FF/RPGs/Gaming Demographics (Split from the other thread)

[darkchrono]

I'd say a majority of the fans of Final Fantasy are 18+, as most people have grown with the series. They should cater to all of their demographic, not just the younger audience.

That said, if a a teenager wants a boy meets girl story, they can play an older title. One title with the "former lovers" story would not throw off the series.

If you went in with the frame of mind that you could make an rpg for older people because those people have grown with the series I think you would unfortunately find out that too many of those older people have quit playing games or rpg's to make the game very successful. The combat in Japanese rpg's is quite childish in itself.

RPG's will always be a genre for the very young. The majority of older gamers tend to be more into the open ended adventure games than Japanese rpg's.

[Wolf Kanno]

I'd say a majority of the fans of Final Fantasy are 18+, as most people have grown with the series. They should cater to all of their demographic, not just the younger audience.

That said, if a a teenager wants a boy meets girl story, they can play an older title. One title with the "former lovers" story would not throw off the series.

If you went in with the frame of mind that you could make an rpg for older people because those people have grown with the series I think you would unfortunately find out that too many of those older people have quit playing games or rpg's to make the game very successful. The combat in Japanese rpg's is quite childish in itself.

RPG's will always be a genre for the very young. The majority of older gamers tend to be more into the open ended adventure games than Japanese rpg's.

I would disagree, if the Census of our own forum has showed me anything, it's that a large part of the fansbase is the 18+ crowd, most of whom got into FF during the PS1 era. I also feel we underestimate what teens can handle. Assuming that only a "boy meets girl" approach would appelal to them is kind of selling the younger generation a little short.

Combat system was also not always childish, it's become far too simple and action oriented in the last decade, but when it started, it was all about strategy. RPGs used to be considered the thinking man's game compared to all the reacing titles, sports, and shot'em ups that dominated the gaming arena.

[darkchrono]

I'd say a majority of the fans of Final Fantasy are 18+, as most people have grown with the series. They should cater to all of their demographic, not just the younger audience.

That said, if a a teenager wants a boy meets girl story, they can play an older title. One title with the "former lovers" story would not throw off the series.

If you went in with the frame of mind that you could make an rpg for older people because those people have grown with the series I think you would unfortunately find out that too many of those older people have quit playing games or rpg's to make the game very successful. The combat in Japanese rpg's is quite childish in itself.

RPG's will always be a genre for the very young. The majority of older gamers tend to be more into the open ended adventure games than Japanese rpg's.

I would disagree, if the Census of our own forum has showed me anything, it's that a large part of the fansbase is the 18+ crowd, most of whom got into FF during the PS1 era. I also feel we underestimate what teens can handle. Assuming that only a "boy meets girl" approach would appelal to them is kind of selling the younger generation a little short.

Combat system was also not always childish, it's become far too simple and action oriented in the last decade, but when it started, it was all about strategy. RPGs used to be considered the thinking man's game compared to all the reacing titles, sports, and shot'em ups that dominated the gaming arena.

Wolf Kano you can not base something off of the very small percentage of people you see posting on some message board. Message board populations generally represent a very small niche of the overall number of people who actually buy the game. As with anything message board populations are not a very good way to judge things off of. For instance if you went by what message boards said you would think some of the most horrible television shows there have been that got cancelled for a reason were actually the best thing on t.v. because that is what the small niche of people on that message board thought.

[Wolf Kanno]

Wolf Kano you can not base something off of the very small percentage of people you see posting on some message board. Message board populations generally represent a very small niche of the overall number of people who actually buy the game. As with anything message board populations are not a very good way to judge things off of. For instance if you went by what message boards said you would think some of the most horrible television shows there have been that got cancelled for a reason were actually the best thing on t.v. because that is what the small niche of people on that message board thought.

While this is true, I didn't base my information completely on just the census and I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. If you look at any long lasting franchise like say Star Trek or Star Wars, you'll find that the demograph that supports it is all over the place and isn't just the youngest generation that the bulk of the franchise is targeted towards, namely kids with all the collectibles and toys and games. Seeing how FF is a 25 year old franchise this year, I would say it's very likely that the series is still being supported by older fans just as much as the younger audience that it's targeted to. Gaming in general is actually being dominated more by older people than younger people. The average age range of a gamer is around 30 (http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp). So I would argue that game developers that feel they still need to make writing appeal to a younger demographic like teen is kind of silly, especially with long lasting franchises barring games that are designed to be family friendly like Mario. Maybe what FF really needs in it's writing is the balls to tackle real mature themes, I mean we had games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Xenogears, that really brought up some more adult themes concerning religion and politics, and these games were released when the age range of the average gamers was in their teens. So I say it still stands that FF could write a more mature love story with an older group, and it would not be lost on the audience.

[darkchrono]

Wolf Kano you can not base something off of the very small percentage of people you see posting on some message board. Message board populations generally represent a very small niche of the overall number of people who actually buy the game. As with anything message board populations are not a very good way to judge things off of. For instance if you went by what message boards said you would think some of the most horrible television shows there have been that got cancelled for a reason were actually the best thing on t.v. because that is what the small niche of people on that message board thought.

While this is true, I didn't base my information completely on just the census and I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. If you look at any long lasting franchise like say Star Trek or Star Wars, you'll find that the demograph that supports it is all over the place and isn't just the youngest generation that the bulk of the franchise is targeted towards, namely kids with all the collectibles and toys and games. Seeing how FF is a 25 year old franchise this year, I would say it's very likely that the series is still being supported by older fans just as much as the younger audience that it's targeted to. Gaming in general is actually being dominated more by older people than younger people. The average age range of a gamer is around 30 (http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp). So I would argue that game developers that feel they still need to make writing appeal to a younger demographic like teen is kind of silly, especially with long lasting franchises barring games that are designed to be family friendly like Mario. Maybe what FF really needs in it's writing is the balls to tackle real mature themes, I mean we had games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Xenogears, that really brought up some more adult themes concerning religion and politics, and these games were released when the age range of the average gamers was in their teens. So I say it still stands that FF could write a more mature love story with an older group, and it would not be lost on the audience.

Wolf Kano you also are making a mistake by trying to compare video game appeal to movie appeal. Movies are something that everyone of all ages tend to enjoy. They may like different types of movies but nobody really gets tired of movies in general. Video games on the other hand are something that most folks tend to grow out of after a while.

The link you gave say 33% play on their smartphones and 20% play on their handheld devices. Most older folks who play video games tend to play real simple games that don't take much effort and a 'game' can be played very quickly. I don't think you will find a very high percentage of those adult gamers who play rpg's any longer. And sorry but you need more evidence to merit video game indrustries making games 'for them' then saying simply that they aren't playing rpg's because the storylines are childish.

[Pike]

We're talking demographics now? Okay!

70% of gamers play on their console and 65% on their PC (http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf), as opposed to smartphones.

"As of 2011, the average age for a video game player is 37, a number slowly increasing as people who were children playing the first arcade, console and home computer games continue playing now on current systems." (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographics), emphasis added)

People between age 18 and 34 spend more time playing games than watching TV (multiple sources including this (http://www.articlesbase.com/video-games-articles/video-game-demographics-2011338.html) and this (http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf) )

Video games are established as an art form and vehicles for expression and storytelling (Supreme Court of the United States (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/supreme.court.video.game.art_1_sale-of-violent-video-video-games-hansel-and-gretel?_s=PM:TECH), Smithsonian Museum of Art (http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/), US National Endowment of the Arts (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA) )

Saying that games can't or shouldn't tackle more "mature" subject matter is silly!

[Jinx]

Omg, guys, demographics are so romantic.


But seriously, for Pike, that's probably like freakin' Shakespeare while she stands on a balcony.

[darkchrono]

We're talking demographics now? Okay!

70% of gamers play on their console and 65% on their PC (http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf), as opposed to smartphones.

"As of 2011, the average age for a video game player is 37, a number slowly increasing as people who were children playing the first arcade, console and home computer games continue playing now on current systems." (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographics), emphasis added)

People between age 18 and 34 spend more time playing games than watching TV (multiple sources including this (http://www.articlesbase.com/video-games-articles/video-game-demographics-2011338.html) and this (http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf) )

Video games are established as an art form and vehicles for expression and storytelling (Supreme Court of the United States (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/supreme.court.video.game.art_1_sale-of-violent-video-video-games-hansel-and-gretel?_s=PM:TECH), Smithsonian Museum of Art (http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/), US National Endowment of the Arts (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA) )

Saying that games can't or shouldn't tackle more "mature" subject matter is silly!

You will find a little different results for every different survey or list you look at. The fact though is is that a lot more people either stop playing video games completely once they become adults or at least do not play nearly as often then there are people who continue playing after they become an adult. Also rpg's like final fantasy are also one of the least popular genre's for people over 20/25. RPG's still are not nearly as popular as other genre's for people under 20/25.

Like it or not if you are an adult who still has a desire to play new Japanese style rpg's you will generally just be a niche and your interests will generally not be catered to.

[Del Murder]

Where do you get your information from, darkchrono? Pike listed several sources for her statistics.

[darkchrono]

Where do you get your information from, darkchrono? Pike listed several sources for her statistics.

Del Murder online statistics and surveys truly are about as meaningless as personal opinions are. Everyobody knows that you can easily suade statistics to get the results you want to get.

The simple fact is is that most people do indeed tend to lose interest in video games as they grow older. They often either lose interest completely or do not play that seriously anymore. Yes there are an increasing amount of older people playing video games for the simple reason that people who grew up in the video game age are now adults. But still the majority of those kids from the early console eras still do not play nearly as seriously as they used to. They may own a video game system but that video game system often just sits there 90% of the time. And when they do play they tend to just play games that can be completed real quickly. Nothing that takes 50 hours to beat. Honestly the most effort I see adults putting into video games from my experience are either games like World of Warcraft or sports games (I have never seen or talked to a single person playing a japanese style rpg since I was in college).

Open ended worlds where the player can do what they want tend to be more appealing to older gamers (for those that do put in the effort to play those types of games) than a game where they have to follow a strict path.

And that is probably why games like World of Warcraft do so well these days. Because it attracts a very wide audience of gamers and not a very small window like Japanese style rpg's do.

[Wolf Kanno]

But that is basically your opinion on the matter. I play quite a bit and I am definetly in the older than 20 crowd. All my friends and GF are in the same boat. Families are now using video games as a bonding moment, look at the Wii, I would argue gaming isn't really something "you'll grow out of it" if it was really part of your life. So who is really to say which is correct when you've decided that online survey data is meaningless? At this point, there is no real reason to even discuss this since you've disqualified any type of third party data to allow us to reach closure, and you're own reasoning is only backed up by your own baseless assumptions.

I still stand that a more adult minded RPG with a love story between older characters beyond the simple confines of silly stereotypes like "Boy meets girls" can have equally as much mass appeal.

[darkchrono]

But that is basically your opinion on the matter. I play quite a bit and I am definetly in the older than 20 crowd. All my friends and GF are in the same boat. Families are now using video games as a bonding moment, look at the Wii, I would argue gaming isn't really something "you'll grow out of it" if it was really part of your life. So who is really to say which is correct when you've decided that online survey data is meaningless? At this point, there is no real reason to even discuss this since you've disqualified any type of third party data to allow us to reach closure, and you're own reasoning is only backed up by your own baseless assumptions.

I still stand that a more adult minded RPG with a love story between older characters beyond the simple confines of silly stereotypes like "Boy meets girls" can have equally as much mass appeal.

Well what we do know is that rpg's are not being made for older gamers and there more than likely is a reason for that. While we have shooters that are very obviously made for adults and sports simulations that are so complicated that only adults could really understand them there still is nothing around that indicates that rpg's are being made for adults. Sorry but if there truly was enough merit to start making rpg's for older gamers these older gamers would still be playing rpg's on a massive basis. But they do not seem to be and at this point if they attempted to make a japanese rpg for older gamers that rpg probably would not do very well. Which is why the concept is not being attempted.

[Quindiana Jones]

You appear to be obsessed with the idea that if children like it, adults won't. If you're not going to bother finding substantial evidence for your claims that once a person passes thirty, they suddenly lose all interest in beautifully written interactive stories with exceptional soundtracks, then it might be worth simply not repeating yourself over and over. And while it's true that surveys are never 100% accurate, when multiple independent surveys claim exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting, it's usually time to abandon ship.

[qwertysaur]

Pokémon is a Japanese RPG and is well liked by both children and adults.

[Del Murder]

Del Murder online statistics and surveys truly are about as meaningless as personal opinions are. Everyobody knows that you can easily suade statistics to get the results you want to get.
While that certainly can be true, it's at least some evidence where you have presented none. You can't say 'its a simple fact' without providing any evidence of it being fact. That makes it about as defensible as the opposite stance.

I can see how older people grow out of video games as they take on other roles in life, but at the same time I can see how a person who grew up playing games would do so even more once they are living on their own, have access to more money, and no longer have to answer to parents or school to dictate their spare time. Both scenarios are likely.

What an interesting tangent in a thread about romance!

[qwertysaur]

What an interesting tangent in a thread about romance!
It's not a full tangent. It's about the romance between gamers and games as they grow older. :bigsmile:

[Quindiana Jones]

What an interesting tangent in a thread about romance!
It's not a full tangent. It's about the romance between gamers and games as they grow older. :bigsmile:

Nicely done. *golf clap*

[Wolf Kanno]

I would say one has simply not really looked around to notice the more mature adult RPGs on the market. MegaTen comes to mind. Persona 3 and 4 can't even be bought by teenagers in most countries, and while their stories are set in Japanese High Schools, their themes and stories are for an older audience. Hell, even Final Fantasy crosses over into adult themes. Take the train-wreck that was XIII, it's core story revolves around characters trying to come to terms with their imminent deaths, not something a teenager really contemplates. Hell the game's most loved character also happens to be the oldest (well mentally) and a father. Games like Suikoden dealt with politics, Breath of Fire dealt with religion and probably one of the most poignant dystopias I've ever seen in a game. I would argue that adult themed JRPGs don't exist because no one has interest but rather that RPGs lost their niche (the story based game) and the last decade of trying to find a new identity for themselves hasn't been going very well. Yet they have been making adult themed rpgs from a subject matter point of view. I mean look at anything Tetsuya Takahashi has directed... The amusing thing here is that RPGs started to go down hill once these series got retired and the market started to get overrun with the tween heavy rpg series has the genre began to really go down hill. If RPGs are going out of style because adult gamers don't care for them, doesn't that really say that developers have failed to make the game for the right demographic as opposed to the genre being inherently meant for a different target group. I mean kids games still sell well in the gaming industry, so if JRPGs are losing ground, it's because they don't appeal to anyone.

The issue with FF is that Kitase himself believes that older fans should give up on the series and let the younger people enjoy it instead. He pretty much said he plans to keep writing only for the teens/young adults despite the fact that Squenix's biggest game successes are adult oriented titles from Eidos, or remakes/ports/sequels/spin-offs of older FF games. The two biggest games on the PSP from SE is Crisis Core and Dissidia, two titles that are blatantly targeted for a part of the fanbase that is old enough to know what the hell they are. I think if SE actually made a more mature FF, they would find that part of the problem with JRPGs in the modern age is that JRPG developers don't know their audience as well as they think.

[Pike]

The simple fact is is that most people do indeed tend to lose interest in video games as they grow older. They often either lose interest completely or do not play that seriously anymore.

I posted sources for mine, I want sources for yours, bro! :greenie:

Furthermore, we're forgetting that Final Fantasy originates in Japan, where they actually had to ban Dragon Quest games from releasing on a work day because too many people were skipping work to get it. Pretty sure it's mostly adults who work.

Anyways yeah this is super offtopic but it's also pretty interesting so I'm okay with it.

[darkchrono]

The simple fact is is that most people do indeed tend to lose interest in video games as they grow older. They often either lose interest completely or do not play that seriously anymore.

I posted sources for mine, I want sources for yours, bro! :greenie:

Furthermore, we're forgetting that Final Fantasy originates in Japan, where they actually had to ban Dragon Quest games from releasing on a work day because too many people were skipping work to get it. Pretty sure it's mostly adults who work.

Anyways yeah this is super offtopic but it's also pretty interesting so I'm okay with it.

Here are a couple links. One which lists the most popular genre's by type of gaming system. And also the number of gamers per age group. Although the survey does state there are adult gamers into their 20's it also indicates that after the teens the seriousness of their gaming habits significantly decreases.

The top selling video game genres » MyGaming News and Reviews (http://mygaming.co.za/news/features/12784-the-top-selling-video-game-genres.html)

Gaming Addiction | Survey (http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/01568/en/survey.html)

Again just like most lists you find on the net the results can be put into question (especially on the second link because it only consists of only 2,000 people being surveyed and gives no indication on how they came up with those 2,000 people).

The video game genre link might be a little more reliable because it has to do with actual sales instead of surveys. In that link rpg's are fairly low for consoles but high for pc's (probably due to mmorpg's).

[Madame Adequate]

So... the fact that only 5% of games sold on consoles are casual, and 20% on PCs, is your argument that a majority of people play casual games? :eyebrow:

[darkchrono]

So... the fact that only 5% of games sold on consoles are casual, and 20% on PCs, is your argument that a majority of people play casual games? :eyebrow:

Nope it is because the reason for gaming being that it is for just to kill time and overcome stress our by far and away the largest reasons for gaming. Also the reason for gaming being for the popularity of the game really starts decreasing once people become adults.

[Pike]

The video game genre link might be a little more reliable because it has to do with actual sales instead of surveys. In that link rpg's are fairly low for consoles but high for pc's (probably due to mmorpg's).

Well I dunno about you but I'm not talking about RPGs in specific, I'm talking about vidya gaems in general!


Nope it is because the reason for gaming being that it is for just to kill time and overcome stress our by far and away the largest reasons for gaming. Also the reason for gaming being for the popularity of the game really starts decreasing once people become adults.

Same with this, I don't really care why people are playing, I care that they are playing. People watch TV and movies to kill time and overcome stress, as well. Heck, they read books for that reason too.

The second link you provided is interesting, although if the graphs are accurate, then I feel we should note two things here: a.) we're still looking at video game playing rates of 50% well into peoples' 40s, which is a lot, and b.) Atari was founded 40 years ago. Coincidence? I think not. As gaming matures, the people who grew up with games will mature as well.

[Madame Adequate]

So... the fact that only 5% of games sold on consoles are casual, and 20% on PCs, is your argument that a majority of people play casual games? :eyebrow:

Nope it is because the reason for gaming being that it is for just to kill time and overcome stress our by far and away the largest reasons for gaming. Also the reason for gaming being for the popularity of the game really starts decreasing once people become adults.

...so?

[darkchrono]

The video game genre link might be a little more reliable because it has to do with actual sales instead of surveys. In that link rpg's are fairly low for consoles but high for pc's (probably due to mmorpg's).

Well I dunno about you but I'm not talking about RPGs in specific, I'm talking about vidya gaems in general!


Nope it is because the reason for gaming being that it is for just to kill time and overcome stress our by far and away the largest reasons for gaming. Also the reason for gaming being for the popularity of the game really starts decreasing once people become adults.

Same with this, I don't really care why people are playing, I care that they are playing. People watch TV and movies to kill time and overcome stress, as well. Heck, they read books for that reason too.

The second link you provided is interesting, although if the graphs are accurate, then I feel we should note two things here: a.) we're still looking at video game playing rates of 50% well into peoples' 40s, which is a lot, and b.) Atari was founded 40 years ago. Coincidence? I think not. As gaming matures, the people who grew up with games will mature as well.

Well you might not care about why they are playing as long as they are playing. But why they are playing will have an impact on how much effort they are willing to put into a game. Also I wouldn't necessarily call someone who only plays to kill time as being much of a gamer. That's like calling someone who only watches a t.v. show half-heartedly while doing three other things at the same time a die hard fan of that show.

[Pike]

Just so no one gets confused, I've split these posts from the other thread and put them in here so we can continue to discuss this without derailing a completely separate topic. Carry on!

[darkchrono]

So... the fact that only 5% of games sold on consoles are casual, and 20% on PCs, is your argument that a majority of people play casual games? :eyebrow:

Nope it is because the reason for gaming being that it is for just to kill time and overcome stress our by far and away the largest reasons for gaming. Also the reason for gaming being for the popularity of the game really starts decreasing once people become adults.

...so?

........so......right back at you.

[Madame Adequate]

I... don't think you're quite getting it.

Your point seems to be that people commit to a pastime because it's to "kill time and overcome stress". So... what? That's why anyone does any pastime. You've not made any point here.

[Pike]

Well you might not care about why they are playing as long as they are playing. But why they are playing will have an impact on how much effort they are willing to put into a game. Also I wouldn't necessarily call someone who only plays to kill time as being much of a gamer. That's like calling someone who only watches a t.v. show half-heartedly while doing three other things at the same time a die hard fan of that show.

Well, if you're using "gamer" to mean "video game enthusiast or connoisseur", then I'd argue that very few people fall under that category for something like films as well. Not everyone who watches a movie is a film buff. Most people aren't. Same for games, and any other art form.

As for your thing on multitasking while watching TV, I dunno, I watched all of Firefly and the first four seasons of House while playing WoW, doing art, and other things and I'd call myself a pretty dang die-hard fan of both of those shows.

Anyways it looks like we either aren't going to agree, or we're missing each other and talking about two different tangents of the same subject, so perhaps we should agree to disagree?

[darkchrono]

I... don't think you're quite getting it.

Your point seems to be that people commit to a pastime because it's to "kill time and overcome stress". So... what? That's why anyone does any pastime. You've not made any point here.

Now if you are trying now to change your definition on what gamers are then don't do that. I wouldn't call someone who watches movies ever once in awhile and doesn't have a huge amount of passion for movies as being a movie buff. Same for t.v. shows. You might not want to think so but I believe there is a difference between someone who simply plays video games and someone who could be defined as being an actual gamer.

[Trumpet Thief]

Just chiming in to say that this is a very interesting thread. I was honestly clueless about the various demographics about Final Fantasy games. Off of pure assumption, I probably would have said something like '14-16 year olds'. Very cool to know that there is a huge adult population invested in video games. :p

[darkchrono]

Well you might not care about why they are playing as long as they are playing. But why they are playing will have an impact on how much effort they are willing to put into a game. Also I wouldn't necessarily call someone who only plays to kill time as being much of a gamer. That's like calling someone who only watches a t.v. show half-heartedly while doing three other things at the same time a die hard fan of that show.

Well, if you're using "gamer" to mean "video game enthusiast or connoisseur", then I'd argue that very few people fall under that category for something like films as well. Not everyone who watches a movie is a film buff. Most people aren't. Same for games, and any other art form.

As for your thing on multitasking while watching TV, I dunno, I watched all of Firefly and the first four seasons of House while playing WoW, doing art, and other things and I'd call myself a pretty dang die-hard fan of both of those shows.

Anyways it looks like we either aren't going to agree, or we're missing each other and talking about two different tangents of the same subject, so perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Probably have the same response for you that I gave to Milf. The thing is is that you guys are people who in which video games are pretty important to. So you guys obviously are going to want to believe anything that makes it seem video games are every bit as mainstream as other types of media are.

[Pike]

The thing is is that you guys are people who in which video games are pretty important to. So you guys obviously are going to want to believe anything that makes it seem video games are every bit as mainstream as other types of media are.

But what if I don't want video games to be mainstream? If I was believing what I want to believe then they'd still be all underground and the realm of basement dwellers and nerds, which they sadly no longer are.

[Madame Adequate]

Oh jesus.

Look just click this link.

http://www.esrb.org/about/images/vidGames04.png

[darkchrono]

The thing is is that you guys are people who in which video games are pretty important to. So you guys obviously are going to want to believe anything that makes it seem video games are every bit as mainstream as other types of media are.

But what if I don't want video games to be mainstream? If I was believing what I want to believe then they'd still be all underground and the realm of basement dwellers and nerds, which they sadly no longer are.

And what if you do want them to be mainstream? You then are probably going to believe anything that does make them look more mainstream.

[Pike]

The thing is is that you guys are people who in which video games are pretty important to. So you guys obviously are going to want to believe anything that makes it seem video games are every bit as mainstream as other types of media are.

But what if I don't want video games to be mainstream? If I was believing what I want to believe then they'd still be all underground and the realm of basement dwellers and nerds, which they sadly no longer are.

And what if you do want them to be mainstream? You then are probably going to believe anything that does make them look more mainstream.

But I don't, that's what I just said.

[ShinGundam]

The issue with FF is that Kitase himself believes that older fans should give up on the series and let the younger people enjoy it instead. He pretty much said he plans to keep writing only for the teens/young adults despite the fact that Squenix's biggest game successes are adult oriented titles from Eidos, or remakes/ports/sequels/spin-offs of older FF games. The two biggest games on the PSP from SE is Crisis Core and Dissidia, two titles that are blatantly targeted for a part of the fanbase that is old enough to know what the hell they are. I think if SE actually made a more mature FF, they would find that part of the problem with JRPGs in the modern age is that JRPG developers don't know their audience as well as they think.
Are we even sure that FF fans care about mature themes to begin with?
Most of what FF(and JRPG even anime) fans ask for darker palette(Grey/Brown) and a more overall mature aesthetic, Fans want games to be more fashionable no more no less.

[darkchrono]

The thing is is that you guys are people who in which video games are pretty important to. So you guys obviously are going to want to believe anything that makes it seem video games are every bit as mainstream as other types of media are.

But what if I don't want video games to be mainstream? If I was believing what I want to believe then they'd still be all underground and the realm of basement dwellers and nerds, which they sadly no longer are.

And what if you do want them to be mainstream? You then are probably going to believe anything that does make them look more mainstream.

But I don't, that's what I just said.

Well regardless of rather or not you do (and who knows if you are truly telling the truth or not) for those that do want them to be mainstream they are very likely to believe anything that makes them look mainstream.

[Madame Adequate]

Why exactly are you calling Pike's motivations into question here? Is there anything to be gained from accusing her of lying about this?

e; on that note why are you so determined to prove that gaming is not mainstream? It's the biggest entertainment industry in the world; new blockbusters like Halo and CODs not only sell millions, they get news coverage on the BBC. We've linked you repeatedly to statistics demonstrating their popularity and widespread appeal, and you are the one who is letting their biases color what they believe, because you are the one discounting some pretty uncontroversial statistical facts in favor of the assumption that gaming is for kids.

[darkchrono]

Why exactly are you calling Pike's motivations into question here? Is there anything to be gained from accusing her of lying about this?

e; on that note why are you so determined to prove that gaming is not mainstream? It's the biggest entertainment industry in the world; new blockbusters like Halo and CODs not only sell millions, they get news coverage on the BBC. We've linked you repeatedly to statistics demonstrating their popularity and widespread appeal, and you are the one who is letting their biases color what they believe, because you are the one discounting some pretty uncontroversial statistical facts in favor of the assumption that gaming is for kids.

Interesting that you attempted to change the direction of the conversation after the last post to you. I've said all along that online statistics and surveys are for the most part hogwash (even the ones I linked to). I went ahead and posted some links because you guys kept on inisisting on it. Now don't go and start trying to change the direction of the conversation when you can't think of anything to come back with.

[Madame Adequate]

Yes, it is indeed interesting that in a discussion I would want to stick to proven facts backed up with multiple sources instead of conjecture and attacks :roll2

[darkchrono]

Yes, it is indeed interesting that in a discussion I would want to stick to proven facts backed up with multiple sources instead of conjecture and attacks :roll2

You havn't proven anything because all you are doing is trying to post statistics. How do they know that the average age of gamers is 35. Do they go around and ask every single person and average out their age? How do they know that 47% of females play video games. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average it out? How do they know what the largest age range of video game players there are. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average out there age?

No. What they do is take a small sample pool (which they always disclose how they came up with that pool) and average it out.

The statistics you posted are hogwash. The statistics I posted are hogwash. Basically all it is is your personal opinion and my personal opinion.

[Slothy]

You havn't proven anything because all you are doing is trying to post statistics. How do they know that the average age of gamers is 35. Do they go around and ask every single person and average out their age? How do they know that 47% of females play video games. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average it out? How do they know what the largest age range of video game players there are. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average out there age?

No. What they do is take a small sample pool (which they always disclose how they came up with that pool) and average it out.

Do you actually want to get a lesson in statistics? Because I don't think you'd believe anyone even if they did explain it to you in detail.

Look, there are a large number of statistical techniques which have stood up to scientific rigor, been shown to work through experimentation, and can absolutely be used to project results from a small random sample onto the entire population. This isn't even something you can debate because we are talking about something which is heavily used in more fields than you can shake a stick at. Hell, science as we know it would be vastly different if we couldn't rely on statistical sampling when used properly. Hell, a very strong argument could be made that without statistics we wouldn't have science at all. Trying to argue that all statistics, surveys and studies are complete bulltit is complete bulltit. You not only couldn't be more wrong, you can't even defend your position because I guarantee you can't produce any proof that the entire field of statistics is completely useless.


The statistics you posted are hogwash. The statistics I posted are hogwash. Basically all it is is your personal opinion and my personal opinion.

You saying the statistics posted were hogwash doesn't make it true. Sure, if there were problems with the way the sample was chosen, or mistakes in the calculations they made, then they'd be worthless. but here's the thing: getting a sufficiently diverse and random sample of answers to questions like how old are you and how much time do you spend playing games every week is so unbelievably simple and easy that the odds of their being a problem with the sample are negligible, and the likelihood they screwed up finding simple averages is so remote as to be non-existent.

But you know what the biggest thing that works against you here is? Multiple surveys from multiple sources with different sample sizes, different selection methods, and different people running them, all put the average age of gamers in their early to mid thirties. When you have numerous observational studies like these show a definite and consistent trend in the results, you can bet those studies are pretty reliable. If they were all over the map predicting average ages being anywhere from 7 years old to 77, then there'd be a question as to how reliable they are.

So what we have here isn't a case of personal opinion versus personal opinion. We have opinions based on seemingly reliable evidence which has been presented to support the arguments, up against you and your personal opinion based on absolutely nothing but your own biases and feelings. You might as well be guessing about video game demographics based on how gassy you're feeling today, or what you had for lunch.

You want to find fault with the evidence others provided, you do it by digging deeper into where the numbers came from, what their methodology was, and you see if there are any holes in it. Simply stating it's hogwash does not make it so, and is an absolutely utterly worthless argument to make. If you believe that then you should shut off your computer and go live in a cave, because it would mean science, technology, and modern civilization don't exist.

[Madame Adequate]

Oh okay glad to know that no statistics, ever, are worth anything at all, and one of the fundamental ways of deciding not things like "age of an average gamer" but actual important shit like "effective measures to prevent criminal recidivism" is, as you so succinctly put it, "hogwash".

[darkchrono]

You havn't proven anything because all you are doing is trying to post statistics. How do they know that the average age of gamers is 35. Do they go around and ask every single person and average out their age? How do they know that 47% of females play video games. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average it out? How do they know what the largest age range of video game players there are. Do they go around and ask every living person out there and average out there age?

No. What they do is take a small sample pool (which they always disclose how they came up with that pool) and average it out.

Do you actually want to get a lesson in statistics? Because I don't think you'd believe anyone even if they did explain it to you in detail.

Look, there are a large number of statistical techniques which have stood up to scientific rigor, been shown to work through experimentation, and can absolutely be used to project results from a small random sample onto the entire population. This isn't even something you can debate because we are talking about something which is heavily used in more fields than you can shake a stick at. Hell, science as we know it would be vastly different if we couldn't rely on statistical sampling when used properly. Hell, a very strong argument could be made that without statistics we wouldn't have science at all. Trying to argue that all statistics, surveys and studies are complete bulltit is complete bulltit. You not only couldn't be more wrong, you can't even defend your position because I guarantee you can't produce any proof that the entire field of statistics is completely useless.


The statistics you posted are hogwash. The statistics I posted are hogwash. Basically all it is is your personal opinion and my personal opinion.

You saying the statistics posted were hogwash doesn't make it true. Sure, if there were problems with the way the sample was chosen, or mistakes in the calculations they made, then they'd be worthless. but here's the thing: getting a sufficiently diverse and random sample of answers to questions like how old are you and how much time do you spend playing games every week is so unbelievably simple and easy that the odds of their being a problem with the sample are negligible, and the likelihood they screwed up finding simple averages is so remote as to be non-existent.

But you know what the biggest thing that works against you here is? Multiple surveys from multiple sources with different sample sizes, different selection methods, and different people running them, all put the average age of gamers in their early to mid thirties. When you have numerous observational studies like these show a definite and consistent trend in the results, you can bet those studies are pretty reliable. If they were all over the map predicting average ages being anywhere from 7 years old to 77, then there'd be a question as to how reliable they are.

So what we have here isn't a case of personal opinion versus personal opinion. We have opinions based on seemingly reliable evidence which has been presented to support the arguments, up against you and your personal opinion based on absolutely nothing but your own biases and feelings. You might as well be guessing about video game demographics based on how gassy you're feeling today, or what you had for lunch.

You want to find fault with the evidence others provided, you do it by digging deeper into where the numbers came from, what their methodology was, and you see if there are any holes in it. Simply stating it's hogwash does not make it so, and is an absolutely utterly worthless argument to make. If you believe that then you should shut off your computer and go live in a cave, because it would mean science, technology, and modern civilization don't exist.

I believe that this article that Pike posted in the beginning of this thread states that the average age is 18. That's quite a bit of difference from the mid 30's.

Video Game Demographics (http://www.articlesbase.com/video-games-articles/video-game-demographics-2011338.html)

Maybe you guys need to go back and look at the things you have posted and see how well they all go together again.

Also. Prove that these surveys were taken from reliable pools. I don't think a single one of the articles you posted said how they got their pools. Because again everyone knows that online surveys can easily be suayed to get the results you want to get.

[Slothy]

Because again everyone knows that online surveys can easily be suayed to get the results you want to get.

I've only got a few minutes so if someone else doesn't decide to address your questions regarding the validity of the data sets I will be happy to do the research later and post it here for you since you seem too lazy to do the job of digging into it yourself for the purpose of proving it unreliable.

But in the short time I have to make this post I want to ask you a question. Why would the ESA, as in Entertainment Software Association, is a group who's members include a large number of companies in the industry, hire an independent consulting firm to perform surveys for the sole purpose of making the data show the average age of gamers to be in their thirties even when it's not the case? Where is the value in providing false demographic information to their members who rely on that information for making decisions which cost millions of dollars?

You claim they're making the data say whatever they want to say, but you aren't even explaining why they want it to say that. Where's the benefit to them? And moreover, if they are faking the data for their own benefit, then why does the NPD agree with them (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/average-age-of-gamers-is-32-says-study). And before you start going through all kinds of mental gymnastics explaining how the NPD is in it with the ESA to mislead everyone for some nefarious purpose, why does the CDC back them both up? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32463904/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/study-average-gamer-fat-bummed/) Really, where is the incentive for a government organization interested in human health to falsify their demographic data in their own studies so it matches the others? There's no profit motive for it. The government doesn't have a pony in this race. Hell, if anything, politicians would rather the average age of gamers be under 18 so they could better try to justify censoring and banning them.

So government has incentive to do the exact opposite of agree with ESA and NPD data, but they don't. Yet they're all just making the data say what they want?

Sorry, but not fucking likely.

[darkchrono]

Because again everyone knows that online surveys can easily be suayed to get the results you want to get.

I've only got a few minutes so if someone else doesn't decide to address your questions regarding the validity of the data sets I will be happy to do the research later and post it here for you since you seem too lazy to do the job of digging into it yourself for the purpose of proving it unreliable.

But in the short time I have to make this post I want to ask you a question. Why would the ESA, as in Entertainment Software Association, is a group who's members include a large number of companies in the industry, hire an independent consulting firm to perform surveys for the sole purpose of making the data show the average age of gamers to be in their thirties even when it's not the case? Where is the value in providing false demographic information to their members who rely on that information for making decisions which cost millions of dollars?

You claim they're making the data say whatever they want to say, but you aren't even explaining why they want it to say that. Where's the benefit to them? And moreover, if they are faking the data for their own benefit, then why does the NPD agree with them (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/average-age-of-gamers-is-32-says-study). And before you start going through all kinds of mental gymnastics explaining how the NPD is in it with the ESA to mislead everyone for some nefarious purpose, why does the CDC back them both up? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32463904/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/study-average-gamer-fat-bummed/) Really, where is the incentive for a government organization interested in human health to falsify their demographic data in their own studies so it matches the others? There's no profit motive for it. The government doesn't have a pony in this race. Hell, if anything, politicians would rather the average age of gamers be under 18 so they could better try to justify censoring and banning them.

So government has incentive to do the exact opposite of agree with ESA and NPD data, but they don't. Yet they're all just making the data say what they want?

Sorry, but not smurfing likely.

Please respond to why one of these surveys you have been posting had an average age of 18 when you have continued to say they have been consistent with saying they all are mid 30's. And why in the world are you posting that second link when that second link makes a complete joke of gamers.

[Madame Adequate]

Wait which survey is this? All the ones I can see say it's 30 and up.

[darkchrono]

Wait which survey is this? All the ones I can see say it's 30 and up.

Look at post #6 under the first link that says 'this'.

If that one says an average age of 18 how many other surveys are going to say 18. And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

[Madame Adequate]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

[darkchrono]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

Considering that there are a lot of 7,8,9 and 10 year olds who play games (and more than likely even younger) I'd say that there is a good chance that there statements came out exactly as they wanted.

Vivi doesn't know what he is talking about anymore than you do. He just likes to make long posts. He obviously was not even looking at the articles he posted and was just looking at the titles if he went ahead and posted that link he did.

[Slothy]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

This essentially. Even if there was some fundamental issue with that study, I still posted links with regard to two others performed by groups independent of the ESA who came to roughly the same average age. But I guess the CDC wouldn't know anything about getting a random sample or calculating simple averages. :roll2


And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

How much an article about a study hurt your feelings isn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor the questions I asked you. I'd appreciate if you'd go back to my last post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them by bringing up things which aren't relevant. I'll reiterate the question again: what possible benefit do these three, completely independent and separate, organizations gain by lying about the average age of gamers? What motives could possibly lead a large government organization, with no stake in the gaming industry, to lie about their data for the purpose of publishing a study with an average age of gamers which closely matches the average age published by the ESA and NPD.

If you're going to maintain that all of these organizations are basically lying and making the data say what they want, then you need to explain why they could possibly want the data to say what it does. But I strongly suspect that the answer isn't that they're making the data say what they want. It's that you're trying desperately to ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to. The fact that you would rather dodge direct questions and make unsupported allegations that the entire field of statistics is nothing but lies and misdirection only further supports this conclusion.


Considering that there are a lot of 7,8,9 and 10 year olds who play games (and more than likely even younger) I'd say that there is a good chance that there statements came out exactly as they wanted.

I don't think you understand how statistics work. If only 35% of gamers were under 18 and 65% are over 18, either that under 18 portion would have to skew significantly towards ages under 10 years old or the over 18 portion would have to be skewed somewhere under 20 years old or some other equally ridiculous number, or both, to come out to an average of 18 years old.

The idea that any one of those is true is patently absurd.


Vivi doesn't know what he is talking about anymore than you do. He just likes to make long posts. He obviously was not even looking at the articles he posted and was just looking at the titles if he went ahead and posted that link he did.

Now this one really gets my goat, and I'm probably going to stop being quite so polite here: if you're going to question my knowledge on the subject, or how much of the articles I actually read then you back it the fuck up with examples and you explain to me, in detail, what it is you think I don't have a clue about.

Because if we're going to get into a discussion of who doesn't have a fucking clue, it's laughable that the guy who thinks the entire field of statistics is bullshit and all studies are worthless is claiming I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Your ignorance is staggering, your unwillingness to defend your positions is a waste of everyone's time, and your insulting me rather than engaging in thoughtful debate is down right offensive.

If you're not prepared to back up your position then I'll end my part in this conversation because you'll have proven that debating with you is a complete waste of everyone's time, and certainly not worth having to listen to you blatantly and baselessly insult me.

Either engage in a civil, reasoned debate or don't.

[darkchrono]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

This essentially. Even if there was some fundamental issue with that study, I still posted links with regard to two others performed by groups independent of the ESA who came to roughly the same average age. But I guess the CDC wouldn't know anything about getting a random sample or calculating simple averages. :roll2


And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

How much an article about a study hurt your feelings isn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor the questions I asked you. I'd appreciate if you'd go back to my last post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them by bringing up things which aren't relevant. I'll reiterate the question again: what possible benefit do these three, completely independent and separate, organizations gain by lying about the average age of gamers? What motives could possibly lead a large government organization, with no stake in the gaming industry, to lie about their data for the purpose of publishing a study with an average age of gamers which closely matches the average age published by the ESA and NPD.

If you're going to maintain that all of these organizations are basically lying and making the data say what they want, then you need to explain why they could possibly want the data to say what it does. But I strongly suspect that the answer isn't that they're making the data say what they want. It's that you're trying desperately to ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to. The fact that you would rather dodge direct questions and make unsupported allegations that the entire field of statistics is nothing but lies and misdirection only further supports this conclusion.

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say. You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions. All you know how to do is make long posts.

Prove to me that they actually did a good job of finding their pools. But I don't think you can do that because you don't know how they found their pools.

If you can however prove that they did a good job of finding their pools then I will answer your questions that you asked after I had already asked you that question first.

[Slothy]

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say.

Here's the fun thing about the burden of proof: I don't have to prove that their methodology wasn't flawed. If you're going to make the positive claim that they screwed up their studies in some way then you have to find where they detailed their methodology and prove it, or link us to studies which detail their methodology, where that methodology is sound, and where the results contradict those of the information posted. If you can't do any of that, then your claim that the studies aren't reliable isn't valid because you have no evidence to contradict their claims.


You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions.

Those questions were directly relevant to your argument that these groups are falsifying data to make it say what they want it to. If you can't explain what possible motive they have for falsifying data, then your argument is worthless. Nobody just goes around lying, or presenting false study results for the sake of lying. Either they benefit from getting a certain answer or they don't bother. So explain why three separate groups chose to perpetuate the same lie which none of them would actually benefit from, or move on because you can't even come up with a simple motive to justify your ludicrous stance.


All you know how to do is make long posts.

Kindly refer to the edited portion of my previous post to find out just how little I care for your pathetic attempts to insult me rather than either back up your position or argue against mine.

[darkchrono]

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say.

Here's the fun thing about the burden of proof: I don't have to prove that their methodology wasn't flawed. If you're going to make the positive claim that they screwed up their studies in some way then you have to find where they detailed their methodology and prove it, or link us to studies which detail their methodology, where that methodology is sound, and where the results contradict those of the information posted. If you can't do any of that, then your claim that the studies aren't reliable isn't valid because you have no evidence to contradict their claims.


You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions.

Those questions were directly relevant to your argument that these groups are falsifying data to make it say what they want it to. If you can't explain what possible motive they have for falsifying data, then your argument is worthless. Nobody just goes around lying, or presenting false study results for the sake of lying. Either they benefit from getting a certain answer or they don't bother. So explain why three separate groups chose to perpetuate the same lie which none of them would actually benefit from, or move on because you can't even come up with a simple motive to justify your ludicrous stance.


All you know how to do is make long posts.

Kindly refer to the edited portion of my previous post to find out just how little I care for your pathetic attempts to insult me rather than either back up your position or argue against mine.

Answer the gosh darn question vivi. Your attempts to try to turn things around without having to answer that question aren't going to work. Quit making your long posts that say absolutely nothing at all and actually answer the question.

[Quindiana Jones]

Hey look! Phoenix Rising's back!

I don't understand why you lot are wasting your time trying to explain simple concepts to him when he's shown that he has no understanding of any part of this thread. Started out interesting enough, but you know a debate is doomed when a person buries their head in the sand out of denial when faced with conclusive evidence showing that he is wrong in every regard.

darkwhatever, the first step if you want to continue this discussion is to spend ten minutes learning what the burden of proof is. Then adhere to that rule. Failure to manage even that shows a concerning lack of intelligence, and effectively signals the end of this thread.

If only pg were here...

[Pike]

If only pg were here...

There isn't enough Ron Paul and/or racism in this thread for PG to care :p

[Slothy]

Quit making your long posts

I'm sorry for my long posts. They sometimes happen when someone is making a point and backing it up with a reasoned argument. I can see why that might bother you.


I don't understand why you lot are wasting your time trying to explain simple concepts to him when he's shown that he has no understanding of any part of this thread.

Don't worry. I'm officially washing my hands of the whole thing.