed, it just has to
cause an *identification*.
I just looked at the clock. If I don't get home soon to grout my
floor, I'm in deep doo-doo. I'll post an addendum to this post tomorrow.
Kuma
P.S. Sorry, Ms. Vining - I leap'd instead of creep'd. I blame
society. ;^)
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
