Bridge Games

E3 had plenty of core games and casual games - but where are the titles to span that gap?

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz's widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial, is a weekly dissection of an issue weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

E3 serves two important roles in the game calendar. Firstly, of course, it's a product showcase - the one week in which all of the world's specialist games media is in one location, and the ideal timescale for product announcements for the year's Christmas sales period. E3 has, as a result, traditionally been the springboard for major launches, both hardware and software, with even formerly reticent Japanese firms gradually coming around to the idea of focusing their announcements on the show.

The second role, more of an emergent one, is E3's position as a windsock for the industry's trends and directions. Put so many product announcements together in one place, and you provide a wealth of data for pundits to work from. Couch them in large, glitzy press conferences, broadcast all around the world on the internet, and you create a clear, visible and very public indicator of where the industry is going.

So on that front, what do we learn from this week's show?

One could argue that we see that the casual market, as pioneered by Nintendo in recent years, is now firmly entrenched at the heart of the industry - but this is nothing new. The focus granted to PlayStation's Move and Xbox 360's Kinect in their respective conferences is mere confirmation of a direction which was already well-understood.

For all the technical innovation and clever hardware on display, both products are simply chasing Nintendo's coat-tails at the moment - not the position Microsoft and Sony had hoped to be in at this point in the generation, but equally, nothing new to those who have been watching this saga unfold.

What was more interesting, in my view, was watching all three platform holders struggle with one of the most important concepts introduced by this casual revolution. Casual gaming cannot be seen simply as an end, but also as a means - a means to introduce a whole new audience to the wider world of interactive entertainment.

Casual games should encourage people to pick up the controller (or not, in the case of Kinect), and then, having demystified the world of gaming, beckon them onwards to explore further. If millions of people are playing SingStar, Wii Fit, or Dance Central, and none of them are moving further upstream to explore other games, then the industry has fallen flat on its face in one of its greatest challenges.

Only Nintendo gave this concept a name - "bridge games" - but then went on to demonstrate that the company isn't quite au fait with the idea just yet, by showing off Wii Party, a title placed firmly and resolutely in the casual ghetto.

I shouldn't be too snide; Nintendo is by far the most successful of the platform holders at creating true bridge games. The real irony was that it was mislabelling Wii Party as a bridge title only moments after a demonstration of one of the finest bridge titles imaginable, the new Legend of Zelda game, which adapts widely understood and liked Wii Sports Resort control schemes into a fun, accessible game world. Like Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart before it, it has huge potential to push legions of casual gamers upstream and encourage them to engage more deeply with games.

The company having by far the most trouble with this concept was undoubtedly Microsoft. Kinect's technical prowess couldn't disguise the fracture down the middle of the Xbox conference - on one side stood burly, blood-splattered, face-stomping Gears of War 3, and on the other side, a small girl playing with a virtual tiger cub, and there wasn't a whole lot in the middle. (Admittedly, I found the creepily anthropomorphic tiger cub to be far more terrifying than anything on offer in Gears, but I don't think that was the reaction either developer was angling for.)

Microsoft deserves some breathing room here. Sony and Nintendo have been playing both sides of the field for many years, and are only now learning how to bridge the gap between them most effectively - Sony titles such as Sorcery and the Move edition of Heavy Rain could be very effective as bridge games, although right now we're still waiting to see the casual titles which will bring that end of the market in in the first place.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has spent the past few years focusing - with enormous success - on dominating the hardcore end of the gaming spectrum, with only throwaway gestures towards the casual market. Turning this tanker around is going to be tough - and quite rightly, the company doesn't want to alienate the hardcore fans it's spent billions of dollars appealing to in the first place.

It's right and proper that franchises like Gears of War should be front and centre for Microsoft, just as it's absolutely right for Nintendo to focus on some of its beloved core franchises after a few years in which the balance was (arguably) tipped in the other direction, if not in terms of actual releases then certainly in terms of marketing and publicity.

However, it needs software that spans the gap between the two camps of offerings which are emerging on Xbox 360 - games that encourage players of Dance Central or Your Shape to move upstream and explore. It's unlikely, perhaps, that they'll ever end up kerb-stomping crinkle-faced nasties in Cliff Bleszinski's latest, but we're a long way past the point of the Xbox being all about shooting and driving, even if the public perception hasn't quite moved with the software line-up.

The long-term challenge for the games market must, ultimately, be to emulate the success which other mediums have had in creating markets where consumers routinely and happily move between genres, and where franchises which would be pigeonholed as "hardcore" in the games world nestle comfortably in people's DVD collections alongside those which would be dismissed as "casual".

Games haven't yet reached that point, and while the motion controllers which have dominated E3 conferences may turn out to be a step in the right direction, they are not a panacea. It's a mantra made dull by the frequency with which it's repeated, but one which remains utterly true - it's all about the software (well, partially about the marketing - but mostly about the software).

The task of bridging the gap, of opening up the casual ghetto and encouraging all these new players to experience a wider range of games, falls heavily on the shoulders of game designers, regardless of what new toys are added to their arsenals by platform holders.

For more views on the industry and to keep up to date with news relevant to the games business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can read this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Comments (27) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • spudsbuckley #1 2 years ago

    Unfortunately the problem with games is that they can't be all things to all people. Bridge games don't exist because they're an impossibiltiy.
  • JetSetWilly #2 2 years ago

    Zelda is not a bridge title. Someone primarily interested in Wii Sports Resort is not going to be drawn to a fantasy action game where you run around as a weird elf-like character in a funny green outfit. The game does not become instantly accessible merely by "simplifying" the controls. Games like Wii Sports and Mario Kart are accessible because they combine simple activities where everyone already knows what to do (bowl a ball, steer a car) with an easy control scheme and instant reward. Give a casual player that likes these types of games Zelda and they will get nowhere unless they have the motivation to learn about its game environment and stick with it. I don't believe that motivation will come simply because the swordplay is 1:1, or the archery is like Wii Sports Resort.

    Why does there even have to be a "bridge". Can't people just like what they like? Why do they have to progress to the "proper" stuff?
    Edited by JetSetWilly at 19/06/10 @ 09:36
  • The-Bodybuilder #3 2 years ago

    >"If millions of people are playing SingStar, Wii Fit, or Dance Central, and none of them are moving further upstream to explore other games,"

    Is there evidence of this actually happening?
    Because based on personal experience, I've never seen it happen.

    Edit: Ah, I see both posters above me have explained it better.
    Edited by The-Bodybuilder at 19/06/10 @ 09:51
  • nuanimal #4 2 years ago

    Sorry I think I missed the definition of a "bridge game" in that article?

    Looking at experiences with the ladies in my life there are many factors. Their interests, accessability and game design. I let my girlfirend's house mate play Bejewelled and Log Puzzle on my iPhone last night - she then asked if I had anything else strange and got her to play Alive4ever - although she disnt last well she did enjoy the Zombie shooter and kept ging back for more. She's also experienced the motion sensing hilarity of Super Rub-A-Dub on PS3. But she won't go near WipeOut HD as although she say it looks like fun - she can't get her head round the controls.

    My girlfriend on the other hand grew up with a PS1 playing Tekken 2, and is by no means a 'core gamer but enjoys playing co-op games with me. Stuff like MadWorld & No More Heroes on Wii she actually likes - when she complains about really bad awful stories in games I direct her to a few RPG like Mass effect - but she's instantly put off by the complexity. Partially the complexity of the RPG elements - but also the complexity in getting your thumbs to do what you want on screen.

    There are soume great examples of games that aren't bridge games, or core games, or casual games - that work for a lot of people. Looking at the Mario platform games for instance? What about Geometry Wars? Not complex enough? Well what about Pokemon? These games have a really broad appeal.

    It needs to be a case of having a well made game that is accessable by many people - and also appeal to certain types of people.

    EDIT: Crikey, got beaten to the point by the guys above!



    Edited by nuanimal at 19/06/10 @ 09:54
  • riceNpea #5 2 years ago

    Bridge games? what a load of babble. what a pointless attempt at pigeon-holing , i'm surprised EG think it's a viable concept. i sincerely hope no-one develops a game with that as it's intention. Zelda a bridge game?! this article has insulted my intelligence to the point where i feel stupified by it.

  • RodHull #6 2 years ago

    Aside from games with Mario in the title and Sonics 1-3, I'm struggling to think of any bridge games, especially in recent memory. Games developers seem more than happy to pigeon hole their titles as an FPS, RPG or whatnot so it's hardly surprising that folks follow suit. And games that try to appeal across the board tend to fail anyway. Look at MS trying to get Rare to make Kameo and Nuts n Bolts appeal to all an sundry; great games but hardly commercial successes.
  • VeggieWokker #7 2 years ago

    @JetSetWilly: It's a way of reassuring the scared "core" gamers. If casuals are converted into cores, core gaming will not disappear. That's what bridge games are, a binky for the sniveling, complaining core gamers.

    I for one don't care how many casual games come out on my console, as long as the Zelda's, MH's and Metroid's stay nice and difficult.
  • Paulie_P #8 2 years ago

    Would Guitar Hero/Rockband not be a type of bridge game - they're loved by casual and core gamers (except me).
  • Johnson #9 2 years ago

    The only bridge games I can think of were Kingdom Four Hearts, Pokemon Five Diamonds and Doctor Who Top Three No Trumps.
  • KDR_11k #10 2 years ago

    Yeah, pointing at Wii Party as the bridge title is silly, the real bridge title in that lineup is probably Donkey Kong Country Returns, possibly also Kirby. The bridge games Nintendo pointed at were Mario Kart and NSMB Wii, from this presentation DKCR and KEY are much closer to that ideal than Wii Party.
  • Omroth #11 2 years ago

    As a huge Contract Bridge fan, I really wish the genre was important enough to warrant an entire EG article :(

    http://www.bridgebaron.com is the best, in case anyone's interested.
  • Ptarmigandalf #12 2 years ago

    Who says we need or want any such things as "bridge games"? Let casuals be casuals and let core be core - there's no need or demand for any such cross-pollination (or pollution, if you are less charitable).
  • JetSetWilly #13 2 years ago

    The point I'm addressing is the assertion that there needs to be a type of title that takes one type of gamer and turns them into another type of gamer. A whole spectrum of content can and does exist for people to enjoy; its entertainment, not a factory that takes in casual gamers and spits out hardcore ones.
    Edited by JetSetWilly at 19/06/10 @ 15:12
  • HoriZon #14 2 years ago

  • Lin #15 2 years ago

    the best "bridge" game i saw at e3 was probably The Old Republic. why? because there are still huge numbers of star wars fans out there who still won't touch games. they're selling the thing based on story, atmosphere and star wars appeal: the same way you'd sell a movie. the system reqs will be low and from what we've seen of the gameplay, players will likely be protected from traditional problems like griefing, grouping, socialising and difficulty. and of course, everyone has a pc.
  • Grayvern #16 2 years ago

    I would argue that for many people a much more detailed tutorial and an even easier mode is needed. One of my Sociology Lecturers plays Mario Cart and had a gamecube in the past and tried Metroid Prime but could not get her head around the controls.

    People like this aren't let down by their not being a mythical genre of bridge games, but by the fact that some games could stand to have an ultra easy and ultra handholding mode.

    But many people regardless of subject matter will always be closed minded and or unwilling to learn. The TV and DVD analogy doesn't work for this reason, many people will never like a Sci Fi or fantasy film, or Schindler's List. Some people will only ever like the mainest of mainstream films and TV.


  • JetSetWilly #17 2 years ago

    That's an interesting post. I just disagree that it's primarily a matter of complexity of the content and/or the controls. Where is the evidence that there is demand for, as you call it, Zelda-lite amongst the more casual end of the market? Look at the two Zelda games on DS. These are precisely the Zelda-lite type experience that you're referring to on the platform most heartily embraced, and in all likelihood dominated, by the casual end of the market. Everything about those two games is built around simplification and accessible controls; they are not shovel-ware, they are well crafted and well supported by Nintendo's marketing machine. How did Spirit Tracks fare last November with the UK's 10 million-odd DS owners? Barely a scratch on the charts then sank without a trace.

    I think this is because you can simplify Zelda controls all you want, but that's not necessarily the thing, or the only thing, that is the barrier to interest.
  • Lee_Morris #18 2 years ago

    Just got to say I really don't think Sony paid too much attention the casuals in their press conference. Same for Nintendo. Maybe I was blinded by the amount of games and time MS spend on them in their press conference though.
  • busboy33 #19 2 years ago

    @Lee_Morris:

    " I really don't think Sony paid too much attention the casuals in their press conference"

    looking back on it in hindsight, I'm starting to think that they're actually paying ALOT of attention to both "casuals" and "bridge" games, but they are completely f##king it up.

    The more I look at the Move lineup, the more I'm seeing the titles as almost all being attempted "bridge" games as described in the article. The question for each company is going to be "HOW do you encourage a casual to go more in-depth?" MS is trying to answer that by removing the controller (to overcome button-phobia). Nintendo are sticking to "as simple as possible (sure there are harder games, but the majority of the Wii lineup is "so simple your grandmother with Alhzimer's can play";). Sony is trying to connect the two genres by apparently re-skinning casual games. Their "boxing" game looks "edgy" and "raw" . . . but strip away the textures and its pretty damn close to boxing on the Wii. A light gun game is hardly "hardcore" (fun? yes. Hardcore? no.). Table Tennis? Archery? Now they're in HD!

    The trouble with this is it assumes the barrier to casuals entering "core" games is that they don't know how cool they look. The problem with this is it completely ignores the difference in play mechanics. Raving Rabbids ain't Modern Mawfare. If I'm uncomfortable with the mechanics of the game . . . looking prettier doesn't fix that. Think about nuanimal's comment. The one person was attracted to the pretty Wipeout, but was intimidated by the thought of controlling it. The other was attracted to the complexity of ME2, but was intimidated by the game mechanics. Microsoft is going after the first, and Nintendo is going after the second. Who is Sony going after? Who said "I'd love to play game X but it just doesn't look good enough"?
  • petrolgirls #20 2 years ago

    There's an assumption here that so-called casual and core games enjoy some sort of meaningful distinction that 'bridge' games straddle. Quite what this distinction is isn't defined. This renders the rest of the article meaningless.
  • I\'mListening #21 2 years ago

    @KROGASM

    Bang on the money. +1
  • FairgroundTown #22 2 years ago

    Zelda won't be a 'bridge' game because it will be too bloody difficult. (Though of course, everyone on here will slag it off as too easy, but our perspectives are skewed by years of gaming!) As several people have already said, there needs to be something in-between!

    The closest thing I've seen recently to a Zelda 'lite' has been the Lego games - my son is currently (right now!) playing Lego Batman, and the puzzles are easy enough that he can solve them without getting me to go to gamefaqs. Plus the 'adaptive difficulty' means that you never get stuck on a boss, in the way you can on a Zelda game - even I have brickwalled on several Zelda games on bosses I couldn't kill, and I have NEVER finished one, despite having been a gamer for 30 years. (Christ - that makes me sound (and feel) old!)
  • Geordiemp #23 2 years ago

    Bridge games - that what a difficulty lsetting should be - easy on every game should be BRIDGE.

    It just programmers get it wrong.

    On easy, trake out the swearing and blood, make it easy with less buttons, and you have a bridge game, any game could do it with enough thought and planning...
  • ilmaestro #24 2 years ago

    The fact that Ninty think a party game comes under this banner, and you lot seem to think Zelda does, just shows how non-existent the concept really is.

    "Hey guys, I really like this Zelda! Next up, Supreme Commander!" No.
  • Doctor_What #25 2 years ago

    My girlfriend loves Sing Star and Rock Band - I tried getting her to play Flower and her continual response was 'yes, but what's the point?'. This is the setting stone that divides the social side of casual games from the core singleplayer experience. What is the point of a singleplayer game? Not a lot really, they're just fun, but if you don't see the fun then nothing is going to convince you.
  • thesombrerokid #26 2 years ago

    bridge games don't exist because the concept of up streaming gamers is ludicrous, people who play games casually play them because, by design, they fit the 30 minutes twice a week slot in there life's they're prepared to give to games, they're a lucrative market but much the same way you ain't gonna get many people who goto the gym to do The Marathon Des Sables, you ain't gonna get them to dedicate more time or energy to gaming than they already are, and tbh i don't see why anyone would want to they as a demographic are, more plentiful, a lot easier to satisfy and have a lot fatter wallets than core gamers.
    Edited by thesombrerokid at 21/06/10 @ 15:11
  • mingster #27 2 years ago

    bridge games? Sounds the same as gateway drugs. Mario party? Probably the same as canabis.
    You know smoking canabis leads to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.
    Eaxactly the same as playing mariokart and wiisprts leads to playing Gears of War and Forza.