Sun 9 Dec 2007
Back at the Montreal Game Summit, Ben Sawyer did a great lecture - ok, more like a rant - on games for kids and how crap they are. In this case, he meant very young kids: 6 years and under. In short, he was lamenting how it is hard for him and his son to have a fun/shared experience playing video games.
As a father of two young kids, I can certainly relate…
What really struck me from the audience Q&A after Ben’s lecture is the degree to which games for kids are expected to be educational (ie, “edutainment” that teaches ABCs, basic math, etc). Ben was very clear that he was just looking to have fun with his kids. If there was any teaching he was interested in, it was more of the intangible/intrinsic “gaming literacy” style…
Still, audience members just would not stop going on about how hard it is to design gameplay mechanics around early childhood curriculum, etc.
Why is it that parents can buy Lego without the expectation that kids will learn their ABCs from it? Or, build a sandbox without hoping better math skills will result? These forms of play/fun are understood to provide value in and of themselves.
The growth of the gaming parent demographic will likely bring about needed changes; when we can look to kids games as purely fun/shared experiences (without the supposed validation of increasing ABC skills). Meanwhile, I’ll just have to endure the pain of watching my son struggle with simple stuff like driving around a race track in 3D…
Update: Gamasutra recently featured an article by veteran design Scott Nixon titled “Piggybacking: Gaming Across the Generation Gap”. It’s a concept that Ben mentioned during his Montreal lecture, but didn’t have a chance to get into much…
December 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I guess it depends on how old you are.
My first real gaming experience was when I was 6-7 playing “Below the Root”. It was also one of those rare pieces that was completely violence free; the game impossible to finish if you chose this very narrow route in-game.
Lately, I have been thinking back on that game and wondering why, if any, non-violent games exist and why most, if not all, are not commercially successful (like The Sims Online was a colossal failure in sales and active participants)?
I guess the same can be said for the lack of “kid-ware” - is it because it’s commercially unsuccessful? Is this a job for the more risk-embracing startup/indie developer?
Let me know what you find out.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
While I agree that there’s a lot of crap out there, that’s true for all audiences, not just kids. I’ve been suprised at how good some of the stuff is that I’ve been able to find. http://www.starfall.com is one of the better ones for the 2-3 year olds, and Webkinz, Barbiegirls and their ilk are innovating in some ways beyond what the ‘traditional’ games industry is doing.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I agree with you… to a degree. I believe in entertainment WIHTOUT education. However, after working in the kid TV industry for way too long I know is naive to think your own family/situation applies to the masses. The protoypical concerned parent (and broadcaster) wants educational entertainment even though they might not fully understand that they will received second rate content. Again, you are selling the games/shows/toys to the parents and not the kids. Parents worry about violence, sex, teaching of bad habits, etc.
BTW I think Webkinz, ToonTown, Club Penguin are fantastic.