Image Is Everything?

[RPGD]

I read this article a few days ago. I completely agree with it. Personally, I believe the day the industry becomes mature enough to be accepted by the other entertainment industries and treated the way it deserves is starting to draw near -- the contributions of Nintendo, Capcom, Konami and others attempting to broaden the definition of gaming reflect this, methinks.

Image Is Everything?
by: Bob Colayco | August 12, 2005

I'm happy to see that video games are getting more widespread appeal. The bigger the game industry gets, the more I get out of it in the long run. But I look forward to the time when it's treated like an actual industry and not like the latest fad. It's definitely the responsibility of the developers and the media to usher in the mature age of gaming, and when they do, I promise you'll see less of a focus on who's buying them and more of a focus on what's actually being bought.

But I'd actually say that the utopian ideal of games being judged only for their content and not for their packaging is merely that--a fantasy. Playing up image in game marketing is only going to intensify. Many of us consumers already fall prey to this "image is everything" mentality when it comes to games. If you don't believe me, take a look at GameSpot's own forums and you'll probably lose count of the number of times that the word "kiddy" is used in conjunction with Nintendo's products. And it didn't just start when Nintendo released the GameCube initially in the purple lunch-box form factor. It's an image that began forming when the company took the blood and guts out of Mortal Kombat and toned it down for Street Fighter back in the Super Nintendo days. You're not "cool" or "mature" unless you have an Xbox and play those "hardcore" shooters like Halo and Rainbow Six. Nevermind that these are squabbles between kids who are all probably under 16. (That's the age when image really is everything.)

The idea that you are what you play is prevalent in our cruel community. Play an MMO? You must be an antisocial shut-in who lives in his parents' basement and hasn't had a date since Ultima Online came out. No, your in-game wedding to that fetching night-elf at the Temple of the Moon in Darnassus doesn't count. Got Madden in your collection? You must be a drooling troglodyte whose wardrobe comes entirely from Nike and Mitchell & Ness, and whose TV is permanently fixed on ESPN. A Final Fantasy fan? You're an anime-watching cosplayer who worships anything Japanese. Put down that piece of nigiri. I'm talking to you! Hell, our own government sees anyone who plays Grand Theft Auto as a gun-wielding sociopath who could snap and start shooting at any moment.

With these image-related attitudes so entrenched in our psyches, is it any wonder that the big game companies will try to play to them? Can you really blame them? It's no accident that Sony designed the PSP to be so sleek, shiny, and sexy. It was a shot across the bow of Apple, warning the company that the Sony PSP intended to challenge the iPod as the hot new tech gadget that doubles as a fashion accessory. It also stood in nice contrast to the original GBA, which shipped in several cute pastel shades. How about the Xbox 360 and its video unveiling, with its cast carefully chosen for just the "right" diverse mix of races, genders, ages, and lifestyles. See? Everyone plays games! Just look at J Allard's wardrobe during the Microsoft press conference at E3. He didn't just accidentally put on a sport coat over his hoodie. He's hip and edgy! Just like you are if you buy an Xbox 360! (I guess.)

Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but the more money the game industry generates, the more carefully constructed the marketing messages become. And that all filters in to the way the products are designed, whether it's console hardware or the actual software. And it's all being done in the name of growth and to attract new consumers to the industry. That's all fine and good. I'm just not sure that pigeonholing customers into neat little categories based on the product is the right way to go about it, as the industry might end up alienating more people than it attracts in the long run. Sure, I enjoy playing Gran Turismo and Need for Speed, but my real car is all stock equipment, and I don't take it to a track on weekends.

[Redneck 2000]

Re: Image Is Everything?

I basically agree with everything in that, except calling Rainbow Six a "hardcore shooter" for image conscious people. It.. really isn't. It's a tactical shooter with lots of stealth elements (basically the opposite of Halo, Unreal Tournament, and the other games of the like that seem to be extrememly popular now).

[The Toecutter]

Re: Image Is Everything?

This article basically sums up why I rarely play any games. Games are mostly style over substance these days, and its getting harder to find something original, creative, and inspiring. A game which doesn't give a **** about image, in which the creator simply makes the game for the enjoyment of it. Games like Katamari or Graffitti Kingdom thus attract me, while games like Halo turn me away.

[Alzar]

Re: Image Is Everything?

I think it is trite, overanalyzed rubbish.

[TheHonorableRyu]

Re: Image Is Everything?

I'll say this: I'd rather play Cave Story than most commercial video games.

[tjoris9]

Re: Image Is Everything?

The truth of the matter is that some people like some types of games more than others. You can probably tell quite a bit about someone based on their game collection, especially if they have a fairly extensive one.

The main reason why I consider Nintendo a kids company is because when I first got an N64 I went to Wal-Mart and there were NO non-E-rated games for N64 that looked appealing. It was all Mario and Donkey Kong. No Perfect Dark, no 007, no Bloody Roar, NOTHING! They still have a long way to go before they redeem themselves as something other than a children's gaming machine, though they have made some great strides (Can we say Resident Evil?).

Personally I think GTA and most of the people that play it are just plain misrepresented. I'm talking almost to the point of a class action suit against both the news media and Jack Thompson (Though if we had to choose one, Jack would be "all work and no play" for the rest of his life, trying to sue random video game companies for sexual content just to pay the legal bills ).

I'm just not sure that pigeonholing customers into neat little categories based on the product is the right way to go about it, as the industry might end up alienating more people than it attracts in the long run.

Who's being alienated? There's an enormous variety of games out there, and even many of the "non-gamers" I know have found at least one game out there that they like, even if it's solitaire or mah-jong. Consoles do alienate some people, but mainly the areas that aren't well-covered in console collections are made up for in handhelds and on PC.

Plus, these companies also probably spend a pretty penny on marketing RESEARCH. They find out what segment of the population actually likes the game and try to advertise to that segment. The more narrowly an advertisement can be targeted the better it will attract potential buyers, and the less the ad campaign will cost. It may seem like it should work the other way around, trying to appeal to the masses to get more buyers, but the reality is that only certain people will actually buy your product, and everyone else will simply ignore the advertising. I'm not just talking about content, either, I'm talking about timing and placement. It costs money to buy space on TV shows and in magazines.