Bury the Shovelware: Clubhouse Games
For this edition of Bury the Shovelware, we're going to do something a little different. We're going to take a brief stroll through shovelware history and then see how its historical definition relates to one of the DS's most successful titles.
In the seemingly unending supply of phrases representing software distinctions, the term shovelware originally had a very specific meaning. It was used to refer to a large amount of games being ported to a single physical media source, usually with the advent of a new format which could hold many times the amount of its predecessors. Let's imagine a game that fits onto a single floppy disk. Since a single CD can hold several hundred times the amount of data that a single floppy disk can, some companies would attempt to make money by consolidating many of these games onto a CD. One might wonder how these collections came to be universally associated with crap games.
Let's talk a little math. Some of the traditional shovelware collections boast that they contain up to 1,000 games. Let's be conservative and say that a given collection contains 100 games. And since most of these collections are very cheap, let's give it another conservatively assumed price of 10 dollars. That's exactly one dime per game.
Now let's take an older and thus comparatively smaller game, in terms of data size. Super Mario Bros is a good start. That game was approximately 40.4 KB in size. That means that on a standard CD, which are usually 700 MB or 716,800 KB in size, we could fit approximately 17,742 copies of the NES classic. If it appeared on that 10 dollar collection we mentioned earlier, that would place the worth of Mario's first adventure at a little over a half of a penny. But as we all know from Nintendo's seemingly unending re-releases, the game is worth much more.
In other words, your 1,000 game collection will likely not contain any Super Mario Bros.-quality games. It gets to a point where a game's contribution to a larger number is more valuable than the game itself. And thus was the connection between crappy games and shovelware. In the words of a bunch of dead folks, "Quod erat demonstrandum."
But wait ... is this a collection of games which are easy to acquire? They have no copyright. Are they packed together in a large collection? There's 42 of them. Is the game cheap? It's only 20 bucks. Is this darling of the DS library nothing more than Nintendo-sponsored shovelware?
On paper, it's somewhat hard to deny that Clubhouse Games is just shovelware in Nintendo clothing. And we should never grant a pass to an inferior product based simply on a name printed on its cover. But if one were to actually play Clubhouse Games, they'd find that the game is actually a quality effort. It makes great use of the touch screen, the inclusion of online play is an enormous benefit, and the presentation is perfectly adequate so as to not be distracting. The only real critique I came come up with is the music, which is usually extinguished by my turning the DS's volume all the way down in order to listen to my own musical preferences.
So at the end of the day, it comes down to quality. We can never turn a blind eye towards Nintendo when they hand us shovelware, as no one is immune to error. Similarly, we must also grant other lesser-known publishers and developers an unbiased perspective when examining their product. As ridiculous as it may sound, I'm always willing to give any game we've ever discussed the benefit of the doubt when playing (yes, even Homie Rollerz). Like any other form of prejudice, we must be careful not to prematurely label a game based on how it appears. This is not to say that we should pre-order copies of Imagine: Babies 2, rather that quality can come from anywhere and in any form. Clubhouse Games, despite fitting the definition of shovelware on paper, is far from a poor game.
In gaming, the term shovelware refers to any game in which time and effort were eschewed in favor of turning a quick profit. Bury the Shovelware takes a closer look at these titles, typically those that inhabit the lower end of metascores. It attempts to: 1) find out where and how the developer went wrong 2) identify common traits present in most shovelware 3) measure how long the game can be suffered.
A Brief History of Shovelware
We've learned quite a bit on our journey to discover what exactly constitutes shovelware. From publisher responsibility to the affects of critical perception, we've covered much ground. One reoccurring issue that we see is the misconception about the word "shovelware" being synonymous with "bad game."In the seemingly unending supply of phrases representing software distinctions, the term shovelware originally had a very specific meaning. It was used to refer to a large amount of games being ported to a single physical media source, usually with the advent of a new format which could hold many times the amount of its predecessors. Let's imagine a game that fits onto a single floppy disk. Since a single CD can hold several hundred times the amount of data that a single floppy disk can, some companies would attempt to make money by consolidating many of these games onto a CD. One might wonder how these collections came to be universally associated with crap games.
Shovelware vs. Crap
Let's talk a little math. Some of the traditional shovelware collections boast that they contain up to 1,000 games. Let's be conservative and say that a given collection contains 100 games. And since most of these collections are very cheap, let's give it another conservatively assumed price of 10 dollars. That's exactly one dime per game. Now let's take an older and thus comparatively smaller game, in terms of data size. Super Mario Bros is a good start. That game was approximately 40.4 KB in size. That means that on a standard CD, which are usually 700 MB or 716,800 KB in size, we could fit approximately 17,742 copies of the NES classic. If it appeared on that 10 dollar collection we mentioned earlier, that would place the worth of Mario's first adventure at a little over a half of a penny. But as we all know from Nintendo's seemingly unending re-releases, the game is worth much more.
In other words, your 1,000 game collection will likely not contain any Super Mario Bros.-quality games. It gets to a point where a game's contribution to a larger number is more valuable than the game itself. And thus was the connection between crappy games and shovelware. In the words of a bunch of dead folks, "Quod erat demonstrandum."
Clubhouse Games
One of the DS's most popular and successful titles, Clubhouse Games is almost a required-own for most DS owners. It's not really successful amongst the hardcore crowd because of what it is, but rather lingers as a question of "why wouldn't you buy this game?" It's a simple collection, but it contains nearly every card game imaginable, as well as several other all-time standards. It's got chess, backgammon, pool, bowling, and even connect five (not to be confused with Connect Four).But wait ... is this a collection of games which are easy to acquire? They have no copyright. Are they packed together in a large collection? There's 42 of them. Is the game cheap? It's only 20 bucks. Is this darling of the DS library nothing more than Nintendo-sponsored shovelware?
Our Deduction
On paper, it's somewhat hard to deny that Clubhouse Games is just shovelware in Nintendo clothing. And we should never grant a pass to an inferior product based simply on a name printed on its cover. But if one were to actually play Clubhouse Games, they'd find that the game is actually a quality effort. It makes great use of the touch screen, the inclusion of online play is an enormous benefit, and the presentation is perfectly adequate so as to not be distracting. The only real critique I came come up with is the music, which is usually extinguished by my turning the DS's volume all the way down in order to listen to my own musical preferences. So at the end of the day, it comes down to quality. We can never turn a blind eye towards Nintendo when they hand us shovelware, as no one is immune to error. Similarly, we must also grant other lesser-known publishers and developers an unbiased perspective when examining their product. As ridiculous as it may sound, I'm always willing to give any game we've ever discussed the benefit of the doubt when playing (yes, even Homie Rollerz). Like any other form of prejudice, we must be careful not to prematurely label a game based on how it appears. This is not to say that we should pre-order copies of Imagine: Babies 2, rather that quality can come from anywhere and in any form. Clubhouse Games, despite fitting the definition of shovelware on paper, is far from a poor game.






Get a WordPress.com Blog




Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
CypherVR @ Dec 10th 2008 5:11PM
Hey, don't knock this - at least it's a bit better than the rest of the DS shovelware
Shoyz @ Dec 10th 2008 5:18PM
In the words of AVGN:
That's like saying the dump I took last night was better than the dump I took last week.
ggamdizzle @ Dec 10th 2008 5:42PM
ahh good. i'm glad they share the same sentiment i've felt from the first time i picked up this game.
Zealot @ Dec 10th 2008 5:42PM
Instant 50-response thread. So...in before "hey u said my favorite gaem sucks"
I'm one of the people who has resisted buying Clubhouse Games as of now. Until the reprint alongside Hotel Dusk I had no idea that Nintendo even had any involvement in it, and so every time I saw it I did indeed perceive it as one of those awful 1000-in-1 game packs. I got one from my uncle when I was a kid, and the "1000 games" turned out to be 1000 different patterns for blocks to fall in a single tetris knockoff, so it was more like a 1-in-1000-in-1...or something like that. Even though Clubhouse Games is obviously a more sophisticated and varied form of this, I've never been able to bring myself to buy it.
I can see how Clubhouse Games could be fun for someone who plays their DS in short bursts, but, since I tend to be more of an action/adventure/RPG buff, whenever I sit down with my DS it's at least for an hour. It's actually difficult for me to begin to play something only to almost immediately quit.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:14PM
I hear you, Zealot. It's not for everyone. I should have mentioned that part of its appeal is that it's very hospitable for friends and family who aren't hardcore gamers ... like having a couple magazines on your coffee table that you might not be into but other people are. My mom really digs the poker. :)
ParksCo2 @ Dec 10th 2008 5:59PM
So. I knew it was bound to happen. You buried a good one.
I understand where you guys are coming from, but in the end it is a quality turd.... in a sea of average turds.
I hope someone comes along an uncovers this buried treasure. It deserves our $20.
iofthestorm @ Dec 11th 2008 2:59PM
Reading comprehension fail? They said it's a good game, but it looks like shovelware. Geez.
Monodi @ Dec 10th 2008 6:17PM
Well Clubhouse Games doesn't look that bad-bad, but its still one of those titles that are not designed for solid gamers.
Its fun once in a while when you are kind of "hey lets play poker" with your MSN buddy but its way better to play it with real cards when you are with your local peeps.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:19PM
Well said, sir (or maam). :)
Monodi @ Dec 15th 2008 12:24AM
Sir, though I dont like formal titles.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 15th 2008 9:32AM
Duly noted. :)
icepulse @ Dec 10th 2008 6:39PM
The problem here is an inconsistent definition of "shovelware" you mention the term's "original" meaning, but DSF has often broken from that criteria in the "Bury The Shovelware" column. "Wiffle Ball", for example, has been christened with the shameful moniker, despite the fact that it is one, single, HORRIBLE piece of crap game on a cartridge. The very idea that we should "bury" anything that falls under this classification further implies that the term has evolved into a synonym for shite.
Clubhouse games works because it has robust online multiplayer functionality. And lots of people play it. On a system that has a somewhat questionable reputation for online gaming goodness, CG is a winner. So does it fit under the original definition of Shovelware? Not really, because it was built from the ground up, but simply uses time-tested, classic games. I'd rather play CG's "Bowling" online for the rest of my LIFE than play a minute more of an "original" game like Mushroom Men. Does it fit into the same category as "Wiffle Ball"?
Again, no.
It's probably a good idea to stick with one definition for the term, and create another term when you have another thing to describe.
JK
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:27PM
You're absolutely correct, icepulse: I've been using a very liberal definition of the word "shovelware." But that's why I'm still writing these: there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition for the term. That's why I wrote this piece. I wanted to give you all a better understanding of the historical definition and show how it's changed (according to some). Many people define it simply as a "bad game," other might specify it as a careless port or an unnecessary sequel. In the meantime, I'm just having a good time discussing it with all of you. :)
ALH @ Dec 10th 2008 7:02PM
The only thing shovelwarey about clubhouse games is its subject TBH. The presentation is top notch, and it has a tonne of replayability for completionists- the missions to unlock avatars for example, are rather challenging.
Its a fun game to be addicted to when you dont want to think too hard, and teaches you games you may never have heard of before. Who can say they have played similar collections which have acessible and easy to understand rulebooks built right into the game itself?
Jenny Lee @ Dec 10th 2008 7:05PM
Agh, I actually don't like Clubhouse Games.
The cards in the card games are too tiny to see. I would LOVE to find a card games collection with a magnifying glass, or some way to make the numbers and suits more visible.
I wouldn't want to play solitaire on something that small. I'd want to play it on my desktop, or with REAL cards. ^^
I shall pass on Clubhouse Games thanks.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:30PM
I too had a few gripes with the presentation. But personally, none were distracting enough to be a deal-breaker. Sorry you didn't dig it! There are a few other game collections like Clubhouse Games out there ... I believe Midway made one. Maybe you'd enjoy that one a bit more. But there is something to be said for cracking out actual cards once in awhile that you can't capture with any video game. Oh well. Thanks for writing! :)
RootiePatootie @ Dec 14th 2008 7:23PM
I got Clubhouse Games for Christmas last year and at first thought, "Oh gawd, that was a waste of the person's money" but I found I really enjoyed it in so many ways. I STILL play it, in fact. It's a very solid package and although I like all kinds of genres within video & computer gaming I never was super interested in board games or even card games on them. But this is very well done, huge variety and a multitude of ways to approach it. I'd certainly NOT consider it shovelware!
Hmm... I don't get that the cards are too small. I'm a gamer with older eyes (I'm 51) and wear glasses in order to use my DS and also for most everything else! I can understand that if you have eyesight problems that even corrective lenses can't help enough for this but then I'm wondering, if the cards are too small for you on the DS, which IS a portable gaming device after all (which means a small screen), then how do you play so many of the other games???
I will suggest that if you have a DS phat rather than the Lite, you might want to give a Lite a go-round and see if that helps. I have both and I must admit the brighter screen on the Lite makes a difference!
I dislike the Lite though because the smaller size, for any lengthy gaming like a RPG or marathon Picross event, gives my hands cramps. I'm a female but my hands aren't the average size for most gals...I never could wear women's gloves, for instance, but the brightness of the Lite's screen really makes a difference overall so I switch back and forth and try to watch my time spent w/the Lite.
Rob @ Dec 10th 2008 7:17PM
Shovelware usually consists of a poorly thrown together product meant for quick money. Clubhouse Games is a a collection of classic games. Not to mention a pretty solid quality product.
In other words, just because it isn't your cup of tea, doesn't automatically make it shovelware. Remember, there has always been and always will be casual game players.
sergioalb64 @ Dec 10th 2008 7:24PM
I would never call Clubhouse Games shovelware; what I call it is my favorite DS game to date. It's a classic amongst me and my DS playing friends; no matter how many new games come out or how many I have or play, Clubhouse Games remains my favorite, and for good reason; tons of replay value, good variety, flawless controls and a great presentation, now for a budget price of just $20. Even when it was $30, it was worth every penny. If there was a DS game that should've been bundled with the system, it is Clubhouse Games; every DS owner should have it.
Not shovelware!
BlackDS @ Dec 10th 2008 10:06PM
Word.
This is the best Wi-Fi game on Nintendo Wi-Fi.
You can't use Action Replay to cheat on Chess, Checkers, Chinese Checkers, Koi Koi, Shogi, etc. There is no infinite life cheats, or rocket start cheats or Blue Shell cheats, etc.
Clubhouse Games is the only game I play on Nintendo Wi-Fi, due to the rampant cheating by Action Replay players.
Clubhouse Games has Hanafuda (Koi Koi) and Shogi. That in itself makes it a must-have for me.
Clubhouse Games makes Touchmaster 1 & 2 irrelevant.
If you don't like Clubhouse Games ... well everyone has an opinion, but it's NOT shovelware. There are hundreds of shovelware to review, why pick Clubhouse Games??? Why not review Hotel Dusk, now that's a piece of cr*p.
Clubhouse Games is one of the best games I own. And I own 50+ DS games.
Peace.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:34PM
Excellent points, sergioalb64 & BlackDS. I do enjoy the (apparent) inability to cheat online. It's a shame; that's what ended Mario Kart DS for me. Well, some don't consider snaking to be cheating, but I just found it to be annoying.
For the record, Clubhouse Games is in my top 15 favorite DS games. :)
Nutmeg @ Dec 10th 2008 7:31PM
I've thought about buying this for a good while, but... it's not a priority.
chispito @ Dec 11th 2008 4:02AM
If you ever play your DS locally with friends, one of you should own this game. It has the most generous single-cartridge multiplayer of any game, only rivaled by Geometry Wars.
chibi_wings @ Dec 11th 2008 1:58PM
you just sold me on this game sir. I am definitely picking it up as I know quite a few people with DSes =)
Odan @ Dec 10th 2008 9:10PM
Do people actually read these posts. Or do you just comment on what you feel from the title alone.
They aren't saying the game is bad, but comparing it to big groups of games crammed into one pack.
Clubhouse games is a great mix of games , that all are done well enough. I'd give it a perfect 10 , however you have to enjoy card games to enjoy this type of title.
So maybe everyone should reread this , as they say its a great game , and that not all shovelware is bad.
chispito @ Dec 11th 2008 4:09AM
Which is fine, except this is the second time they've fundamentally changed their working definition of "shovelware" so they can talk about a decent game instead of crapware. The first time was Puzzle Quest (I think) and that game is 1) A single game, so it doesn't fit this definition and, 2) Pretty freaking awesome, so it doesn't fit the common definition.
If this were the definition they settled on, there just aren't that many games they could use to write a column about. I suspect they just get tired of actually having to play crappy games in order to write about them. I'm fine with that, but I wish they'd just not write the column instead of moving he goalposts.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:41PM
@chispito: For the record, we never did Puzzle Quest. But I totally hear what you're saying, and I'm sorry if it's not for you. You're absolutely right, I have been "moving the goalposts" around a bit. The reason being, again, that I nor anyone else seems to have a concrete definition of what the word "shovelware" is. The series is an attempt to figure out what it means, and see what does and doesn't count. This particular piece was an attempt to show what the word originally meant. But as I attempted to demonstrate with Clubhouse Games, a simple collection of easily / cheaply available games doesn't automatically constitute shovelware.
I hope you'll give my column another chance in the future, but I understand if it's not for you. If that's the case, then I hope you're able to find other stuff on the Wii & DS Fanboy sites that you'll enjoy.
Thank you both for reading & writing. :)
Jacksons @ Dec 10th 2008 9:10PM
The little popup that tells whose turn it is annoyed me to no end. The game works, but a bit more polish and it could have been incredible.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:35PM
Yeah, that drove me nuts as well.
nick @ Dec 10th 2008 9:31PM
that game with the scale was a ton of fun. me and my friends played the crap out of clubhouse games. It wasn't the best but i wouldn't say it is shovelware
Raedien @ Dec 10th 2008 10:14PM
-_-''
I...I don't think they read your bit Kaes, sorry.
Moving along, I appreciated this piece as I am unfamiliar with when exactly this series started and because I had considered CHG but failed to buy it.
I'll throw it on my Christmas list.
Thanks,
Rae
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:44PM
Ehh, what can ya do? I'm just happy to write these and even happier to discuss it with everyone. If some are offended by the title and immediately comment, that's okay. I still get to talk to lots of people who, whether they agree or disagree, make excellent conversation and really make this an enormous pleasure for me.
The series started back in July (wow, it's been 6 months already? Yeesh!) If you're interested, here's the first piece: http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2008/07/02/bury-the-shovelware-homie-rollerz/
I hope you continue to read and comment! :)
JRM @ Dec 10th 2008 10:29PM
I bought it because I like playing chess. but the other games like bowling, darts, parchesi (ludo), and blackjack, keep me entertained. In my opinion, this game is no different than Tetris DS in the sense that it's just a bunch of puzzle games bunched together in one cartridge. Clubhouse games is just a bunch of card/parlor games bunched in one cartridge.
Yet, nobody would think of Tetris as "shovelware". well...maybe DSfanboy according to their definition of shovelware.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:47PM
I'm the same way; I was looking for a quick DS version of chess, and the online was a welcome addition. I was pleasantly surprised by the entire package.
If you're really into chess and have a homebrew-capable device, there's a few DS solutions available. The AI seems to be a bit varied compared to Clubhouse game's three levels, but none really compare to the AI of Chessmaster. I was still slightly disappointed by the DS version of Chessmaster, but if you're a fan of the game, it's a must-buy.
And yes, we do have a very wide definition of "shovelware." It's part of the process. :)
Alex @ Dec 11th 2008 9:50AM
I dislike Clubhouse Games intensely. The AI is miserable on any game that would need an AI, and I don't like any of the games that don't. Mind you, I don't play multiplayer, which might redeem it a bit.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:57PM
Yeah, I should have mentioned that (though I was using Clubhouse Games to show that the historic definition doesn't always apply). If there's one non-presentation related fundamental flaw, it's that the AI isn't varied enough (especially for Chess).
ManekiNeko @ Dec 11th 2008 4:55AM
Really? REALLY?
You people have officially stretched the definition of "shovelware" to the point where it's snapped. That's okay though... you just keep baiting DS owners with ridiculous articles like these, then justify them with tortured logic. That'll bring in the hits!
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:51PM
Wow, I just got sarcasm'd. :)
I assure you that I'm not attempting to simply "bring in hits." Sure, it's nice to have an audience, but if I treated all of you as a statistic and not individuals, I wouldn't look forward to reading and responding to your comments. And if I just wanted simple page views, the title and images would be filled with unnecessary sexual references (which plenty of major gaming sites do).
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I hope you can give the series a second chance. If not, no worries. Either way, thanks for reading. :)
ManekiNeko @ Dec 12th 2008 2:10AM
I just think you guys can do better than this. There's an established definition of "shovelware" that's been around for many years, before Joystiq and its sister blogs even existed. It's not a flattering term, and it isn't an accurate description of a title like Clubhouse Games, which is certainly designed for casual players and does mine the public domain for many of its games, but isn't a rushed or cynical product.
Now I've read this article and understand the point you're trying to make (although the logic is a bit warped from my perspective). However, when you take a legitimately good game and label it as "shovelware" because it offers more value for the money, that strikes me as sensationalist and even irresponsible. Calling N+ shovelware was already a stretch, but this just takes the cake.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 12th 2008 9:36AM
That's fair, ManekiNeko. I respect your opinion and appreciate your honesty.
If you read through the N+ piece, you'll see that I said the game is definitely not shovelware. Actually, Mare Sheppard (one of the developers of the original N) read the piece and commented on it and agreed with some of my observations.
And re: the definition of shovelare: you're absolutely right. There has been a historical definition of shovelware, but it seems to be very different from how the term is applied today (i.e. many think it is interchangeable with "bad game"). Just because I feature a game in this series doesn't mean that I am calling it out. Sometimes, I'm using a game to demonstrate what _isn't_ shovelware. I know it's a bit tricky and perhaps misleading, so I apologize.
Darklighter @ Dec 11th 2008 11:16AM
Yeah Clubhouse games is certainly crap. It even has a touch generations logo. . . proof that a game is casual garbage.
njbeetle @ Dec 11th 2008 11:45AM
Clubhouse Games is my favorite DS game - why? It is the best game to play while waiting at the airport. If you find someone with a DS you can share a game easily. You also can use it's in-game chat to talk dirt about other airplane passengers while you enjoy a game of darts with a friend. I paid full price for this game a while back and would pay that again. Some of us long time gamers (Pre-Atari here) don't care for the long games. We have limited time and enjoy these short games that also allow for social interaction.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 11th 2008 2:56PM
That's an excellent point about older gamers. I'm not sure if it's because they're now adults and have more responsibilities (job, family, house, etc) and less time to sit and play a game for several hours or if it ties more into the style of gaming on which they were raised (simpler, more direct gaming objectives). But that's a very interesting either way! Maybe I'll work that into a later column: how younger gamers perceive shovelware compared to older ones.
Thanks so much for reading & writing! :)
Thomas McDonald @ Dec 12th 2008 1:50AM
I guess you could classify it as shovelware. I would most definitely not have played it at all if it wasn't for my girlfriend who loves it and we can play it together. The same goes for a ton of DS games. Not just this one.
parttimeninja09 @ Dec 13th 2008 7:04PM
You guys really need to go back to the old "Bury the Shovelware" format.
Substance20 @ Dec 21st 2008 11:12AM
Wow. It's just--interesting how many people would react strongly to the use of a single word with an otherwise (in your terms) simple and single-layered definition. How much simpler than "any game in which time and effort were eschewed in favor of turning a quick profit" can a definition get? A lot of games can easily fall into this category, as you did admit, whether they be good or bad.
What I mean is, contrasting the basic definition of shovelware you have presented and probably the strong historical overtones it has--I only heard about the term this night, hooray for living under a box--I wouldn't be surprised how many people would suddenly react like a chunk of sodium thrown into water on the one hand, while others would just snipe at the game with snide remarks like "Yeah, this is crap, you're right on the money" and neither of them would fully understand what you're trying to expound upon.
I believe you didn't bash the game. You presented its merits fairly. Now all in all, given my limited experience in game production (I work as a graphic artist at a game company of which the name shall not now be mentioned) and the business world in general, there seems to be indeed a fascination with such tactics as slap-dashing a budget product that is a) more or less easy to produce, like a card or pinball game--although again, given my experience I really doubt that's the case; or b) basically a clone of a much more popular franchise (*cough* Commando: Steel Disaster *cough*), or c) otherwise something that threatens to be a sub-par idea at first glance (Rocket Knight Adventures during the era of the anthro video game mascot ripoffs, although I must argue that it is most likely not shovelware due to the amount of effort seen in its quality), just to get it out onto the market and make a quick buck from the pockets of the target audience. I mean, that's what business is, yes? Making money by giving people what they want/need for a price.
But as you did say, it's all in the execution. Do it nicely and the cons will be outshined by the pros. A mediocre concept or an overused one can be made appealing and fresh. Shovelware can actually be great, as you mentioned.
What I fear, though, is the tendency of a business to focus on otherwise shovelware titles (or those that threaten to be labeled as such) and stifle real creativity. How many people out there have resorted to going the route of the homebrew indie game because they never had the chance or the resources to market their product to a development studio and/or publisher? Alas, money talks, and money does run business. I've seen good concepts either shelved semi-indefinitely or bite the dust because of lack of support, and that due to inadequate cashflow.
So there is then, I believe, one reason why we see shovelware; we want to make good games, we want to make great games, but sometimes we just don't have the funds or the support, so a business has to focus on going the route of the lesser evil in the hopes that it will one day enerate enough funding for a real blockbuster.
A no-brainer, I must admit, but then again I've been living under a box. No, my name isnt David and I don't tap my ear in order to initiate codec conversations with military officers who insist on calling 3PM tea time. :P
P.S. it's 12:09 AM here and I really shouldn't be ranting for long.
Kaes Delgrego @ Dec 21st 2008 12:04PM
Wow, that's quite a statement, sir! I appreciate your comments. You write quite well and bring up excellent points.
I sort of covered your idea in my second BTS column:
http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2008/07/09/bury-the-shovelware-ping-pals/
But you really hit the nail on the head; no one wants a company to focus solely on shovelware games just because money can be made. Perhaps that will factor into our definition: if a smaller company like WayForward or TwoTribes makes shovelware, we should cut them a break since they need to pay the bills. Yet if EA or Rockstar starts pumping out nothing but shovelware, then we have a right to be very critical.
Thanks so much for writing! I hope you continue to enlighten us with great comments. :)