I’ve Had Enough Bad Kids’ Games

By Mike Mason

‘I’ve Had Enough…’ is a fortnightly column in which Cubed3’s Mike Mason dissects some of the more frustrating practices of the games industry. This time, he’s had enough bad kids’ games…

Just because you can pull the wool over somebody’s eyes, doesn’t mean that you should.

That’s been my attitude with respect to games marketed at children for a long while.  Time and time again you see poor – or, at best, mediocre – games being released that are targeted solely at the younger end of the market.  Often, I would wager it’s the case that these games are pushed out rapidly, with little regard for the final outcome and purely for the money.  Fair enough – there’s a reason that we’re in the games industry, and it’s easy to forget sometimes that companies are there to turn a profit; if they make you happy along the way, that’s a nice bonus.  I just wish that more kids’ games could have care lavished upon them and not be viewed as simple money spinners.

Arguably, making a good game for children should require just as much effort as one aimed at older crowds, but it’s obvious that this mindset is not instilled in everybody.  After all, why should the extra time be dedicated when you could just take advantage of common traits of the youngsters instead? They find comfort through repetition – I’m sure as a child you had favourite films or TV programmes that you watched again and again, oblivious to the mental torture and boredom you were putting your parents through.  They can have questionable quality standards; back on the Mega Drive I used to recall fond memories of a game called Last Battle, which I revisited in my teenage years only to discover that it was terrible.  They’re easy to entertain, so long as elements of the game are ‘cool’.  Why not just shove a brightly-coloured cat with lasers for eyes into a repetitive platformer where you punch mice and avoid deadly water ad infinitum? It’s easier than trying, and it doesn’t matter too much. Right?

A key thing to remember is how much games, as well as other forms of entertainment, have the potential to influence youth.  The sensationalist press enjoys keeping the negative sides of this prominent in coverage of gaming, but the more pleasant findings are glossed over.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin found evidence that playing certain types of games makes children kinder to others.  Almost 2,000 Japanese children between the ages of 10 to 16 were surveyed about the games that they played and how helpful they were to others.  A few months later, after being exposed to prosocial videogames, there was an upward spiral in helpful behaviour in participants.  Games also accommodate the learning of vital skills: hand-to-eye co-ordination is the most vaunted, but the varying tasks presented in games also aid with the development of a multi-tasking mind, while ABC News reported that fluid intelligence (problem-solving skills) is increased by playing games.  If games have potential to fulfil such an important role in a child’s growth, why is more thought not put into what is presented to children?

Not all games are going to set out to be wholly beneficial to development, and they shouldn’t necessarily aim to.  There are some definite no-nos to keep in mind: no foul language, no realistic or excessive violence, no scaring the living daylights out of kids.  I can’t think of a child’s game that strays too far from these parameters, but I can think of many that fall short of the standards that any game should reach.  They should not patronise, frustrate or misguide, but these factors are rife.  George of the Jungle on the DS is a fine example of a poorly executed children’s game: a repetitive platformer which is far too eager to punish players with cheap deaths and frequently shunts you back to the beginning of levels.  Its cartoon world allows licence for things like anthropomorphic enemies, but it deliberately tells players mistruths for the sake of nonsensical challenge – water kills instantly, while spikes only damage partially; honey-smeared platforms are slippery instead of sticky.  Obstacles such as these are commonplace and accepted, but it wouldn’t have been so difficult to implement ones where the outcomes had some root in reality – reversing the roles of liquid/thorns and ice respectively, for example.

[Continues...]

Pages: 1 2