[Gothos]

There's another aspect to all this and it's called rabid marketing, and it's mischevious little evil sister - hype. Back in, say, 1998, or 2002, we didn't have extensive marketing campaigns reaching anywhere and everywhere, there weren't multiple smartasses playing behavioral psychology on us making us anticipate each game like it's the Holy Grail.
Quite frankly, back at the turn of the century I could only count on some short preview column in a thematic magazine. I can certainly see a decent pattern with games I ended up loving - Morrowind, Deus Ex, Starcraft, Unreal, Half-Life, Tiberian Sun, Thief, Mass Effect - in all these (and probably numerous other) cases I didn't really expect or know much about the game at all before I played it (though I imagine my lack of knowledge of Mass Effect 1 is probably something of an anomaly). I stumbled upon these games by word of mouth - often not more than ten sentences exchanged about it with a friend who played it - or from a two-page review in a magazine that didn't really say all that much about it.
Now we're bombarded with dozens of trailers, teasers, pseudo-leaks, interviews, game shows, with everyone claiming to revolutionize the entire industry with their incredible product. The worst disappointment in that regard for me was Warhammer Online, which sounded a hundred times better when paul Burnett was hyping us up during development than in reality.
Nowdays we have multi-million advertising campaigns, with the dawn of affordable fast Internet, but also on billboards, regular newspapers, on television even. We've got random celebrities showing up at game shows to promote some game with their image (and please don't cite me Tiger Woods golf simulators or Colin McRae Rally, it's not even in the same league). Hell, I even got disappointed with DA:O because of the bloated marketing campaign, and only came to love the game later once I forgot all the bling and flash.

I guess what I am missing is the niche character of the industry. Development teams got too big, companies are getting too much like corporations (hi EA, hi Activision, hi SquareEnix), and somewhere there the soul is lost. And I don't even mean originality - Civilization sequels hardly ever changed very much (well, V did, but it worked) just adding bits and bits over the years - but still, Civilization games never felt like a cheap money grab.

[Mentalist]

first off, to the sceptics that talk about HR: i've been frequenting the official forums of that game for the last few years. teh topic of decline of gaming gets raised quite a lot there. However, since most people there have played the leaked preview version (for those who don't know, a supposedly disgruntled EM employee who was recently fired walked out of the studio with a copy of the PC version of DXHR preview build--the first 10 hours of the game, designed for the press and leaked it on the internet), have been swearing that this game actually "feels like Deus Ex", so there's that at least to look forward to.

now, on the broader topic: I don't think gaming is dying.I do think the state we find ourselves is pretty crappy, compared to the glory days of the 90's-early millenials, but I don't think gaming is dying. Primarily, here are my issues with the gaming of today:

emphasis on graphics: not being a graphics whore, I really couldn't care less about all the shiny, therefore I feel all the money spent into making a title 5% more shiny a waste, since that same amount could have paid for like 20% more game design.

Emphasis on sequels and licenses: I suppose this is undestandable, since publishers are corporations, whodon't want to take risks, so everyhting has to be a part of a "franchise" in order to create potential for more sequels and becoming a cash cow, etc. but then it leads to things like X-COM being remade as a Bioshock clone, and me wishing I had a box of kittens to strangle.

other money-emphasis crap, like DLC and DRM. once again, obviously there are financial considerations, but as a PC gamer, I find these to be only barriers that publishers establish between me and my enjoyment, trying to drive me from my platform of choice and onto a console.

The main thing to consider, imho, is this: Western game design is stagnating. big publishers will probably continue releasing mass market shovelware, with an occasional gem, or original design in the safe money making formula. it's safe to say, we won't ever be getting another Planescape: Torment made by a big studio. However:

first off, there are indie games. these studios take the formula of small studios of the 90s and run with it.

secondly, non-western game studios. currently, Eastern European studios are the ones releasing games we consider new and innovative. not to toot my country's horn, but the S.T.A.L.K.E.R series continued the genre-mixing traditions of Deus Ex and Bloodlines, while evolving in itself at the same time. Another such hybrid title, "Boiling point" was also released by a UA studio, although that one drowned in its own bugs. (the sequel, as well as sci-fi variation fot he gameplay mechanics called "precursors" are supposed to be actually playable. check them out!) As PC gaming becomes big in areas like china, i'm sure we can expect a flow of convention-defying titles in the future. they won't be what we're used to, for sure, but they won't aim to take on the Western AAA titles, either, so there will be focus on innovative gameplay in them. oh, and if the Easter European example is anyhting to go by, these games will proabbly be highly moddable, (the lack of this is another major problem with mainstream Western gaming, Bethesda excepted)

One thing we old-schoolers DO need to reaize however, is that there are peaks in game design. Despite all that we say, we ARE in some way wearing the rose-tinted glasses, simply due to the point that our benchmark years were the time of innovation, before genre conventions were defined. At this point, we as gamers have a pretty solid idea of what each genre is supposed to be, and it's much harder to constantly invent somehting new these days.

that said, I don't entirely agree with you gothos about this E3 showing us nothing interesting. I though Prey 2 looked really cool, i'm intrigued about BioShock Infinite, since this time it has its own gameplay mechanics, instead of trying to simplify System shock, I'm excited for DX Human Revolution, although I won't buy it till next summer, and I think that Arkham City should be a fun open-world game. so there are SOME things to look forward to, despite all the crap that's thrown out there just for the shiny.

hmm, this one turned out to be a bit of a ramble, but I don't think I can really organize these thoughts any better. Really, the topic has far too many aspects, each one of which is worth a thread and a ramble of its own.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 21 June 2011 - 01:38 PM

[Ribald]

http://www.cracked.c...profile_oneline

An interesting article that discusses much of this.

[Macros]

Thank god we miss the same things apt, hard to beat a challenge, a game that doesn't lead you by the fucking hand via endless cut scenes and minimal worthwhile game play, a game where its actually tough to finish it. I don't give a shit about my characters motivations, I want to jump those barrels and punch that bastard monkey in the face. If you're going to cram that shit in at least ram it into the existing engine like they do with Dawn of War, only flashy bit in that was the intro (which looks so much more polished and professional than that piece of dogshit that was the Ultra Marines movie, fuck it was awful looking) and don't waste the nerds time and companies money on bullshit that adds a grand total equalling the square root of fuck all to actual gameplay, just another 2 hours to the maximum of 10 its going to take you to barrel through the game.
Lets look back at nostalgia for a second, (that statement makes no sense to me either, but its there and its staying there) Games are like fiction to me, be it a movie or a book, its escapism, If I wanted realism I'd go outside, paint a fence then watch it fucking dry. Lets keep the premise and storyline outlandish please, and who cares what it looks like because we're not retards and know its make believe anyway. Princess needs saved from monsters, only heroes need apply. Fat Plumber? bing man for the job! perfect.

Don't care about shiny,
read that again

the 100 pixel madman firing red dots at uniform baddies is the shit, Wolfenstein was awesome, I'll freely admit I havent played the newest one because I cant be arsed parting with my hard earned coin for it only to ruin my happy memories.
I dont want to be lead by the hand
I dont want a big red arrow pointing me where to go (unless its a rally game and my co-pilot is providing those big arrows)
I REALLY don't want a "gritty realistic game" which is about as realistic as making chocolate from scratch on the moon. LA Noire? take out the robot and the storyline seems awfully familiar, change the shell and poof, you're back in liberty san andr.. I'm sorry, I meant LA in the modern era.

I want something I can sink many hours of my life into, and feel a perverse sense of achievement when I look back at those obscene hours used solely completing a silly game which involves invincible tanks and time space continuum warping geniuses. Bloody marvelous stuff.

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

Obdigore, on 21 June 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

You, and I, are looking for that 'First amazing RPG' experience again. Something you lose yourself in. Hard to do since you have played so many games, for so long, and have become somewhat Jaded to what 'good' games are. Take, for example, X-com. It was one of the first squad based tactical shooters I played (That and Syndicate), and they were awesome. Now, regardless of how good the X-com reboot ends up being, it will be a failure in the eyes of gamers that played the first.

I played the Might and Magic series, Wizardry 6-7, Dark Sun and Wasteland for the first time in the last year or so. They're now one and all up there with my favourite games of all time. Usually, the nostalgia argument is used by people who don't understand how we can play those old bloomless games with no quest compasses and where your health doesn't return to 100% with five seconds of hiding behind a fence, and so dismiss it as some mass delusion we must be having, so I have difficulty taking it seriously; the one game I can honestly say nostalgia likely clouds my judgement of is Morrowind.

As for the general argument here, I'm entirely with Macros. It's an argument I've participated in far too often - I'm one of those RPGCodex members and was banned from the Elder Scrolls Forums for saying I disliked Oblivion - so I can't really be bothered picking apart or drawing it out. I'm not an "old-school" gamer, my first console was an N64, but the more I play old games, the more I hearken for the times where gaming was a hobby, not a business. When developers could make a profit selling a few thousand copies, whereas now, the suits have admitted that a million is no longer enough for their obscene costs to break even, and as a result, fucking Mass Effect is considered too hardcore and complicated and needs to reach a broader audience. I can count on one hand the handful of games in the last few years I've really loved, and as gaming moves more and more towards every game developed being a sad, diluted mix of marketing's favourite keywords, I've pretty much stopped playing anything new. The only 2011 games I've played (or at least stick in my mind) were DA2 and The Witcher 2; the former simply to see if it was as bad as it looked (it was, and this is from someone who thought DA1 was a dull Baldur's Gate rehash), and the latter which I've yet to play much of because I've been absorbed by the simply better in every way Wizardry 7 from 1992. I just don't have any interest in Dragon's Lair: Noire or anything else coming out. I wish I did, I'd be a lot happier with my hobby, but I can't choose my tastes and I have plenty of rich backlog from the 80s-90s to keep me happy for the next few decades. Enjoy Skyrim, I'll be over here with Phantasie, Starflight and Eternal Dagger.

It's not just us. Developers lament the state of affairs at least as much as we do. I know a couple of good, talented developers - Brian and Annie Mitsoda, writers for Obsidian and Troika (Brian was the lead writer for Bloodlines) - who've completely left the mainstream industry to develop their own indie turn-based survival RPG; they know there's no market for something with X-Com gameplay which might lead to failure and frustrate the poor kids and doesn't even involve you saving the world in epic bullet time action, so they went off to carve out their own. I know plenty of others who wish they could make that leap, but can't.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner they do, and the sooner this unsustainable industry crashes again, the better.

As Orwell wrote: if there is hope for the future, it lies in the indies.

[Traveller]

I personally am pretty bored by all the mainstream, heavily advertised offerings available at the moment.  Some of the games I've spent the time on and enjoyed recently (eg Minecraft, Mount and Blade) have been created by small independent developers, who have seen the gaping void between what people used to like about games, and what is currently on offer. I don't think the industry is dying, but it could do with a change - like creating real challenges within new, imaginative environments, instead of rehash after rehash.

It's always been obvious that as the technology as improved, the creativity and the need to reach a wider market has made games easier and more accessible; it's just begun to reach a stage where the market is so flooded by pretty looking but unsatisfying stuff that a lot of people are becoming bored. I'm sure this is down to the fact that although the technology exists to create vast and interesting worlds, most games fall into catagories that can be counted on one hand, which then get remade or cloned.

I mean, I enjoyed playing Red Dead, but I haven't gone out and bought LA Noire because I suspect it is basically the same sort of thing, with a different skin. And anyway, I think I enjoyed the hunting aspect of RD more than the story anyway. So I haven't bothered with Dragon Age 2, as the first one was a bit of a trudge - why have more of the same?

That said, there are good games out there too, and some more inspired developers are looking at what it is that made us all play in the first place. For example, Demon's Souls was created with the actual gameplay itself in mind - with difficult obstacles rewarded with a real sense of satisfaction. I thoroughly enjoyed playing through this, even though there was scant real story to go with it - but it really didn't matter. Taking on a boss at the end of a level, knowing that if you fail, you will have to replay the whole level to get back and try again may be frustrating for many, but it makes it so much more of an achievement when you succeed.

(I used to have a friend who would get a new game at the same time as I did - he would stick in a bunch of cheat codes, play through he whole thing in a day with infinite ammo etc, and then say it was crap. Whereas I'd play though and get a lot more from it). That's a bit like the way I see games now - they seem designed for people to basically walk through beginning to end, with a few hundred things to collect as the only motivation to replay. Someone described the original Star Wars as a 'film that used special effects to tell a story' and the prequels as 'films that used a story to tell the special effects' - this is kind of how I see a lot of the stuff around now.

When I think back to the games I used to play on Amiga and PC, and how many actually got completed - well, some of them never did, because I'd get stuck. And sometimes work for days to figure out a puzzle. Ok, I was younger then, but some games were still bastards to figure out (anyone ever play Cadaver?)

The internet makes a big difference as well, because anyone who gets stuck for more than a minute is more likely to go to Gamefaqs than put in the effort to actually solve the problem themselves. It's not like people are forced to look up guides and walkthroughs though - and to be honest, it's very rare to even need to do such a a thing now, unless you are obsessively hunting flag locations for f'kin gamer points.

It is pretty bleak as far as the mass market goes - I'm currently playing Mass Effect 2, and hoping Mass Effect 3 doesn't 'simplify' it's gameplay even more for it's third outing just because more people are interested in it. On the plus side, I'm looking forward to Dark Souls, and the Last Guardian, which looks pretty good too. I also have Heavy Rain for the Ps3, which I haven't started, but at least looks like it's trying to create a different experience.

As for Skyrim - well, we've seen a lot of highly anticipated games of this kind recently, that all too soon get revealed as the same old thing with a new pretty skin. I hope I'm surprised, but I'm not going to rush out and buy it immediately. Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Fable 3 - look nice, lots of things to 'collect', but I haven't finished either of them, because personally there was no incentive to.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 24 June 2011 - 02:09 PM

[Obdigore]

Traveller, you realize that LA Noire is quite different from Red Dead Redemption, and DA2 plays quite a bit differently (more 'arcadey') than DA1, right?

[wade]

I read on a gaming site somewhere, that there are two ages of gaming: The golden age, and the modern age.
In the old age (up to beginning of PS2's life) 70% of games were 'good', 20% were 'bad', and 10% were 'great'.
Since about halfway into PS2's life, the modern age started, where 40% of games were 'good', another 40% are 'bad, and 20% are great.

These aren't the exact numbers, since I can't find the site anymore, but they're pretty much the same, and I agree with it quite a bit. The gaming industry has expanded a lot, so you get entire studios that pop up without the intent of making a good game, but instead, to exploit that growth for (relatively) easy money. You still, however, have studios that love what they do, and do it really well, taking advantage of new technology etc etc. In essence, we get a lot more crap, but simultaneously the bar has been raised in terms of a game's expected quality.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I read an article that was describing the death of American industries, as measured by the prevalence of MBAs running the show. Tech companies are the holdouts, and still booming, because the engineers and coders are largely still in charge.

I wonder if the gaming industry is going that way...

[Mentalist]

Gaming industry has long since been run by CEOs.

however, due to the abundance of developers who don't rely on big budgets and all kinds of business people, gaming is in a unique position where it can wither this particular crisis.

[Traveller]

Obdigore, on 24 June 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Traveller, you realize that LA Noire is quite different from Red Dead Redemption, and DA2 plays quite a bit differently (more 'arcadey') than DA1, right?

Yes, I know it's going to be a different game, but what I mean is that from the advertising/reviews I've seen, it doesn't really grab me as anything new - I might be surprised. Same with DA 2 - I wasn't that enthralled with DA 1to be honest, although I finished it... and based solely on the ganer comments and reviews, I didn't really feel it was worth bothering with. Whereas, something a bit older like Demons Souls had nothing but praise from gamers and reviewers alike; imo they weren't wrong, either.

[Use Of Weapons]

Was that book _Car Guys vs. Bean Counters_ by Bob Lutz?

[Mentalist]

http://www.mcvuk.com...-2kgames/082216

very much on topic,interview with one of 2k's bigwigs.
the part about X-com is especially telling:

Quote

Last year 2K announced cult turn-based strategy series Xcom was to return – but this time as a first-person shooter. Fans recoiled at the apparent bastardisation of their beloved series, but Hartmann says there’s good reason for the change of direction.

He explains: “The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.

“I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.

“That’s what we are trying to do. To renew Xcom but in line with what this generation of gamers want. The team behind it is asking themselves every day: ‘Is it true to the values of the franchise?’ It’s not a case of cashing in on the name. We just need to renew it because times are changing.”

note: 2K is the publisher for the Civilization series, the title that practically defines TBS.

not only is the Western gaming industry run by CEOs, they are also idiots.

[Gothos]

Well, I can say that the 'reinventing' in Civilization V is very playable, and imo doesn't bastardize the franchise.

Can't say for X-com, due to my very bad first contact with it, I never really got into it at all.

[Obdigore]

Mentalist,

Are you are talking about them being idiots because all the 'casual' money (which is multiple times the 'hardcore' money) are in either sports games or FPS's.

Do you honestly think an amazing turn-based squad tactical strategy game would make even a fifth the money of a mediocre FPS in the current (US at least) market? Think again.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 13 July 2011 - 05:24 PM

[Abyss]

Mentalist, on 13 July 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

http://www.mcvuk.com...-2kgames/082216

very much on topic,interview with one of 2k's bigwigs.
...

Quote

..."I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles and Kanye West would cut off his own legs just to have the opportunity to carry Ray's jacket...

...

Edit to reflect reality.

Idiots indeed.

[Mentalist]

Obdigore, on 13 July 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

Mentalist,

Are you are talking about them being idiots because all the 'casual' money (which is multiple times the 'hardcore' money) are in either sports games or FPS's.

Do you honestly think an amazing turn-based squad tactical strategy game would make even a fifth the money of a mediocre FPS in the current (US at least) market? Think again.

lol
it's one thing to say "tbs won't make us as much money". I can respect that.
but what these people are doing is writing off an entire genre (and all the people that may like that genre). they are trying their hardest to alienate them.

while at the same time, Paradox makes a living designing historical TBS, we have a huge moneymaker in total war, the aforemntioned Civilization, Heroes VI is fue to come out soon, hanhelds are full of TBS games, japanese devs have been stteadily releasing them on consoles for ages....

it's the narrowmindedness of it all that gets to me. I don't like multiplayer FPSs. therefore, my opinion as a customer is completely ignored by the industry, since I will never buy a CoD, or Battlefield, and I have no intention of owning a console.

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

That might actually be the stupidest thing I've read this year. And Charlie Chaplin would be more like Adam Sandler. How do you say something like that without your brain forcibly melting itself?

[cerveza_fiesta]

Agree with poopoo and mentalist on that one.

Civ revolutions is 4x style and it is very fun. Properly implemented a 4x can be downright great on a console and I think that's a pretty good example.

Sure it never made them the money that Bioshock or Call of Duty did, but seriously guys. How is Xcom FPS going to be anything but Duke Nukem 3D without the dirty words?? Aliens invade earth. Shoot them til the game ends. I call it a bastardization of a concept that was never meant for FPS.

IMO they could make just as much money off a great 4x as they could off a shitty FPS, and set the stage for more to follow in that genre. I agree that there is ridiculously little choice in game types for console. If you don't want to FPS then you're pretty much left with a few mediocre racing games and some shitty Final Fantasy knockoffs.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 15 July 2011 - 07:09 PM

[Obdigore]

Civ 5 sales figures:
http://gamrreview.vg...civilization-v/
Duke Nuk'em Forever figres:
http://gamerinvestme...sales-data-npd/

So in 2.5 weeks, duke nukem 3d, a universally trashed video game sold about 1/3 more units than civ5 did in the same time. The same Civ that is considered one of the best of the series and seems to be a pretty good game.

Now, before you guys continue strawmanning me, claiming that I don't want a refreshed xcom is amazingly far from the truth. I want them to update the graphics and make it a little deeper, perhaps flying the jet to shoot down the ship yourself so you can choose which sections to damage. I don't want another knock-off PoS shooter. But that is where the money is. Claiming that these 'suits', if you will, don't know were the money is or how to get it is a foolish position to take. Xcom has name recognition, that means many of us who don't want/need another shooter will buy it. So will all the 16 y.o. 'I like to shoot things' kids, even though they have no idea what the first was.

You may not like it. You may despise the fact that all the large studios have pretty much been taken over by the 'suits' who answer to the president of the company who answer to the stockholders who don't play the games, but rather want money. I don't have an issue with that. But to say that these same people are 'stupid' for trying to move the most copies they can is a shortsighted and foolish statement, in my mind.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 15 July 2011 - 07:32 PM