Evolutionary Psych and Appealing to the Broader Market

I was pondering the idea of evolutionary psychology, and I started applying it to how artistic mediums have certain works that appeal to broader audiences.

I'm no expert on evolutionary psychology by a long shot. I understand that it's an emerging field in psychology that has gained in popularity in the last few decades. To sum up what I understand of it as of this writing (which isn't much as I said), evolutionary psychology tries to justify current human behavorial patterns by the survival tactics we acquired in our caveman days in order to pass on our traits to the next generation.

Back to the subject. Why exactly are certain works of art broadly accepted as good or desirable? The obvious answer is: "Because that's what they are, broad and generic to satisfy a diverse and large audience."

So, what is broad? In music, usually the most popular music that gets the most broad audience uses simple and obvious rhythms with slightly predictable melodies/harmonies. In games, broad audiences of mostly men flock to first person shooters, because every guy likes shooting things.

But why does every guy like shooting things? First of all, I agree that not every guy does like shooting things, even if it is in a virtual world. However, the guys who don't like it are making a concious effort to dislike it. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but I am saying that if they were to surrender to their instincts they would naturally enjoy first person shooter video games.

Why is it the nature of men to enjoy these kinds of games? Enter evolutionary psychology. To summarize Chris Crawford's thoughts from the Escapist, men had to kill animals in the paleolithic (caveman) era to feed themselves and their families in order to survive and pass their traits on to the next generation. The genes of the men that hunted well survived through the generations and spawned generations that were increasingly skilled at hunting. Hundreds of thousands of years later, men naturally enjoy refining these hunting skills through artificial means.

I'm not exactly sure what skill men needed that makes them now enjoy music, or women for that matter (dancing?)

However, moving back to games, the evolutionary psychology approach explains why truly new and innovative genres, and even mediums, take decades or longer to "sink in" to the public's mind as good or fun. For example, game players who enjoy pizza making simulators are a minority, but once a small following of pizza simulator enthusiasts each produces a sizable family tree, pizza simulators might have at least a niche market in 20-30 years when all their kids get together to form a little community around pizza simulation games.

New innovations are constantly peaking their heads out in this day and age. Most of them aren't widely accepted, and the ones that are quickly accepted usually aren't that innovative. The truth is, thousands of us currently alive are descendents of one caveman. That thousand of us can relate loosely on the fact that we all enjoy what our one ancient ancestor enjoyed. This isn't going to change any quicker than a gradual change over the next thousand years as we slowly become the cavemen.

DISCLAIMER: I am not, by any means, an anti-innovation activist. This particular argument, however, is aimed at broadly marketable works of art.

So, what's my point? This: If you're designing a game for a massive market, or writing music in hopes of becoming the next rock star, or you're a chef and you want to impress a whole family tree for Thanksgiving dinner, think about appealing to the human that existed as an ancestor to your current audience. The further back on the timeline you go (to some limit, obviously), the better chance of successfully attaining that broad appeal. The game designers that produced games like Doom, Halo, and Half-Life (to name a few) realized that cavemen killed things. Now they're rich.