7 ms·

Everyone is looking at it wrong. It's not about the game anymore. It's about the online community surrounding it. Games today are social networks. It's not abo

Everyone is looking at it wrong. It's not about the game anymore. It's about the online community surrounding it. Games today are social networks. It's not about the game-play anymore. It's about the mods, the chatting, the culture, community, etc. If you see Minecraft as a game like Sonic is a game you are blind.

ConAntonakos 13y ago
Yes, very true. But in a way, aren't the social interactions within the game at least part of the gameplay?
wikwocket 13y ago
Surely Minecraft is as popular as it is today due to its amazing community, but you can't honestly say it "isn't about gameplay anymore," or that Minecraft isn't a game. Minecraft is a clever and well-built game environment that is both nostalgic and progressive at the same time. It would not have gotten any traction at all if it was not fundamentally fun and interesting to play. Minecraft grew because of modders, let's-play-ers, and socializers, but none of that would have happened if Minecraft, as a game, was not able to capture peoples' sense of wonder and fun as they explore landscapes, caves, and endless seas. I think a more balanced way to look at things is that perhaps you can get away with half a game or three-quarters of a game, by involving the fans and building a community around the project. Dwarf Fortress is another great example of this.
- awakeasleep 13y ago
  Everything you said is true but you're missing the point where it really isn't about gameplay anymore. For example, in DayZ there almost isn't even gameplay right now. Thats what everyone has been trying to say. You're just running through a forest for an hour.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > You're just running through a forest for an hour But then in any multiplayer fps you're just running around the scenery. It's much smaller scenery so there are many more encounters with other players.
  - chii 13y ago
    > there almost isn't even gameplay right now. the "gameplay" you seem to find lacking is actually the thrill and mental stress players experience when playing. It's mental, not physically manifested as game mechanics. If you observe a player of many other games (such as WoW), you will not find these mental experiences, despite there being more "gameplay".
null_ptr 13y ago
That's an interesting point of view. Do you think single player games may still be able to attain success in the current landscape?
- meatcar 13y ago
  Kerbal Space Program has a sizeable community, and is single player, and real fun to play.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Check out the massive communities built around strategy games like Civilization - I think SP games are doing well. That said, IMO the social and community aspects are just icing on the cake. A game gains no traction unless it's a good game first. The community that grows around it are an accelerant for future growth, but will not exist at all if it weren't for a solid game underneath.
  - xentronium 13y ago
    > Check out the massive communities built around strategy games like Civilization - I think SP games are doing well. Civilization V is very entertaining for FFA multiplayer (although public games are unplayable because of leavers).
- Tiktaalik 13y ago
  Dark Souls has a similar style of community, where due to the opaque and difficult gameplay lots of community discussion is necessary and live streaming is common.
pavel_lishin 13y ago
And then there are people like me, who play TF2 to blow off steam. I don't look for my friends on servers, and I only keep a list of "favorite" servers because I know they always have the map I want to play.
recursive 13y ago
That's an interesting point of view. I'm less interested in multiplayer games today than I was in the 90s, but I'm glad to report that single player games seem to be doing rather well. I just finished Arkham Origins, and thus find the statement "it's not about game play" a little tough to believe.
- exDM69 13y ago
  It is worth noting that Arkham Origins is from the completely opposite end of the spectrum to all these indie hit games that were covered in this article. Making big titles like Arkham Origins requires a lot of money and the big AAA titles are often very conservative. Contrast this with DayZ, Minecraft, Don't starve, Kerbal Space Program and others mentioned in this article. By comparison to AAA titles, these games are difficult, don't include a story line, have a tightly knit community, were built with a small budget and team, were released with "early access" etc. They are big hits that aren't AAA games, and this kind of phenomenon did not really exist (in such a large scale) in the 1990s. There were indie hits and popular shareware games but none of them were commercial successes. There will always be AAA games just as there will be Hollywood movies. But the indie megahit phenomenon is a rather new development in the field of gaming. The article wasn't really about the decline of AAA games as it was about the rise of indie games.
  - kenrikm 13y ago
    I think the takeaway is that selling online though places like Steam make it easier for a indie games to become hits.
dack 13y ago
The whole networking aspect lets us make our own games. I agree to an extent that the programmed logic of the game falls into the background a bit with these kind of games. There still has to be rules - but it's more like the rules of real-life than an actual "game" that is being played. In real life, nobody can really prevent you from shooting someone else - its just that most people agree that you should be put in jail (or killed) for doing something like that, and therefore there are consequences. People find it interesting that there can be other worlds with similar dynamics (but the stakes are lower, since you can't really die). I think the ever-increasing computer horsepower and network speed is contributing to us wanting more of a simulation/charicature of real-life than a fixed set of games to play. I wonder if we'll continue on this trend in the future to the point where it's truly more entertaining to play inside a simulation than live real life (I know you can argue that is already true for some games, but I mean much more common).
timje1 13y ago
Possibly it's not about the baked-in gameplay anymore. But both day-z and minecraft have rich metagames (is metagameplay a word?) that have developed as a result of both the restrictions and freedoms given to the players. That's one of the reasons that some of the commenters here "don't get it". They've looked for gameplay, and found it lacking, whereas what they should have been doing is creating their own games within the worlds provided.

ConAntonakos 13y ago

Yes, very true. But in a way, aren't the social interactions within the game at least part of the gameplay?

wikwocket 13y ago

Surely Minecraft is as popular as it is today due to its amazing community, but you can't honestly say it "isn't about gameplay anymore," or that Minecraft isn't a game. Minecraft is a clever and well-built game environment that is both nostalgic and progressive at the same time. It would not have gotten any traction at all if it was not fundamentally fun and interesting to play. Minecraft grew because of modders, let's-play-ers, and socializers, but none of that would have happened if Minecraft, as a game, was not able to capture peoples' sense of wonder and fun as they explore landscapes, caves, and endless seas. I think a more balanced way to look at things is that perhaps you can get away with half a game or three-quarters of a game, by involving the fans and building a community around the project. Dwarf Fortress is another great example of this.

awakeasleep 13y ago
Everything you said is true but you're missing the point where it really isn't about gameplay anymore. For example, in DayZ there almost isn't even gameplay right now. Thats what everyone has been trying to say. You're just running through a forest for an hour.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > You're just running through a forest for an hour But then in any multiplayer fps you're just running around the scenery. It's much smaller scenery so there are many more encounters with other players.
- chii 13y ago
  > there almost isn't even gameplay right now. the "gameplay" you seem to find lacking is actually the thrill and mental stress players experience when playing. It's mental, not physically manifested as game mechanics. If you observe a player of many other games (such as WoW), you will not find these mental experiences, despite there being more "gameplay".

null_ptr 13y ago

That's an interesting point of view. Do you think single player games may still be able to attain success in the current landscape?

meatcar 13y ago
Kerbal Space Program has a sizeable community, and is single player, and real fun to play.
potatolicious 13y ago
Check out the massive communities built around strategy games like Civilization - I think SP games are doing well. That said, IMO the social and community aspects are just icing on the cake. A game gains no traction unless it's a good game first. The community that grows around it are an accelerant for future growth, but will not exist at all if it weren't for a solid game underneath.
- xentronium 13y ago
  > Check out the massive communities built around strategy games like Civilization - I think SP games are doing well. Civilization V is very entertaining for FFA multiplayer (although public games are unplayable because of leavers).
Tiktaalik 13y ago
Dark Souls has a similar style of community, where due to the opaque and difficult gameplay lots of community discussion is necessary and live streaming is common.

pavel_lishin 13y ago

And then there are people like me, who play TF2 to blow off steam. I don't look for my friends on servers, and I only keep a list of "favorite" servers because I know they always have the map I want to play.

recursive 13y ago

That's an interesting point of view. I'm less interested in multiplayer games today than I was in the 90s, but I'm glad to report that single player games seem to be doing rather well. I just finished Arkham Origins, and thus find the statement "it's not about game play" a little tough to believe.

exDM69 13y ago
It is worth noting that Arkham Origins is from the completely opposite end of the spectrum to all these indie hit games that were covered in this article. Making big titles like Arkham Origins requires a lot of money and the big AAA titles are often very conservative. Contrast this with DayZ, Minecraft, Don't starve, Kerbal Space Program and others mentioned in this article. By comparison to AAA titles, these games are difficult, don't include a story line, have a tightly knit community, were built with a small budget and team, were released with "early access" etc. They are big hits that aren't AAA games, and this kind of phenomenon did not really exist (in such a large scale) in the 1990s. There were indie hits and popular shareware games but none of them were commercial successes. There will always be AAA games just as there will be Hollywood movies. But the indie megahit phenomenon is a rather new development in the field of gaming. The article wasn't really about the decline of AAA games as it was about the rise of indie games.
- kenrikm 13y ago
  I think the takeaway is that selling online though places like Steam make it easier for a indie games to become hits.

dack 13y ago

The whole networking aspect lets us make our own games. I agree to an extent that the programmed logic of the game falls into the background a bit with these kind of games. There still has to be rules - but it's more like the rules of real-life than an actual "game" that is being played. In real life, nobody can really prevent you from shooting someone else - its just that most people agree that you should be put in jail (or killed) for doing something like that, and therefore there are consequences. People find it interesting that there can be other worlds with similar dynamics (but the stakes are lower, since you can't really die). I think the ever-increasing computer horsepower and network speed is contributing to us wanting more of a simulation/charicature of real-life than a fixed set of games to play. I wonder if we'll continue on this trend in the future to the point where it's truly more entertaining to play inside a simulation than live real life (I know you can argue that is already true for some games, but I mean much more common).

timje1 13y ago

Possibly it's not about the baked-in gameplay anymore. But both day-z and minecraft have rich metagames (is metagameplay a word?) that have developed as a result of both the restrictions and freedoms given to the players. That's one of the reasons that some of the commenters here "don't get it". They've looked for gameplay, and found it lacking, whereas what they should have been doing is creating their own games within the worlds provided.