Freeware Games

As most of you already know, there are lots of videogames you can play for free: either they're old games whose authors have decided to give away, or they're games being distributed for free from the start, usually by independent developers or amateurs. Often freeware developers accept free donations from players as a support for their effort and expenses.

Freeware games have been around for a long time, but thanks to the Internet they've obtained enhanced visibility; moreover, developers may easily share their work online or combine their efforts towards more complex games. With the advent of online communities, many other possibilities have opened up regariding game advertising, discussion, design, code sharing, and the quality of such games has benefited from it.

Let's not forget about technological support: making games today is a lot simpler than it was before, thanks to the evolution of entirely free development libraries, as well as game development frameworks, which help people who don't know programming languages.

Personally, I've never tried the newer ones (Multimedia Fusion, Game Maker and so on), but years ago I tried using Klik&Play, which is basically the ancestor of Multimedia Fusion. I think frameworks like that really help concentrate more on level design and art without having to bother too much on the technical aspects of programming, such as fine-management of resources, compatibility and text languages themselves. I do believe though that the loss of flexibility can be heavy: the risk is that of people simply making clones of other games, using only tried-and-true game mechanics, experimenting only on appearance and design. That said, there's still ample room for variety and innovation with these frameworks, and they're apparently miles away in terms of flexibility when compared with what I used some 15 years ago.

Videogame Music

I used not to care too much about music when playing videogames: as long as it didn't sound annoying or irritating, it was perfectly fine by me. Now I can understand how good music can make a difference in games when it's aptly used, by helping create the right atmosphere, alter pacing, set the mood, and by giving a game a more distinctive appearance.

Moreover, music is something that is easily memorized and quick to recall, so that by simply listening to some tunes, memories of playing the game can readily be brought back up: it's a bit of a nostalgic feeling what one may experience when listening to a soundtrack: maybe you'll remember how much fun you were having, or how emotionally involved you were when playing a certain sequence of the game. Or, more generally, you'll suddenly remember what you were like back then, how you felt on a particular day or during the period you were playing the game.

Nah... I can't really come up with anything interesting today.

Of terminology

If you're into videogames and often read about them, you might have noticed the recent trends and buzz-words. What I want to talk about here is a bunch of terms being used very frequently: 'hardcore', 'core' and 'casual'.

The first one is a pretty common word, and within the videogames world it has been used for a while: 'hardcore gamers' generally refers to people who have a passion for videogames and have been playing them a lot for a long time. 'Hardcore games' is also widely used to define videogames that might be too hard to get into unless you have a good experience with the genre they belong to.

I think the word 'core' is of much more recent inception (in the videogame industry) than 'hardcore', and may be a derivative of it. By my understanding, a 'core gamer' is a softer 'hardcore gamer', not as passionate and as experienced, but still into games; another interpretation could be that 'core gamers' are those who enjoy 'core games', i.e. games with traditional mechanics and concepts, possibly belonging to a well defined and consolidated genre. If you ask me, these terms don't make much sense, but I can't find a better definition for the term.

Lastly, there's a word which has apparently reached its top popularity today: the word 'casual', when attached to a gamer, means that the person doesn't play games very often, certainly isn't passionate about them, nor is knowledgeable of the videogame industry, but still contributes to the overall market. The jump from 'casual gamers' to 'casual games' is relatively short, as I understand that games may be named so when they're enjoyed mostly by 'casual gamers', and minimally by other types of gamers. Those who have been following the industry in the last few years might draw a parallel with the terms 'non-gamers' and 'non-games'.

What do all these terms have in common, aside from videogames? The Wii console, which has brought them all together in a lot of videogame discussions among the members of the game world (developers, publishers, reviewers and fans alike). Well, 'hardcore' used to be thrown around a lot more a couple of years ago, not as much today since it seems to have been gradually replaced with 'core'. Why did it happen? Surely because of how said console has been marketed since its launch; I'm not saying the term 'casual games' was invented along with the Wii (reports of its use fall back to at least year 2000, if I remember correctly... how's that?), but it's certainly been growing in popularity since then.

The matter of 'casual games' is still a relevant one: as the world faces a financial crisis, game developers and publishers need to understand market trends the best they can. I know I couldn't handle it well.

Videogames are a complex thing...

What are videogames? Surely a form of entertainment, but how do they compare to other forms of entertainment?

For the most part, games have been always seen as little more than toys: things for kids and possibly nostalgic adults, which you play for some time, then get bored, or find a new toy, and forget about them.

Certain games also get elevated from the toy status and become something more serious; because of the strict rules they can impose to players, competitive games with a good balance in challenge may gather enough interest from the public to be used in tournaments, just like 'sports' (or rather board games like chess and Bridge, but even so games may require good reflexes). Professional videogamers exist, which proves that games are not only fun to play, but can be fun to watch too.

There are also games which incorporate a large number of artistically significant elements, which, depending on the quality of content, could compete with entertainment media such as books or movies.

Videogames are a very complex thing: because of their flexibility it's not really possible to lump them all into a single category.

I'm currently waiting for Dragon Quest V DS to come out. Yes, it's off topic, but I don't know what to write anymore.

Simulation and impersonation

A good majority of videogames have the player impersonate a virtual character, which is either shown on screen or is just described with a name and/or a role (king of some country, president of a sports club and so on). This is a way to make the player feel 'immersed' in the virtual reality of the game.

Other games instead provide the player with control over certain elements of the virtual world, from a deck of playing cards to a party of heroes off to save the world; the role of the player in the virtual world is never explicitly stated, or there is no consideration of the virtual world itself.

A small number of games (recently there have been more) play on the concept of the 'player', breaking the 'fourth wall': such games may have a consistent virtual world, but then there would be instances in which some kind of (fictitious) awareness of it being a mere videogame, or there being a player on the other side of the screen.

But in the end, the attitude of the player towards the game is what counts the most: all of the above considerations, in fact, could apply to passive entertainment media, while playing a game makes one more proactive in the fruition of the contents the game provides.

The sequel syndrome

Like in many other industries, making sequels to successful series is common practice:

• you'll be working on something you know people will like
• you'll be able to reuse material from the previous editions
• you might even get the people who tried the newest episodes to buy into the older one

Additionally, fans of the series will be pleased to find references to other episodes they've seen.

The downside to making sequels is that a bad episode can ruin an entire series: that way, a follow-up of a non-appreciated game can end up selling even less than the previous one, even if it's actually better. 'Franchise fatigue' can be an issue as well, since variety in games is very important and a series of games which play the same will raise the churn-out rate.

Of course, most of what I listed above is more relevant the more often a series gets new episodes: yearly sequels are common nowadays, especially for sport simulations. About that, I don't really like it, but I can't blame producers since they always seem to get a lot of sales, even when the latest game only has slight additions (like an updated footbal roster, I'll never get why people think names are so important).

What seems to be a recent trend instead is making sequels to very old games: I guess there's an opportunity to reach veteran gamers as well as to get newcomers to experience different things (as older genres may be underappreciated today).

See previous post

...

What had made me think (again) about 'gamers' and their public image was the announcement of a reality show about videogames, where the 'cool' aspect of gaming is shown. I'm against the trend of creating a 'gaming subculture', since it's bound to lock a lot of people out of the videogame world: a world which is much more varied than what the most popular 'cool' games make it to be.

For this I mainly blame Microsoft, which has, since the introduction of the Xbox console (or was it since the Xbox 360?), tried to make stronger ties between videogames and... I don't know what it's called today, whatever's the leading trend now on MTV. But Sony and Nintendo (the two other console manufactorers) may have their share of the blame: Sony having a good number of ads for their PSP that focus exclusively on a young male demographic, and Nintendo, despite their claims of trying to reach everyone, has made some marketing choices which tend to alienate long-time gamers and kids (I didn't think ill of Wii Music, but I was baffled by the significant backlash it had generated since its announcement).

Videogames should be for everyone, just like any other entertainment medium.

No, I don't need a pic for this post, it doesn't deserve it.

Of 'Gamers' and image

'Gamer' is usually the term which applies to any person who plays videogames; such a classification is made because playing videogames nowadays is still not a very common form of entertainment, except for kids. The industry is expanding continuously however, so maybe in the near future the word will be forgotten, and playing a videogame will seem just as normal as watching a movie.

Yes, 'normal'. An adult person habitually playing videogames wasn't considered very normal some years ago, and to an extent it still isn't. This situation is bound to pass with time, as long as videogames still get made, but there's a related phenomenon which bothers me more: the 'image' of a gamer. That is, explained in a few words, the stereotyped, typical person who plays games, a 'nerd' if you wish.

...

Retro Gaming

Retrogaming may be generally seen as the nostalgic attachment that long-time gamers have towards older videogames. I think it's much more than that.

First of all, while 'veterans' are the main target of the retro-fever (in any field), there's always a good number of other people who can catch it: after all, while technology advancements have made old videogames look obsolete, well-made, enjoyable games are still enjoyable now. So newcomers to the electronic entertainment world can appreciate old games as well, especially when they can buy them at a fraction of the price gamers had bought them back then, if not for free.

Moreover, even if the history of videogames is relatively short, there are some genres which have been abandoned, and you can hardly find any new games of that genre anymore (assume you've found one by chance and liked it); then you find out that those kind of games were all the rage 10 to 20 years ago, and may be lucky enough to find means to play them.

Lastly, I think Retrogaming has a little more charm than that of nostalgia; because of technical progress, the focus has changed greatly in game development, and not necessarily for the best. Sure, back then developers struggled to make enough figures move on the screen at the same time, or fit all the game on a tape/cartridge/floppy disk, and we don't have to go back to that anymore; but as it often happens, progress also makes other issues become more important, in this case a realistic, consistent, believable virtual world in which to play, ensuring a long-lasting entertainment period for a fair price, an accessible, non-clunky interface and so on. People tended to pass on such things in the past because they didn't even know they could get better; that, and also because good videogames were very refined within their own limitations (because having strong limitations in a creativity medium can have its advantages).

Because of this charm, a recent trend in games has pushed towards 'retro' style features: things like blocky graphics and low-fi sounds are certainly mostly for nostalgic players, but also simpler game levels, shorter but carefully designed worlds and resurrected genres make for a good offer to everyone who wants entertainment.

Solitary games

Some of you might have noticed that I used an unusual word to refer to single-player videogames: it was my attempt at putting more emphasys on the player being alone when playing such games.

Of course one could play most single-player games with friends around, possibly because they are entertaining to just watch (I love watching...), or even switching with the player from time to time, competing or collaborating in some way.

However, there has been a long period during which the greater part of the videogame market was taken by solitary games, particularly those played on consoles - although on PC there were really few multi-player games outside of the online-enabled ones, but that's another issue altogether. Things are balancing out a bit now, but a lot of effort is still put on the development of solitary entertainment.

It's a bit funny when you consider that the first widespread electronic videogame was a game for two players.