Why “Bad” Games Are So Successful, And Why It Doesn’t Matter

One thing that a lot of people who describe themselves as “hardcore” gamers lament is how the highest profile games always are the ones that are the least like what they want to see in the market. For instance, every Call of Duty release cycle, there will be a fairly large crowd posting vitriolic comments stating hat “Call of Duty is the cancer in gaming” or “not the same game again”. And every few years or so, the concept that this will come to some sort of apocalyptic climax for gaming comes up. It’s entirely false, however, for a number of reasons.

First, gaming is a widespread genre. It’s not even fair to say “I enjoy video games” anymore, because that’s such a broad distinction that it’s rarely true. We wouldn’t lump chess, checkers, and backgammon into a single game for the purposes of discussing their play. It’s like saying “I enjoy movies”; it’s not a wrong statement, but it’s lacking in detail. The genre is so widespread that of course there will be games for all people; there are even multiple types of games that focus on the same thing, such as competitive play (shooter, MOBA, fighting, and strategy games to name a few), and even these have distinctions between them.

Second, even though we see large corporations making games based on poorly-derived marketing decisions, their impacts are lessening. Companies like EA have begun to realize that it’s not possible to give every game a brown-and-bloom reboot as a shooter. The concept that every game can succeed if it’s given an AAA treatment is somewhat absurd, and stemmed from the fact that game companies spent a long time in monopoly deals with sports leagues and misinterpreted the fact that football fans want to play a football game with a recent roster. However, other genres have shown that players expect a new and novel experience from different games if they appreciate games as a medium for entertainment independent of other things. Even though some series see huge chains of releases with similar gameplay precepts, like Final Fantasy, they’d never dare to include even near 80% of the same content in each subsequent game like sports games and Call of Duty do.

Of course, the thought that all games have to be created by huge corporations is just as incorrect. The indie market, for all its pretentious side, is actually a very good source for unique and innovative experiences, or expanding things that weren’t looked at correctly. Roguelikes have had some of the highly celebrated features of recent AAA titles for years. Family operations have produced the like of Dwarf Fortress and other such incredibly complex and revolutionary games, and the idea that game development has some mystical “break-in” barrier that other industries don’t is a myth.

However, most importantly, it’s not possible that all games will appeal to all people as soon as they enter the market for them. Some people will never move past games that are their entry-level experience, be it a casual puzzle game or a Call of Duty styled mainstream shooter. However, there’s a reason why these experiences make such a good entry-level; they’re the equivalent of a book written for a third grader to read. They don’t require a lot of thought, investment, or interest. Their complexity is limited to an easily comprehensible set of rules. They don’t have huge skill gaps, with the ways that players prove skills being more complex than just winning or losing; anyone can expect to win fairly often, but the ways to score well require more nuanced approaches.

James Paul Gee, a researcher in educational video games at Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teacher’s College, describes video games as learning machines. While the pedagogical potential of digital entertainment experiences falls outside the scope of this article, it’s worth noting that video games are engaging enough to teach us skills. Following traditional pedagogical advice and applying it to the field of gaming, then it also makes sense that there is a zone of proximal development in which players will begin to be capable of dealing with a more complex experience.

So, in short, when we hear that games are being ruined because another piece of low-grade shovelware is being pushed out, or because the new Call of Duty doesn’t introduce a meaningfully complex update to the franchise, it’s not a sign that video gaming as a hobby and industry is dying, it’s a sign that we’re actually beginning to diversify our interests in the field of gaming, we are now offering a coherent blend of “low grade level” and “high grade level” experiences fit for people of various degrees of gaming competency.

At the same time, it’s also important to note that it’s important to suspend the notion of a lack of innovation or complexity being bad. It’s likely natural to dislike a less stimulating game, and many gamers use gaming to fill a cognitive stimulation void from their daily activities, but other games attempt to meet other needs, providing emotion-or adrenaline-based stimulation for a gamer who is looking for a different experience.

So what’s the takeaway? In short, “bad” simple games aren’t going to drown out more complex and demanding games any time soon, and they serve a crucial role in the market.