We Recommend


  • sandraudiga - March 17, 2012 7:47 p.m.

    The argument is very well presented, and has some very indisputable facts behind it, but be that as it may, there will always be people asking the medium to "grow up". And Mr. Groen is correct, they will be the artsy, semi-obsessive 2% that traffic websites like this, and there's nothing wrong with that. All mediums, even those that are losing their relativity are being asked to push the envelope by those that view the medium as an art-form. Painting enthusiasts do it, fans of literature do it, and so do film fanatics. The majority of the world may accept games as grown up, but just like other mediums, they'll still mature, just more slowly, and in less noticeable ways.
  • Andrew Groen - March 17, 2012 9:13 p.m.

    Thanks for the kind words. I think the "games need to grow up" crowd selectively focus on the most juvenile games rather than viewing the medium as a whole. Does film need to grow up because there are entire movies devoted to staring at tits (read: porn)?
  • Moondoggie1157 - March 18, 2012 6:43 a.m.

    I guess on a level I could be called that 2%... But, I don't focus on the juvenile games, in fact I hold them a bit higher than others due to the fact that they can be mature while keeping that juvenile, humorous nature. I would argue that any and all forms of creative media are still under going growth, from video games to painting (both are things I am serious about). Once a medium does fully grow up, I think it has lost all potential to become more. Let's enjoy the fact that these mediums still have not found a linear path that defines them. I really did enjoy this article though, regardless of whether or not someone agrees with it, the fact that it sparks these conversations proves its success, keep 'em coming Groen!
  • revrock - March 18, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Good point and the answer is a solid no. Because people have been making dirty movies ever since movies could be made. There have been "mature games" since the 2600, too.
  • revrock - March 17, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    Bah... This is more a comment on the comments than the article (which was well presented) but why are we still batting around the whole "games as art" argument???? It is already settled (proven by my donation to the Smithsonian exhibit on the art of videogames) I gave because I frickin' love videogames and support them in every way I can. I could care less about "proving they are art anymore" that ship has sailed people! BTW I read 100 classic books on the DS and use Korg DS-10 plus twice a week in public (once for a synth-pop service and once for intro music at a heavy metal service in church)... Books, music, games, movies. The line has continually become less and less distinct and will continue to do so. The war is over, the bums lost!
  • Druupwnz - March 17, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    I've gotta agree with this completely, but I like to think that our hardcore niche market of gaming isn't entirely out of tricks, but will continue to grow and develop - I'd like to see it "mature" in article's terms. Also, respect to Mr. Groen for defending his point against all the naysayers and making it clear to people. Good article, sir.
  • Danomeon - March 17, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    I feel that gaming is certailny out of its adolescence as a form of media - we've got the basics nailed down and pretty clearly understand what we're trying to do as a medium. However, I feel like certain aspects of our medium (Specifically storytelling) are still undergoing some growing phases. I feel like there has been a lot of "growth" in gaming's storytelling recently with the introduction of games that tell their tales entirely through gameplay. Half-Life 2, Left 4 Dead, Limbo, Journey, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, and many others that I can't name here have pulled off telling an entire story without ever resorting to cutscenes. I think that using the assets of this medium (namely: the abilit to control what is going on in the piece of entertainment we are experiencing) can lead for games to have stories unlike anything else. we've certainly come a long way since the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era, where cutscenes were prettymuch expected from a game. Now games like Bioshock are commonplace where developers will try to tell their stories AS the player is playing. That wasn't all too common back then. I think we'll be looking back on gaming in this age many years down the road and be seeing a ton of similarities in terms of how we enjoy this form of entertainment. However, I beleive our perceptions of game storytelling will be very different. Just my personal opinion, especially considering this is all just speculation until the actual future comes. FUTUREEEEEE.
  • bilstar - March 17, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    Niiice article, enjoyed that. I believe gaming hasn't fully got ALL of its tricks and possibilities nailed down just yet... and hopefully it wont have any time soon. I think it will continue to evolve and change in a way that will see us or future generations look back on these times and think "they weren't quite there yet". But I do agree that gaming has passed it's "adolescent stage" and is existing on its own, without need to crib from the "older brother" of other media such as film (although its very free and welcome to do so) and such. More can be done, but it's going very nicely.
  • - March 17, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    Well said. I agree entirely.
  • revrock - March 17, 2012 6:21 p.m.

    Me too. Great points in the article. Add me to the list of people that "got it."
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 17, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    The most popular games in the world are Skyrim (11.24M) and Call of Duty (MW3 - 27 fucking Million). Sure people hail games that are artsy and groundbreaking but they sell like shit (Shadow of the Colossus has only sold 1.14 million as of March 2012 and artfags suck that games dick, Silent Hill 3 sold .71 million) So while we have games that are truly groundbreaking they really don't have spotlight.
  • EnragedTortoise1 - March 17, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    The same goes for film. Hell, The Expendables probably made more money in its opening weekend than all the art-house films from the past two years made in their entire runs.
  • - March 17, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    Those aren't even remotely close to the most popular games in the world. Compared to Angry Birds and Maple Story, Call of Duty is a blip (though very profitable.) Angry Birds has been bought hundreds of millions of times. Maple Story is up to around 100 million *current* accounts. You're confusing "popular" with "popular among hardcore North American and European gamers". The actual popularity of games is much much different. There are flash games that are more popular and widespread than CoD and Skyrim. Even just in North America, Farmville blows CoD away in both players and profitability.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 17, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    Too bad Farmville only made $145 million in 2009 and MW3 made over 2 billion. Farmville and Maplestory are free to play, MW3 costs $60 dollars in America where it sells the most, plus Call of Duty Elite. Anrgy Birds just hit 500 million downloads. That's... 500,000,000 dollars? Still not nearly as much. Anrgy Birds also isn't a game.
  • - March 17, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    What does money have to do with popularity? Fact is: hundreds of millions of people play social, flash and iOS games. Dozens of millions of people play hardcore games. They dwarf us by an incredibly large margin. Even if money was part of it, your figures are complete nonsense. Zynga made $245 million in just Q1 this year. Farmville alone wont make as much money as CoD right away, but may over time. Esp because it also cost hundreds of millions of dollars less to make, and continues making hundreds of millions year after year. What's more, Farmville is only a portion of the social game market, whereas CoD is probably 60% of the hardcore shooter market most years. CoD and Farmville may go toe-to-toe, but social gaming has a much deeper bench with games like Mafia Wars and Cityville continuously generating hundreds of millions month-by-month. I'm not saying they're better or they're going to push us out. I'm saying they're more popular and probably more profitable (though again, profitability has nothing to do with it.)
  • - March 17, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    Don't let F2P fool you. They make untold millions off that business model. I've written a lot about it. In most cases it's more profitable than a retail game.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 17, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    No they don't. You can only get so far with a shitty F2P business model. Call of Duty makes more money then any other entertainment IP in the world.
  • Andrew Groen - March 17, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    I agree you can only get so far with a bad F2P business model. But the Zynga model aint that. It makes them billions per year, and they do it far more steadily and reliably than any mainstream publisher like Activision. And again, as I've said three times: money has nothing to do with this. We're talking about popularity. Hundreds of millions of people around the world love these games. They dwarf us.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 18, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    Those aren't "games". Zynga tries to make 1 dollar shlock as fast as possible to sell as fast as possible with no real merit and no real depth or gameplay. A 1 dollar game on the iPhone and a 40 dollar game on the 3DS. The 40 dollar game on the 3DS will give you way more then 40x the enjoyment then the cheap game on the iPhone because the 3DS game is made with actual production value and substance. The only real game I can think of for the iPhone is Infinity Blade.
  • yonderTheGreat - March 18, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    Andrew, of all the people on here you choose to have an active conversation with someone like MPR? The guy is a troll. If "artfags suck that game like dick" wasn't enough to make it obvious that you're wasting your time on his, his refusal to recognize the legitimacy of everything you'd said should be. I truly enjoy when writers of great articles like this take the time and effort to converse with their readers/commenters. But every time you respond to someone like MPR, it's time and effort you're not spending interacting with your legitimate fans, the ones who are intelligent and decent enough to be civil and recognize when you've got a good point and to debate legitimately when they think that you don't. People like MPR make me ALMOST wish GR was more like Kotaku where he would have been permabanned years ago. Or, to paraphrase, please don't feed the trolls (cuz your time is important)
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 18, 2012 8:03 p.m.

    Shadow of the Colossus is loved by artfags- it's not a bad game but whenever you ask people what game is considered "art" it's always SOTC. Everyone knows this. I hardly think I'm "trolling" by stating obvious things everyone knows. A truly groundbreaking game will never sell as much as Call of Duty. It will get lots of critical acclaim but not sales. Sales are what really matters, not really to developers but to publishers.
  • talleyXIV - March 18, 2012 7:57 p.m.

    If you don't think CoD is one of the most popular games in the world, all your journalistic integrity is gone. Your degree in creative writing should be taken from you, as you have just told a ridiculous lie. Farmville is not more profitable than Call of Duty. Modern Warfare 3 made 400 million dollars in its first day. First day. First day. First day. First day. I just wrote that 4 times because of how insanely ridiculous that is. Farmville has probably made that much money too, no doubt... but probably only because it has been running for around 5 years now. Maybe Angry Birds and Maple Story have sold more copies, (which in Angry Birds' case is ridiculous because that game is completely boring and copied from a flash game that came out around 6 years ago) but I am sure that CoD is making a hell of a lot more money. Let's do some hypothetical math to prove this. If Angry Birds sells 10 copies, it makes $10. If Call of Duty sells 1 copy, it makes $60. Now let's go accurate. Angry Birds has sold around 350 million copies apparently. So $350 million dollars. And if Metroid Prime Rib was right, MW3 has sold 27 million copies (I actually think it is higher), that would come out to 1.62 billion dollars. Now in Farmville's case, I can't imagine it is making anywhere near that much money. Maybe lonely housewife's are spending $60 a month on that game but I doubt that there are millions of them. In players? Maybe... in profitability, get the fudge outta town. I think you made up figures in your head.

Showing 21-40 of 82 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.