Patterson waxes expansive about 'Woman's Murder Club' game
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jan 31st 2008 at 8:00PM }
Gamers around the world have been waiting with bated breath for more information on James Patterson's Woman's Murder Club game since it was announced back in December. OK, they haven't really, but maybe they would if they didn't exclusively pay attention only to games that featured guns, breasts or, er, Nintendo characters.Patterson, one of the world's best-selling authors, is targeting a decidedly different demographic with his first game. "Look, it strikes me that the video game area is an incredibly lucrative niche market," he told the Hollywood Reporter, "one populated by a small number of boys -- and grownup boys -- who like to shoot things and spend a lot of money. But that excludes most of the universe."
Patterson compared his efforts to reach new gamers to those of Nintendo's Wii, calling the game a "chance to widen the boundaries of what people can do on the small screen ... We're going to give people who don't want to shoot things ... who prefer to use their brains ... a chance to solve a really good mystery." With Gabriel Knight's Jane Jensen at the development helm, we're cautiously optimistic that he can actually pull it off.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Deck @ Jan 31st 2008 8:21PM
"one populated by a small number of boys -- and grownup boys -- who like to shoot things and spend a lot of money. But that excludes most of the universe."
Another example of people outside the world of games thinking that games are primarily for kids with a few "kid adults".
Video games have become more than just a "niche" market and really, have evolved from what they used to be. They're popular and really now another alternative to your entertainment time.
*sigh* The average age of the gamer is now.. 28 I think or something around there... so I would say that his view of gamers is quite wrong.
kojo87 @ Jan 31st 2008 8:37PM
yeah they guy kinda sounds like a cocky d-bag if you ask me. apparently he's just in it for the money and doesnt give a rat's ass if its a good game or not so long as he gets those royalty checks.
"Hey people like those TV Games a lot. I should make one. people buy my book so that means they will buy my game." You're targeting two totally different markets here buddy. i've never read your book. your readers probably dont have an Xbox.
NoHitHair @ Feb 1st 2008 3:18PM
James Patterson is about as worthwhile as taking shots of bleach. Recalling every author I've ever been exposed to, it's difficult for me to find a more pathetic hack dipshit than Patterson. His are some of the only books in which Nazi-esque literature bonfires would be given infinite validity. At one point while forcing myself through his regurgitated mess of Roses Are Red, my eyes spontaneously rolled back refusing to again grant me sight until I looked somewhere else, anywhere else.
Patterson's obvious inability to imbue any kernal of creativity (or thought, for that matter) into anything he conjures up is almost enough for me to consider banning literacy as a precaution against any unfortunate soul stumbling upon humanity's lowest common denominator.
Sprngpilot @ Jan 31st 2008 8:33PM
Could he be any more condescending? I get so tired of seeing jerks like this (and Cooper Anderson) spouting off the same old tired cliche about people who play video games.
I take solace in the certainty that his pathetic excuse for a game will tank, though.
kojo87 @ Jan 31st 2008 8:38PM
you mean Anderson Cooper? you should at least know the name of they guy you're bashing.
StrangeBum @ Jan 31st 2008 9:00PM
@ Kojo
What's the difference? Really. Both are manly names. Which suits her/him/it perfectly.
Sprngpilot @ Feb 1st 2008 2:25AM
@kojo87
"you mean Anderson Cooper? you should at least know the name of they guy you're bashing."
I meant Cooper Lawrence. It was a simply typing error, no need for you to be an annoying ass about it.
Hashbrown_Hunter @ Jan 31st 2008 9:01PM
All I can say is "ugh".
V1L3 @ Jan 31st 2008 9:51PM
To be fair, I personally think there are far too many shooters on the market. Pretty much every second game these days requires gunplay, and half of those that don't are either racing games, fighting games or virtual pet simulators.
I really do think there's room for new genres that really screw with our perception with what a game is. But to me, this "broadening the market" sounds more like removing all the skill, reflexes and chance of failure from a game.. which, also to be fair, is what prevents people like Roger Ebert from giving them a chance.
But enough fairness. This game will probably make any of the Nancy Drew titles GOTY by comparison.
Spiffyness @ Jan 31st 2008 10:47PM
But the guy acts like he's making some amazing, new game where you "ZOMG USE YOUR BRAINS!" He's making an adventure game. And from the looks of it, a watered-down one at best (they said they're trying to find a middle ground between "casual" and "classic adventure"). This guy IS just in it for the money and he doesn't even realize that this "new, mature" genre he's creating has been around for 20 years.
V1L3 @ Jan 31st 2008 10:33PM
I do have to add this:
"We're going to give people who don't want to shoot things ... who prefer to use their brains ... a chance to solve a really good mystery."
You're 14 years too late, James. It was called Myst.
V1L3 @ Jan 31st 2008 10:38PM
And another thing.
If he's so adamant that not every video game has to involve guns, would someone mind asking him why every mystery novel has to involve MURDER?
Lucrative niche markets indeed.
Charron @ Jan 31st 2008 10:42PM
And Sam & Max.
And Day of the Tentacle.
And Grim Fandango.
And Fahrenheit.
And Missing.
And I can go on.
Batzarro @ Jan 31st 2008 11:06PM
Well, the games industry HAS in it a small niche market...adventure games. Is that what he meant? If not, well, he has kinda the wrong perception.
Might even be a nice game, thought.
Region2 @ Jan 31st 2008 11:26PM
Pretentious, but the game has potential. If they don't mess it up, a good mystery would be interesting. Then again, I'm still hoping they make some bad ass Sherlock Holmes game. Then again I want to see a 2D fighter based on the "hit" cartoon series Hammerman cartoon series. Like you wouldn't want to see some awesome super coming from McHammer and his magic shoes.
Region2 @ Jan 31st 2008 11:27PM
I don't think I used "cartoon series" enough times in that one sentence. =P
GST @ Feb 1st 2008 12:35AM
So, his theory is "condescension sells games?"
I'm not too sure about the economic validity of that idea there, Jimmy.
Spakkenkhrist @ Feb 1st 2008 7:56AM
we're all too busy shooting things to read his comments though.
shivr @ Feb 1st 2008 2:30AM
well if you look at the starting and upkeep costs of gaming (console or PC), the key demographics, and the top selling games... he does kind of have a point.
But if he's purely concerned with "tapping into a lucrative market", I doubt his game will have the passion behind it to make it good
how_much_I_carrot @ Feb 1st 2008 5:53AM
Jane Jensen is awesome and I will buy whatever she makes. That guy does sound annoying, though.
cynic79 @ Feb 1st 2008 7:27AM
Aside from the fact that James Patterson is woefully ignorant about video games, this may be a very lucrative property on the Wii. Those housewives and grandmothers who bought the system for Wii Sports and nothing else may finally have another game to purchase.
This may actually be enough to get my mother-in-law-to-be to buy a Wii.
GRANTED @ Feb 1st 2008 9:47AM
"who prefer to use their brains"
funny... because your cookie-cutter hack stories are most likely decidedly brain-free.
KayRazyKen Kutaragi @ Feb 1st 2008 3:05PM
.
Sheepy @ Feb 1st 2008 7:56PM
I doubt it.
The market for pure adventure games is incredibly tiny. Sure, its interesting, but you eventually just feel bored.
With a book, you're moving about, you can multitask. Even on a laptop, in an adventure game, its you, the game, and that's it. And everything's dialogue so you can't turn on music and occupy the other 90 percent of your skull.
Fahrenheit and even Dreamfall were good adventure games, but they featured engaging puzzles, minigames, and "physical" gameplay; and even combat. A pure mystery with maybe conversation options is going to be incrordibly boring unless the humor's there and the writing's good. Or unless you really like reading text- but for people like me, I need occupy the rest of my brain.
It always strikes me as odd that people think "adventure" games like that are more "cranial" or "cerebral" than shooters. They involve your brain just as much; just in a different area. The ones that make you think the most are the multi-genre buggers that use everything. That patapon is going to give me a major migraine.