Gamer Dad, Gaming Monogamist

N712711743_851007_3478
Thursday, April 22, 2010

Editor's note: Matthew Hunter Mason comes to terms with his status as a gamer dad. Although, as a non-dad gamer, I'm still with Matthew in that I really like to finish a good game before I cue up the next. -Demian 


Slap me with black armor and call me Ani -- I've gone to the Dark Side of gaming: I'm becoming something of a casual player.

Tenuously made metaphors aside, I'm using the term casual in the sense that I play games in spurts these days rather than the ass-numbing, hours-on-end marathons of my youth. Actually, to dissolve any misnomers that the term has for both myself and you, the reader, I'm officially changing my title to gaming buff. I may not get the play time that keeps me up to speed with the "blink and you'll forget about it" culture we have these days, but I more than hold my own when it comes to staying abreast on the latest news and trendy topics. I like to think that keeps me on some kind of even keel.

This isn't anything new on my end. I've already regaled you with how gaming affects your budget as well as how having a family changes the amount of it you do, but now I've found a new way in which to make myself feel markedly older -- I like to call it gaming monogamy.

 

It's not really a new concept; in fact, I think we all started out by only giving one game that come-hither stare. Because, well -- we only got games on holidays and birthdays and the such. And while my roaring 20s and the disposable income that came with washed away the notion of playing what you had, no matter what...I kind of miss having some sort of focus.

As I write this, I have a wife who's watching a medical mystery show on television, an almost two-year-old running a toy vacuum behind me, and a nine-year-old yelling for me to come look at what he made out of Legos in his room. As if I didn't have enough distractions in my life, I'm going to find time to juggle two or three games at a time? For what, the sake of saying I played something to prove my worth? As Bitmob intern Mike Minotti once famously said, "Yeah fucking right."

Remember when we used to "master" video games? Kids these days have it easy, what with their save files and level selects. Back then we had to play a game from start to finish with nary a potty break just so we could see those obtuse end credits. And we had to do it before mom called us up for supper. We didn't like it. We loved it

Actually, I won't fuss about the technological progress gaming has undergone; rather I lament the investment I used to make in games. That sense of gratification is lost when the furthest I get in a game anymore is somewhere between the half and three-quarters completion range. Even if all I got was a scrolling wall of poorly translated text and an image, it's better than nothing at all.

I lost that loving feeling for a while, and amassed a hoard of games for no other apparent reason than to tell people I don't know on the Internet that I had them, and to perpetuate an unwanted diet of ramen and pancakes. The only thing I got for the trouble was a ridiculous pile of shame -- made even more disheartening by the fact that I traded in more unfinished games than I completed for a time.

These days I'm held accountable for my financial transgressions. I can't, with good conscience, pick up something new until I've wrung just about every ounce of fun from the games I already own. Sure, that sounds very utilitarian, but I had no choice. Nobody should have to ingest the amount of sodium in a Cup O' Noodles unless it's their only recourse. Even though I can't display a burgeoning collection with Vanna White hands, a lovely side effect to singular purchases is a total lack of buyer's remorse.

At this point I've probably scared a few people with the thought of a one-game-at-a-time lifestyle, but know that I've bent the monogamy rules a bit so that it's not as monopolistic as it sounds. I figure it's my prerogative to change them; I'm a parent and that what we do. Let me explain: 

I only play one big game at a time. You know the kind I'm talking about, so I won't even try to bend your ear with what genres and play styles constitutes a big game. Think of it like food for a minute. You could eat both the steak and the lobster, but that would be really gluttonous in hindsight. It makes more sense to have a few side dishes complimenting the meal. Along with my big game, I also play something on my handheld. It doesn't really impede my otherwise-sawed-off-shotgun-like focus, as I'm usually playing it in bed or during long trips. I also play -- keeping with the meal analogy -- a palette cleanser or chaser in the form of a downloadable game, or something a little less structured that I can enjoy in chunks.

In other words, saving the princess in Mario doesn't impede my search for the Origami Killer. Sure, the dinner concept is a thinly veiled excuse to sneak in a couple of other plays; but variety is the spice of life, right?

What's important is I still get the satisfaction of completing games rather than staring at a cringe-worthy pile of shame. This piece is probably a written justification of my change in attitude if nothing else; most of you probably think video-game monogamy is a horrible idea. And that's OK -- you probably don't have to multitask in the same way that I do. 

But I also have the feeling that I'm not alone in the sentiment that we need to appreciate video games from beginning to end, rather than half-way for the sake of having a conversation piece for a podcast or chatting with friends. And the way I do it is by, uh, playing a game from beginning to end. One at a time.

Or this post is just me Frankenstein-walking off the table and yelling as the last vestiges of my former self become hidden in a black cape.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (13)
Default_picture
April 18, 2010

I was a self-proclaimed game slut for years.  During that time, I was hugely dissatisfied with my choice of hobby.  I was never able to fully give my undivided attention to any single game that I was supposed to be, you know, enjoying.  Instead, it was just another "to do" box on my "entertainment checklist" which is something that's truly insane to have.

For about a year now, I've been enjoying being game monogamous with aplomb.  I don't have to "sweat it out" when a new game comes out that I want to play but can't because I'm still playing another one.  Now, I just take comfort in the understanding that once I do have time to play another game, the hype will be gone and the price will be low.

Me_and_luke
April 18, 2010

I've been a bit of a slut myself over the past six months, and I've come to find that my patience towards a mediocre, annoying, or boring game has greatly decreased.  Perhaps it's because I have a myriad of other options at my disposal if I choose to throw a particular game to the side, but I don't seem to enjoy a game quite as much when I'm playing a slew of other games around it.

N712711743_851007_3478
April 18, 2010

@Chris: That last sentence of yours is the kicker: the hype will dissipate and the price will be low.  I find that I can actually afford more games when I don't stand in line to be the first to play the new hotness.  Actually, it was your Squadron of Shame that helped me get past the mind set of having to consume games.  So thanks for that!

@Bryan: I've kind of separated games into three categories: those I have to own and know I'll play more than once, those that look cool and worth trying in which I rent, and "meh, no thanks".  It's been working out pretty well so far!

Mikeminotti-biopic
April 19, 2010

Yeah fucking right.

:)

Default_picture
April 19, 2010

I generally take the same approach when I play games, even though I have plenty of time right now. Having a couple shorter or casual games to play on the side is nice, because then it's easier to get that good feeling of completing something.

N712711743_851007_3478
April 19, 2010

@Mike: Hopefully my pandering linkage alleviates the nickel charge for your trademarked quote. :)

@Brian: I don't have a lot on my plate either, but like you said: finishing games gives you those warm fuzzies inside.

Bmob
April 19, 2010

My pile of shame and my (lack of) finances have forced me into a similar approach. I have a 'now playing' pile of eight games. I'm aiming to get 5000 achievement points before I consider adding to it. I'm not much of an achievement guy, but it's much easier to quantify and set a limit, that way. The limit is low enough that I can enjoy games I wont get much achievements for (Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and Magna Carta 2, from the current pile), but high enough that I will realistically be completing games before I move on.

I've even put the 'other' games in my closet (which is never opened). Out of sight, out of mind is the theory.

Profilepic
April 22, 2010

I don't see anything wrong with being monogamous. We're so far past the point that everyone can be an expert on everything that you might as well focus on what appeals to you the most, especially on a tight schedule. I still get "AAA guilt" sometimes when I skip a major release, but in the grand scheme of things, I know what's most likely to appeal to me, and try to budget my time accordingly.

Shoe_headshot_-_square
April 22, 2010

I feel the same as I get older (or have I always been this way?). When too many games come out, I tend to get overwhelmed, and I just want to stick with one until I've finished it.

Default_picture
April 23, 2010

I try to be a game monogamist but I have problems with it sometimes. I actually like the feeling of accomplishment that comes with the monogamist territory (and my best childhood gaming memories are of sticking with a game for months just to complete it entirely) which is actually a reason I try and hold back on purchases. My major issue with gaming monogamy is one that is somewhat hard to counter: the catch-up. I only just got a Wii. That's four years of games that I've missed. Four years is a long time and a lot of games have stopped being printed. So when I see a game that I haven't been able to find, I'll compulsively pick it up in case I never see it again. The main issue is that yes, I might only play a single game for weeks but that game I'd been waiting to play for three years is now the only one left in the store (or any other store in the state) but it'll be my third rare-game purchase that day. It's unfortunate, really. 

Reading the article, it was funny to note how I agreed with you on every point you delivered. With casual games becoming a gaming staple, I can't help but feel that gaming monogamy is going to become more and more difficult. Sure, you could only play one game but with digital platforms releasing reasonably cheap and extremely accessible content, that "just one purchase" will quickly turn in to "yeah but this one is only $1.99, so I can still buy three other games!". 

Andrewlynes
April 23, 2010

I really like this article. I definitely also focus on one game at a time, usually a hardcore RPG, sometimes a strategy game. I work my balls off at a difficult university to get top grades for post-grad. I generally don't even play during the semester (especially for Smash Bros. with my roommates when we need a break), and then go nuts when I'm not studying. This Christmas break, I beat Dragon Age. And now that just finished my last exam this year, here I come Mass Effect 2.

Sany0276__small_
April 24, 2010

Matt, it's uncanny how true this article is to me. The number of games that could probably legally file neglect charges against me numbers in the twenties. Now that me and my wife are expecting I can't even bring myself to purchase several games I have been anticipating greatly (GOW3, Heavy Rain, the upcoming Alan Wake) with hundreds of dollars worth of gaming negligence collecting dust.

My safest bet is to purchase games I see myself spending a lot of time with. Fallout 3, for instance, was a game I logged over 90 hours in, and I haven't even finished yet. But I don't think there is any need for me to have MW2, Battlefield:BC2, Halo, and Killzone because aside from the campaign I haven't spent very much time at all in the multiplayer portion. With time already tight and not getting any better I would rather play with friends and double up on gaming and hanging out a bit.

I would have felt better with a 6 dollar rental than a 60 dollar purchase for most of those games, and my wallet would have too. 

Default_picture
April 26, 2010

Good to hear I'm not alone!

That's pretty much how my time towards games has evolved.  I still try to keep up with all the latest news and developments in the industry, but when it comes to actual game time I find the only way I can get thru what I have and come out the other side with that sense of accomplishment and pride in beating it is by focusing on just one game at a time.

I've tried playing a bunch of games concurrently, but since my gaming sessions got to be so few and far between I found I was losing interest and focus on the games I was playing. So I just adopted the same approach I learned in my web design classes: K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Now I can get the most enjoyment I can out of a game and pick up what's next on my list for pretty cheap. Win-win!

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.