Here's another interesting article I came across today, this one from Ars Technica. You can read the article here
For those who don't want to read it (although I encourage you to), the crux of the article's argument is that game developers and designers who are huge gamers have difficulty thinking outside of the box. Having played games for so long, what currently exists in the industry is all these designers know, and as a result they just keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again and stifle progress overall in the industry. Oddly, about halfway through the article they shift to a discussion of some issues with developer quality of life and the ridiculous hours devs have to put in, and I do believe that IS a valid argument. What I'm writing about now isn't in regards to that claim. The argument they start with and the argument that is the main theme of the article, that more time gaming = less time having "life experiences" = less creativity, is what I'm going to be discussing, and it's an opinion I strongly disagree with.
Most of the big names today got their start long ago, back when the industry was relatively young and they could do what they wanted. (CliffyB actually first got famous off of Jazz Jackrabbit, a game I'm sure many of you are familiar with.) I'm betting there's a number of CliffyBs, Miyamotos, Kojimas, and Garriots out there in the industry today. They'll just never be given the chance to prove themselves.
What's your opinion? Do you think that this article is right and that game designers who are gamers keep rehashing the same games and stories over and over again? Or do you think that being a gamer gives designers a better insight into what's already been done and what gamers want, and that it's the game companies that are holding them back?
[Via Ars Technica