In Defense of The Younger Gamer

By Shawn White / Sunday, 01 April 2007

Reach into the well of your mind for a moment and recall your childhood - perhaps long ago, perhaps only recently past. What images do you draw? Do you remember that birthday when you gathered every ounce of enthusiasm in your body and ripped open the thin paper barrier keeping you from the latest and greatest video game system, and how marvelous it appeared to your impressionable eyes? Do you remember being amazed with Sonic's speed or Mario's jumps? Do you remember what made you a gamer? If so, now ask yourself this: would you want anyone else deprived of the opportunity to one day drink from this same wonderful well? Likely not. And yet it seems many, both developers and gamers, have forgotten what they once were: children. The demographic of Wii, based on the words of Shigeru Miyamoto, encompasses everyone ages 5-95. The older end of that range exposed to Nintendo's new console seems to have responded fondly; Wii Bowling leagues for the elderly are even sprouting up across the United States, just to cite one example. What about that range's other extreme, though? Do we simply assume children are taking part and deriving their satisfaction, to the point that little needs to be said? Because outside of institutions like the U.S. Senate, little discussion is found regarding younger gamers. Maybe this is a result of younger games simply not representing a large-enough portion of the market. After all, only about 40% of game players today are under the age of 18, according to data compiled by the Entertainment Software Association, and one can reasonably assume the percentage decreases to 30% or less if the age bar is shifted down to about 13. As such, children wouldn't seem to require the greatest focus from game makers. But take careful note of a crucial point: that other 70% of people were once children. Chances are you're apart of that 70%, as am I. We've aged and matured (hopefully) and our tastes in games have accompanied that growth. Mario and Sonic may still be dear to our hearts, but perhaps we've expanded our interests to include other genres, characters and content. We have new demands from our games - that they challenge us, scare us, make us cry or consider the morality of our choices - and that's perfectly fine in itself. It ceases to be fine, however, when we impose our power as a majority in an effort to wholly satiate our own demands, and in doing so deprive following generations of the experiences we enjoyed. It is not uncommon to see a parent purchasing a game such as Grand Theft Auto for their young child these days. While such software may be well-produced and worthy of purchase, consider this: only about twenty years ago, that game would have been Mario or Sonic, rather than GTA. Sociologically, one can argue this occurrence from many perspectives. One argument might hold that children are being asked to mature more quickly in order to deal with the mounting pressures of academia and our global society; they show a greater interest in more mature games as a result. Some truth might be found there, but I argue otherwise - that children, by and large, simply don't have much of a choice. {page} Many parents will attest that children (especially their children) are a lot smarter than society often gives them credit for. No, they may not fully comprehend the importance of an in-game moral decision, or the intimacy of deep in-game relationships. But they do know good gameplay, smart gameplay. Hence the irony when a Wii developer states that the console is targeted at a younger demographic and proceeds to produce something like, say, Ninjabread Man. Note the elements of this game carefully: it's colorful, kind of cute (in a disturbing sort of way), features a decently recognizable character and uses a rather complicated HUD (heads-up display). Compare this to Sonic the Hedgehog, a game I first enjoyed during my younger years: It's also colorful, features a recognizable character, but is not attempting to be cute nor does it contain a complicated HUD. The gameplay in Sonic is also much simpler, overall: you run left or right, and you jump. That's it. Yet there's a reason why Ninjabread Man won't see 15+ years of life as Sonic has, and it isn't because Sonic lucked out as an early industry entrant. Below the surface of simplicity, Sonic's gameplay was smart, which we should note is not the same as complicated. Rather, it was defining and understandable, and it opened up the youthful imagination of the player. Some people wonder if the colorful icons like those of gaming past have a place in today's market, especially when new characters like Master Chief and Sam Fisher are garnering mass attention. This situation may very well be the result of enduring design and smart gameplay shifting from colorful icons to new rugged ones, which exist in that form because of the aging gamer and maturing demands. Since that group holds majority status, and children today are still looking for smart gameplay, where else is there to go? There's nothing wrong with Halo or GTA being iconic, but children having to expose themselves to mature material that needn't concern them for the sake of finding that smart design seems quite unfair, if not inappropriate. This is, of course, assuming that the youth truly wants the smart gameplay more so than the mature content. Let me make clear that this is indeed a developer and gamer problem. It is a developer problem because games made for a younger demographic borrow the colorful nature of Sonic and Mario without also borrowing the smart gameplay that cemented those characters into gaming history. It is a gamer problem because the hardcore gamers impose such heavy demands on developers to produce for them and immediately shun anything that looks "kiddy."  In doing so, older gamers not only set an example of withholding attention from otherwise great games due to appearance, but additionally force an imbalance where the industry thinks smart design belongs only to the aged. Where Nintendo is concerned, it is the great irony of long-time fans: they often want the company to "grow up" and provide for their more mature gaming desires, without realizing they're consequently asking Nintendo to deprive others of the influential experiences that may have made them into gamers. Wii houses such potential for not only bringing an entire spectrum of people together through gaming, but also for delivering fresh gameplay that is accessible, but more importantly, smart. That simple, defining, imagination-opening design doesn't need to remain exclusive to 'mature' games - let complexity control that realm. Wii may have succeeded in reaching the elderly, and that's important, but their opposing end deserves just as much focus. For children, these games can and will shape them, their views, their ideals, their openness to fresh experiences and so forth - just as they did for those of us of the preceding generations. Who are the old to deny the young, when the young are our future? So remember the children - the one you once were, the one that shared in magical, life-shaping experiences without worry about the troubled world we all meet in adulthood. Youngin's aren't asking for much, just a little attention, respect and the smart gameplay us old folk had the luxury of taking for granted without boisterous lawyers calling us killing machines. Be sure to also read In Defense of The Aging Gamer by Editor-in-Chief Rob Galbreath, co-released with this article.