Fringe: The Hardcore–Casual Debate Comes to Primetime

Videogame designers aren't the only ones beset by resentment from hardcore fans over their efforts to widen audiences for games. A certain TV game designer is catching much the same flak.

The game designer in question is, obviously, JJ Abrams, and the flak is over his latest title, "Fringe." Now before you say, "Hey, douche, TV shows aren't games," let me stop you from embarrassing yourself. JJ Abrams is a game designer. Yes, it's true that the screen is locked. I can't make Kate choose Sawyer over Jack or save Claire from Widmore's thugs. But there are rules I can't break and events I can't control in videogames, too. Just as with the best videogame designers, however, Abrams' genius is that he lets me give every object, character and event in his world whatever meaning I like, as long as I remain consistent with the constraints laid down by its designers. When I watch Lost, I become a gamer, puzzling out a world from clues provided by its authors. If you don't believe me, just head over to Lostpedia, where the breakdown of events, pseudo-scientific analysis of cause and effect, and the haggling over theories is every bit the equal of a World of Warcraft class-balance debate. Videogames aren't the only interactive medium.

Now with "Fringe," Abram's new show about global conspiracy at the edge of science and metaphysics, hardcore fans are grumbling that the game has gotten too easy. They bemoan Abrams' efforts to "try something where the door was opened a little wider." It's too self-contained, too digestible and too predictable they levy. There's too much explanation, with too little room for the gamer to maneuver; the controls are too forgiving. As one Lostie put it: "Lost" forces [the gamer] to think. Those who can't do this don't get it. It's a good way to weed out casual [gamers] — and those who stick around end up obsessed." As another TV gamer succinctly put it, echoing the thoughts of many of my friends and legions of the hardcore, "X-Files redux. I'm done with it."

The reference to "X-Files" is telling. In many ways Chris Carter is the Nolan Bushnell of TV Gaming. It was his sci-fi procedural about alien conspiracy and other odd phenomena that taught us how to play. We had no idea how much we loved to game with our TV sets (sans controller) until he came along. But once we learned his version of Pong, we wanted more. We suddenly craved deeper gameplay, more levels and tougher bosses.

In an interview with Brandon Sheffield, Yoshi Ono, who was instrumental in Street Fighter III, one of the most hardcore 2D fighters ever, talks about how once gamers get a certain level of competence in a genre, designers can push difficulty and complexity. Each iteration trains gamers for the next, more challenging installment. The same thing happened between "X-Files" and "Lost." We got better and demanded more.

Ono's Street Fighter IV, though, has been intentionally designed to be more casually playable. As Ono explains, "what happened was that gradually, the games became more and more focused on the hardcore audience, and we really shut the casual players out...what we're trying to do with Street Fighter IV is bring them back in."

That's the very same thing Abrams' is trying to do with "Fringe." Over the evolution of four seasons, "Lost" has been criticized for "shutting out" casual gamers. You can't just jump in and play, and that's not fun. "Fringe" is an attempt to bring those folks, many of whom loved "X-Files" but strayed from TV gaming, back into the fold.

It's still too early to tell whether "Fringe" has permanently alienated the hardcore gamer. But Abrams has a talent for opening his series with deceptively simple and straightforward gameplay. The first several episodes of "Lost," for example, were essentially tutorial levels. He introduces the worlds, the controls, and the fundamental game mechanics. Once you've mastered those, he lets it rip. Only time will tell whether "Fringe" will open up enough of a world to satisfy the hardcore. And maybe the mainstream isn't quite ready to embrace casual TV gaming.

But like Nintendo, which didn't succeed in its more casual strategy straight away (remember the GameCube?), you can't blame Abrams for trying. The upside is potentially huge. I think Wii all know that by now.