Creativity, a Problem for the Gaming Industry? 522
Steeda95GT writes "A Reuters story reprinted at Forbes.com is an interesting read, saying that 'The gaming industry will shrink unless we start to see new games'. It talks about how the ratio of original titles to sequels is dropping dramatically, but it also goes on to say that upcoming sequels (Doom 3, Halo 2, Half-Life 2, GTA: San Andreas) will be successful only because their predecessors were."
Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guts to throw your cash into funding for trying new things.
Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the great unspoken truth that Slashdot won't admit. Rampant game piracy is a problem. Look at all the stupid copy protection we have to go through. It is still insane to expect people to have to put in a game CD every time they play, but publishers make the development teams put them in.
Re:Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem started as the cost of entry went up for developers and filmmakers. When it was cheaper to make movies, studios were (and smaller independents still are) more apt to make risky movies that don't fit into a rehashed, well trodden category. Same goes for game makers. You'll keep seeing Doom and Quake as long as Doom and Quake are easy to evolve and guaranteed to sell 15 million copies worldwide. The last thing any developer wants at this point is to throw an ungodly amount of money at a project and end up with another Daikatana.
Also at fault are the publishers. Some publishers just won't take on specific games because they feel they won't sell. What you end up with is what we all have today. People wanting something new or different but when they're given it, they don't buy into it heavily enough to send the message to publishers that 'we want something new, and we really mean it'.
If you're a smaller movie studio or smaller game shop, you can take bigger risks as long as you keep costs down. There have been some great indy films and smaller publisher games over the years.
Re:Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:4, Interesting)
You're kidding, right? Have you seen:
* Any of the decidedly non-safe LOTR movies?
* American Beauty?
* Lost In Translation?
* The Matrix films (whether or not it's your thing)
* And tons more I can't list off the top of my head right now because it's 1:42AM and I'm tired...
Re:Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because some of them make more than others doesn't mean that even the relative flops weren't 'safe'.
American Beauty & Lost in Translation were character driven films, which wouldn't have cost a great deal (in relative terms) to make. Hence the risk wasn't great.
And Lost in Translation wasn't particularly original or challenging anyway, although obviously that's just IMHO.
Re:Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's think of some games which sold spectacularly well, or are played the most.
- The Sims. It's _the_ best selling game of all time, even taken by itself. If you add the seven full-price add-ons for it (and yes, some of us bought all seven:), it dwarfs any other game by ludicrious margins. In spite of being a 2D isometric game in an age of 3D bump-mapped pixel-shaded games.
- Counterstrike. The most played online game. It's based on Half Life, which is how old? Right. The graphics were horrible, the hostage AI was piss-poor, but people were buying Half Life like crazy just to play Counter-Strike. Why? A new mode of play.
But let's go even farther back in time:
- Diablo. Strictly speaking not totally new, but it still was original enough for a PC game. It also was a quality title: rock stable, good game balance, a good interface, easy learning curve, and basically a self-adjusting difficulty curve to fit most gamers. It sold like hot cakes.
- Dune II. A 2D 320x200 game, completely unimpressive as graphics go. Yet not only it sold great, it spawned a new genre. For a while everyone who wasn't making a FPS, was making a RTS instead.
- Wolfenstein 3D. You may notice that Id never needed a publisher ever since. Again, it was so popular that it spawned a whole new genre.
- Sim City. It practically invented the city building genre.
- Civilization. Probably the game which actually did _more_ than spawn a new genre. You'd be surprised how many games are essentially derived from Civilization. From obvious stuff like "Two Thrones" to practically any space colonization/empire building game out there, there's one solid market segment playing Civilization derivatives.
So, you see, my take is that people _did_ vote with their wallets for more original games, and did so again and again. Invariably truly new games sell _far_ better that titles whose only quality is "hey, look, we have even nicer textures. Look, we have 1324 screenshots too."
You think that would send a message to publishers already. But no, instead they'll keep making retarded clones instead. (And by "retarded" I mean: by people who haven't even understood what made the original sell well. So they'll make something that looks like a clone, but misses all the fun parts.)
No matter how many such truly original games appear and rake in a big pile of cash, the publisher still won't think "hey, let's try more original stuff." They'll just think "ooh, The Sims sold well. Let's include that in our next game."
(Except see above what I've said about retarded clones. So far they invariably missed every single part that made The Sims fun. Even though Will Wright even spelled it out in dozens of interviews.)
Re:Which leads to the unspoken truth... (Score:4, Informative)
Nowadays I can afford games and I buy them. However I do play less games than I used to, I have less time, and perhaps it is also because it is harder to pirate the games heh. But nowadays I have money and will pay if I like something.
Software is an funny industry, you have to accept that some copying will go on because it is easy to do so. If the industry can't turn a profit with the traditional one person - one sale business model then perhaps they are looking at the economics of the industry incorrectly?
Guts, guts and more guts (Score:4, Funny)
Don't tell me our kids aren't going to be semi-deranged from the combination of video-games, TV, internet and school environment as they stand at present.
Re:Creativity? (Score:4, Insightful)
I particularly object to slapping HL2 with this label; if you've seen the previews and the screenshots you know that this game will be revolutionary in many respects (graphics/game-play/physics engine/characters), the fact that it is a sequel is not relevant.
Also, what about the the massive multiplayer games? I think they are the future, and the sky is the limit there.
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Half-Life 2, while great-looking from the gameplay that's been shown so far, isn't revolutionary. It isn't using inverse kinematics for the first time in its physics engine, it isn't the first graphics engine to pass pixels more than once, and it isn't the first game to use vehicles in game play.
It might improve on these things, but it's not ushering in a new era of elements we've never seen before.
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly! currently, the overwhelming majority of games fall into the following categories:
everybody remembers when sim city first came out. it was revolutionary. why? because it developed a whole new category: simulations.
now there's a billion sim-foo games out there and the whole genre is in evolution mode: the sims "homeland security" expansion pack for example.
what the gaming industry needs is a genre-defining game. something that breaks open a whole new gaming motif like doom and sim city and warcraft did.
of course there will be those who say this isn't possible - that all the gaming paradigms have already been defined and nothing is really new anymore. but that's okay: we can't all be geniuses.
Re:Creativity? (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst thing to see in modern games is not just a lack of revolution, but even a lack of evolution. HL2 might
Re:Again with the Warcraft! (Score:5, Informative)
No no, they're really not. Warlords Battlecry [mobygames.com] did this about three years earlier, with much more depth.
Take "Total Annihilation" as an example (Score:4, Insightful)
There were 2 switches for unit behaviour, that could be set per unit, directly, via a group selection or as a default for new units from a specific factory.
The first was aggression: always shoot, only shoot back, do never shoot and the second was allowed path deviance: break orders whenever aggression triggered, stray only lightly from the path, stay on orders no matter what.
That was perfect in my opinion, since you could easily create guards, patrols, offensive patrols and suicide missions without the need for any "pre-fab"-stances.
These stances also applied to non-combat units, since you had a multitude of construction vehicles, that were all able to interact with one another, automatically.
Set a constructor to shoot-all, and it will repair anything damaged and harvest any resource it sees along its patrol. Set path straying to light and it would only repair standing units and buildings, set it to liberal and it would follow damaged units until they are fully repaired, then returning to the next path vertex. And all would aid in construction buildings automatically.
Now imagine you do this with 20 construction aircrafts, that patrol your base, repair all buildings, repair all defense units, aid in all construction projects and harvesting minor resource thingies along the way.
Imagine another thing: you could set the aircraft factory with a predefined guard route and the stance behaviour, then assign some construction units to "guard" that factory. They will then aid in all construction projects this factory starts and will heal the factory if it gets damaged. Since there are 20 units helping, it churns out aircrafts extremely quick. All these go on an offensive patrol directly or meandering into enemy territory, sweeping anything away they see en-route. All this, while you concentrate on the main tank/battleship attack, resource expansion or a stealth operation behind the enemy.
This is automation and that's what I expect from todays games. Westwoods "Dune2 Battle for Arrakis" had essentially created the genre, but you had to click and command each and every unit on its own. Wasted mouse and brain of the avid gamer in less than 3 hours, but it was still a great game. Command & Conquer added a central build interface, unit grouping, hotkeys. Starcraft made this more RPG-like with clear values for each aspect of the units and allowed the first automations. "Attack ground" for a rapidly growing hydralisk army bred from 10 or more hatches was devastating against all but the most skillful micromanagers, since it used the most valuable resource in a realtime-strategy game - human attention.
Warcraft3 went leaps and bounds backwards. This game needs such a minute attention to details, micromanagement on all occasions, even special units to care and feed for and even an inventory to fill properly. Come on, I wouldn't consider this "strategic" anymore. Strategy is a concentration on overall goals, resource management, unit mix and attack plans. Warcraft is more like a tactical element on a smaller scale. If you like it that way, no problem. But it wasn't revolutionary on any aspects. It just consumed too much attention with no chance of recovery.
Strategic games shouldn't give the player the feeling of a trained hamster in a wheel. Recurring and trivial clicky-tasks should be assigned to some of the units in the game. "Repair all buildings damaged in the last whatever-storm" shouldn't involve more than 3 clicks. Let the player decide how much micromanagement he'd like to use. And through that, you not only make the game fun to play with, you also create possibilities for more discoveries and "real" skill & experience increase for the player as they find new ways to let the units interact. That way, you can win the game with less-than-perfect hand-eye-coordination since you don't compare click speed but some kind of "leadership"-qualities. At least it does not become a boring clickfest...
Re:Creativity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do you put Civilization? It's not real time strategy. It's a turn based strategy. But that term usually applies to the now vanishing wargame, which Civilization is not in the strict sense. And where do you put the classic roleplaying games like Ultima, Bard's Tale, etc?
You ask too much, grasshopper (Score:4, Interesting)
Warcraft III was evolutionary enough to be entertaining. It developed the notion of 'heros gaining experience' for realtime strategy games and all the aspects that went with that. It improved upon the AI. It introduced multi-angle 3d to realtime strategy as far as I know.
Besides, how often has the publishing industry put out 'a new type of book.' Npt too often.
But unless there's some benefit or call for a 'revolutionary' type of game, 'evolutionary' improvements can keep things entertaining for a decade.
Besides, the advantage of 'sequel' games is that people can pick them up quickly and play them with their friends without a huge learning curve. They just need to learn the particulars of the current game. Too much 'revolution' kills the market because it takes too long for many people to learn to play the new game. This means fewer multi-player games, removing a big incentive for folks to buy and a particular game.
I used to test games for Turbo Graphix. I kept telling them they should focus their efforts of making one or two good multi-player games.
With the possible exception of bomber man, and dungeon explorer, they never did.
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Funny)
Totally. MMOL lumberjacking is where it's at.
Re:Creativity? (Score:4, Insightful)
One big problem I see as a bit of an outsider these days is just how inward gaming has become. It has it's own website, cartoons, language and television stations. Massively multiplayer games are exactly the wrong thing because they only encourage more niche culture and make gaming even moreso inward and exclusive. Interacting online is neat but I don't think most people want to become some Everquest playing vegetable who hasn't been exposed to sunlight in 96hrs.
To me the most interesting ideas have been those that encourage all sorts of people to play games like DDR and the Eye Toy. Gaming needs to involve more people and get out of the Penny Arcade mindset of in-jokes and niche vernacular. Creativity requires inspiration and when you live in that world of 16-21yo middle class males, well, of course things are gonna start getting as stale as your buddy's BO after a three day LAN party.
Agreed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Still other times you have a "sequel" to something that is so old, that the developers can't help but reimagine it for the current technology, and you have what looks to be a very promising title, such as with the upcoming Sam & Max game...
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creativity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd bet that "yahoo games" or popcap games are as popular as the traditional store bought games.
Simulation type games (Monoploy Tycoon - SimCity) aren't touched neither, nor are Sports type games.
This article doesn't really seen to a variety of games at all. Yet it implies that "new" games aren't coming out. They are.
Re:Creativity? (Score:4, Insightful)
SimCity, while a great design for its time, has had four sequels of various types (I include the SNES version). I think the last version that Will Wright had direct input on was SimCity 2000. (I could be wrong on that.) And Sports games are arguably the least creative genre -- even the first sports video game was a copy, and there isn't really that much to distinguish each Madden (X) from its corresponding Madden (X-1).
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, good graphics don't make a game any more then special effects make the new Star Wars movies. There's always been bad games and there's always been good ones. Cutting-edge graphics are a constant, they will always be of major importance.
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Interesting)
At 43 I'm one of the original video game generation, starting with \spacewar and various Apple1 sims. I still love gaming as much as I did 20 or 25 years ago but if I have a choice between jumping my wife's bones or hanging with a bunch of 15 year olds in some 'clan' the kids can go on without me. Sorry, I've got the doctorate to work on and other stuff to do to bother with a LAN party, so I won't pay one cent more for that functionality; good AI (defined as something that can suprise me 9 times out of 10 and approach each situation differently even in replays) is worth an extra $30 or $40.
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it depends on what type of game experience you're looking for. If you're looking to shoot at things in a crosshair in a first-person view without a pesky story to get in the way, I might agree with you. Otherwise, I think your view is perhaps the most ridiculous and over-used sentiments in the gaming community.
Maybe I'm wrong, but looking back at amazing gaming experiences such as Fallout, Deus Ex, Half-Life, Splinter Cell, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (to name a few), I can't imagine how any these games could've been made better with human characters, rather than AI characters. Heck, I can't imagine how these games wouldn't be total shit if the characters were human-controlled. And where are you going to find all of these humans to play these characters for you in a manner which is the slightest bit as interesting as the AI characters?
In environments where games are designed to focus on the hero of the story, AI characters offer the best available experience. In a human-only gaming environment, you're just another name, and with only a few exceptions (ie. the most talented players), no one else in the game world could give a rat's ass who you are. That works great for some games, like Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike, but games in that vain will never, ever replace great single-player experiences. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy both types of games. But I predict that the future of gaming to be much like it is now, as far as the relative number of single-player games vs. multi-player games on the market is concerned.
Re:Creativity? (Score:3, Funny)
I keep hearing people say this (and the ever-popular "gameplay was better in the 80s"), but when a game *does* come out that has a more basic arcade-style feel (like P.N.03 on the Gamecube) it does terribly. P.N.03 even has good graphics in addition to the old-school gameplay mechanics, and it still sold pretty poorly.
The future of the current gaming industry is online gaming and LAN parties.
I certainly hope not. I
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creativity? (Score:5, Interesting)
While it did fail (miserably), Nintendo also took a chance and developed the Virtual Boy. Sony and MS, on the other hand (while respectable companies) have decided to make systems and games which are already proven winners (violence, RPGs, FPSs). And I think we can all assume that the Nintendo DS is a really creative idea (which can very well sink the company or put it back to #1). Just my $0.02...
Re:Creativity? (Score:3, Insightful)
if there are ten original games a year the next year there will be ten base games and ten more orignal games. the next year there will be 20 base games and still only te
Garage Games (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Garage Games (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Garage Games (Score:4, Insightful)
The Incredible Machine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, I've never seen a 3D version.
And people still cry out for a 3D version of Leisure Suit Larry
Who needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Creativity != features; improvement != revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Industries that turned into re-dos of old ideas with only a small number of new ideas long ago, but don't seem to have hurt very much financially from it:
Books
Movies
Music
Magazines
I'm sure you can think of even more if you take a few minutes. I think the article is a little premature to say the gaming industry will shrink if we don't see more creativity. They don't seem to have any evidence of that beyond one developer's opinion. If you look at the hard numbers, I'd suspect that the overall industry continues to grow as more PCs and game consoles are sold to new households around the world.
Re:Who needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
BOOKS: There's still new literature being published. If you have something really new and interesting, there are still places that think this is an asset instead of a liability. And even in relatively traditional genres like mysteries, there is some degree of innovation.
MOVIES: Again, studios still sometimes make thoughtful, enlightened work. The success of such films as Clerks and The Blair Witch Project make it clear that it's possible to make successful original cinema with little cash, a great inspiration to all those guys with a camera and a dream. Computers have really lowered the entry barrier on this one.
MUSIC: Well, you can believe the RIAA's story that piracy is hurting sales, or you can look at their preponderance of girl stars and boy bands, and Clear Channel's locking up of mainstream radio. Even so, there are plenty of independent bands out there that may not be famous or get rich, but are doing what they want, and having fun doing it.
MAGAZINES: Kind of a weird thing to bring up. Magazines tend to be driven more from utilitarian principles than out of a need to entertain and create. Even so, the field is constantly expanding and changing.
It's a basic human trait to seek novelty. The possible audience may go up, but people *will not* play the same game over and over again, forever. Even Tetris got old after the thousandth game. The question is, are new games different enough from old ones that people will keep buying them?
I'm also not so sure the audience is increasing. As more people get computers the market is becoming saturated. Most people don't need more than one, and the perceived benefit to upgrading is diminishing.
Re:Who needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
There IS certainly innovation among all those categories (books, films, music, etc.), but the VAST MAJORITY of the innovation is usually being made on a very small scale, with just a handful of talented individuals working on the edge. Movies are a great example. Blair Witch was not produced by a Hollywood theatre, nor are the dozens of indie films snatched up by Hollywood distributors at Sundance and other film festivals. They are made by a few people, almost always on a shoestring budget (often funded on someone's credit cards!). A number of these films are made with astonishingly low budgets... El Mariachi was done on $10K, and many not much more than that. The same goes for books (where just a single person working in their spare hours can produce the next classic), music, and zines.
Now... back to the game industry. What can anyone do with $10K these days? That would hardly be enough money to purchase one high-end workstation with Maya and other requisite software tools. You see, people are EXPECTING highly polished graphics and gameplay out of each new video game. Long gone are the days where a single Russian program can whip out Tetris in a few weeks of effort, and create a sensation. I'm sure that thousands of slashdotters have tremendous ideas for awesome games, and many of them have the programming skills to pull it off. But if they are to to compete with the current big-name titles, they have to play by their rules. Who will do the artwork? The motion capturing and animation? The original music score? The voice-overs? The analogy to films would be like if the movie-going audience demanded to see Return of the King-quality battles and special effects in EVERY film they see. If that were the case, then the indie film industry would be dead as a doornail too.
There is room for innovation here (think of games like Snood) but the game-going audience needs to lose their addiction to big-name licenses and fancy production values and focus on the one thing that gaming is about : fun.
Bob
Re:Answer me something... (Score:5, Insightful)
He claimed that the RIAA is claiming that piracy is hurting sales, and then pointed out that their hand-wringing was contradicted by their continued success.
Be that as it may, I believe the grandparent's skepticism is well-founded. "Piracy" (what a terrible term) has -- according to pretty much every study that wasn't commissioned by payments from the major labels (and even a few that were) -- either a negligible or positive affect on sales.
I've never understood Slashdot's reasoning for this.
Well, first of all, -2 points for assuming that all of Slashdot has a single opinion on anything.
If you've never understood the reasoning behind people arguing that sharing a product also being sold doesn't automatically hurt sales, you are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "advertising". You've also never read any of Janis Ian's or Cory Doctorow's essays on the matter -- two people in a position to actually be able to compare their sales figures before and after.
If you choose to remain ignorant of arguments being presented by either side, that's really not "Slashdot"'s problem.
Context: Industry Faces 'Crisis of Creativity' (Score:5, Interesting)
Enjoy some context (not intended as a criticism). Part of the reason is demographic trends and part of the reason is financial. The ideas in the article seem to support a shift to creativity as discussed in an article with some game industry experts last year.
Moving on (Score:3, Insightful)
Imminent death of net predicted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Imminent death of net predicted (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's good, it's good (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is not just EA chasing after proven material. Upcoming titles such as "Halo 2," "Half-Life 2," "Doom III" and "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" are all expected to top sales charts this year, in large part because the games that preceded them were so successful.
Sure this will get them noticed more, but if the games don't have innovative graphics and gameplay, the popularity of the previous titles is not going to mean shit.
Hmm, (Score:5, Funny)
The movie industry seems to be doing just fine on sequels, I think the game industry will be fine though.
And just for the record, no I didn't read the article.
Re:Hmm, (Score:5, Funny)
It gets worse: MacOS X is based on BSD.
Sequels can't sell if they aren't entertaining (Score:3, Insightful)
Successful only because their predecessors were? (Score:5, Insightful)
They may not be original, but that certainly doesn't mean they won't be fun, which is what gaming's supposed to be about. Why reinvent the wheel when you know what people like?
To Reply: (Score:5, Funny)
What is the 11th word in the seventh paragraph on the first page of this article?
Re:To Reply: (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations! You have succesfully captured the criminal and the stolen goods will be returned to its rightful owner. You have been promoted to gumshoe. To continue, you must enter in the word on top of page 219 of the Fodor's USA Travel Guide.
(flips through book, see's first word on page)
>Georgia
(oh crap! wrong word!)
That is incorrect. You have failed the copy protection!!! Game Over!
Who can forget Zak McCracken (Score:3, Interesting)
I know one sequel I want to see... (Score:3, Informative)
Not too sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: Creativity has been floundering for a long time, but people keep buying games, keep watching TV, keep going to the movies. Businesspeople would be fools to abandon a known quantity (the revenues of any sequel are easily predictable) in favor of new stories and fresh faces, not matter how much some of us would love to see them. To think that people will suddenly stop buying games because they're all sequels is silly; gamers really have no choice except not to play... and only in WarGames/I. is that a real option.
Re:Not too sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that just a remake of a 2000 year old story?
And you thought that videogames were re-hashing the same old ideas...
Re:Not too sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
logical mistake? (Score:3, Interesting)
the fact that the originals were successful suggests the designers did something right. so what does it mean that they will *ONLY* be successful because their predecessors were?
in other news: "$team won the $league, but only because they beat all their opponents"
the only thing they might mean is that the games suck but they will still succeed on hype, but how the f*ck can they say that when they aren't even anywhere near release date yet?
Maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Half-Life 2 will be successful not purely on its name. Half-Life had no name to begin with, and the company that made it had no prior history. That was their first game, and it became one of the most successful games in history. They've had time to learn from their mistakes and do cool new things in this game.
Halo 2 I know nothing about. I have no interest in it since it will probably be an Xbox-only title, so perhaps someone here who finds Xbox interesting can give us some insight on the potential technical innovations for that game.
GTA: San Andreas. How can you make a statement one way or the other on this one at this point in time? They have yet to release any actual information on the game yet. We haven't seen any screenshots or feature lists or anything. If they're knocking the possibility of innovation based purely upon its name, then let's take a trip down memory lane and remember the differences between GTA and GTA2.. then GTA2 and GTA3 (clearly the biggest difference), then GTA3 to Vice City (not really a huge difference technically, but I think the gameplay was much improved and it was even more fun than GTA3 for most people). Anyway, the point is that without any information about what GTA:SA will be like, you have no room to knock it at all. They may have expanded this game to be a fucking huge region instead of a single city.
Doom 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Doom 3 is retro. The last Doom game came out while I was still in high school.
2) Doom 3 is a significant advance over the last sequel. It's not just new levels.
Saying Doom 3 is just a sequel is like saying Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was just a sequel. There's no comparison.
Still, I think that companies will start coming out with more creative games soon. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised of LARPing became the next big thing, and games that are offshoots of RPGs became bigger, such as the White-Wolf titles, only with more roleplay.
Re:Doom 3 (Score:4, Funny)
The public has already found what it wants. (Score:5, Interesting)
"We have to think very carefully about the type of audience we're reaching with our games," Andrew House,
These two quotes sum it up perfectly.
It's not that new, original, refreshing mechanics of gameplay aren't -- it's that they're not what's marketable. By far, the largest chunk of the gaming public is that which loves sports games, racing games, FPS's, and traditional RPGs.
Games like those can only deviate from their core gameplay so much before they stop appealing to that chunk. Furthermore, it's not just about mechanics, but style. Except for RPGs, nitty-gritty "realism" is what dominates; just look at Need for Speed, Project Gotham, Unreal Tournament, Halo, Madden. That style dominates and will continue to dominate until a large-scale shift in gaming culture happens, something on the scale of the transition from 2D SNES cuteness to grim-and-cool 3D PlayStation.
What of titles like Pikmin, Fusion Frenzy, Cubivore, or that one game where you go down tunnels and match up music with what's written on the walls? Marginalized, utterly marginalized. They are all fantastic games -- and had they come out during the golden age, the '70s and '80s, when game mechanics were just beginning to be explored and there were very few established norms, they might have become classics.
It's Like ClearChannel... (Score:5, Insightful)
The saddest thing about it is, if there were ever a new game that did what, say, Legend of Zelda did back in the 80's, the company that put it out could make zillions. It's not like they'd lose much putting out crappy stuff meanwhile, either.
The unique ones often go unnoticed... (Score:5, Interesting)
I seriously regret having put it off for months.
The story, though fairly basic, is sometimes downright hilarious. There were three times where I seriously had to contain myself, and throughout the rest of the plot there are many of chuckles. A lot of things are simply said in the dialogue that really came out of left field. And it all comes through with great anime style, and quality voice acting. This is akin to the "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail" of tactical RPGs.
There's a lot of hidden things to explore. The demon senate concept is amusing to say the least, though I haven't managed to persuade any senators by force yet. The item world is ridiculous, and turns the game into a FF Tactics meets Dungeon Crawl concept since its always different, and I end up with all sorts of crazy items if I survive.
And the core game itself? Pretty good. I'm 9 chapters in after about 30 hours, and have a feeling it'll be 60 hours before I just beat the core game -- but they're going by as fast as they did for the original FF Tactics. Nevermind the fact the game supposedly has a ton of different endings, and that I could spend forever leveling up to level 9999, getting all sorts of insane items and ridiculous looking attacks, etc.
Yet, good luck finding it. 14 stores and one had two in stock. I'm sure this was a low-volume venture by Atlus here in the states. I've thoroughly enjoyed it, but most folks haven't even heard of it. Which is a shame.
----- ----- -----
Perhaps people would buy original games ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's why web-delivered games [ridiculopathy.com] are getting to be a lot like the independent film scene. They cost much less to produce and distribute than console or PC-specific games so developers and designers can experiment more. Also, consumers expect more risks.
For example, in the console market people will buy up racing & football sequels where the only changes are new stats and color schemes. On the other hand, sites that offer only "look I made a clone of that other game but in FLASH" fare tend not to do well.
Re:Perhaps people would buy original games ... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an area where I think a system like Xbox Live could really start to shine. Why not offer limited, playable
Re:Perhaps people would buy original games ... (Score:3, Informative)
Nearly all console games debut at $49.99. And many will stay at that price point for a long time.
On the other hand, PC games usually start out a little cheaper, and are discounted much more quickly.
Today you can buy Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow from Ubisoft for $49.99 on the Xbox. The same game (which just came out) is only $39.99 for the PC. And they were throwing in a free T-shirt if you bought the PC version. The T-Shirt sells for
I for one like sequels. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that certain sequels like Grand Tursimo 3, Soul Calibur II, GTA3 etc. are better than many of the so called creative games.
Not to mention that many sequels are very new and diffrent and have very little in common with the previous titles other than the name.
Games are currently outdoing the movie industry in sales....so games are dead, long live games.
Uh...again? (Score:3, Insightful)
After the News at 11 (Score:3, Funny)
Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
seriously, we need Nintendo to start making up games again - just like back in the day...
wait a minute...
Actually, now that I think about it, the whole concept behind an Italian plumber and his brother fighting an evil turtle with spikes (ok, its a
"Koopa") to save Toadstools (mushrooms) and a really hot cartoon chick of a princess really by eating fireplants and shooting fireballs, and sprouting a racoons tail and ears to fly does make me wonder what they were doing when they came up with that concept....
(Of course, then again you have to wonder about the Ninja Turtles, Sonic [a flying fox?, a superfast hedgehog?], Power Rangers, etc... Pokemon I can kinda understand, as uhm, they're kinda a pet thing...)
Re:Trust (Score:5, Informative)
-Tom
Re:Trust (Score:3, Interesting)
HEH. (Score:5, Funny)
*drawing his sword*
I DUB THEE SIR FUCKING OF THE OBVIOUS!
(Shameless Plug) (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballers is coming up soon- I've played it, and I can say it's like no other game I've really played before- like the previews keep saying, it plays like a fighting game/basketball hybrid of some sort.
And, last but certainly not least- coming up later in the year is Psi-Ops, which (ahem) is going to be fantastic
Anyway, point being it makes me sad to see this constant claim of no innovation in the industry when I feel like there are people out there trying to innovate. It's not their faul that, at the end of the day, innovation may not actually be what the public wants!
New Games Don't Sell (Score:5, Interesting)
I could think of many others. There are some that have another reason (for example many rythum games don't do too well in the US), but many were just great games that didn't do to well. I think a big part of the problem is that many parents buy games. So why risk their $50 or $60 on something the kid might not like when they know the kid has GTA3 or NBA 2k3 or some other game and they can just buy the sequel and the kid will almost certainly like it (even though it might not be that great).
There are many games out there, and many are fun. But personally I don't buy very many games (innovative or not). There are games that I've played and then thought "I wish I bought that", but I'm not going to because I've already beat the game. But far Far FAR more often the game wasn't that good (or terrible) or it was just short. I can't afford to take the chance to buy games. If games were $30, I would buy more, but a $60 for a new game you've got to be kidding me if you think I'll buy any games that look interesting. I think this is proven by the fact that I have about 5x as many GB/GBA games as most other consoles. Losing $25 or $30 on a game that looked fun (FF: Tactics was nice, but just not for me) isn't so bad. But if the games cost more, I wouldn't buy very many.
Sequels aren't always bad. Some are very innovative or really improve things (think GTA3 vs GTA2). As you can see above I'm eargly awaiting the sequels to many games. The problem is that some games get a sequel. Then they get another and another and before you know it you're on volume 10 of about the same thing. (Final Fantasy games don't count because each one is different, they're not true sequels (except X-2, which is almost "non-sequel" in it's own right)).
The end result of all this (and I think moving away from the razor blade model of video games would REALLY help) is that we get mostly sequels and remakes/collections and such.
I can't afford to take risks on innovative games. Of those above, I own Animal Crossing (because I rented it and got addicted to it and bought it) and Pikmin (because it looked fun and I trust Miyamoto). It's too risky.
Creativity study on GBA (Score:3, Interesting)
To tie it into a "shrinking market" angle, I think that the size of the GBA installed base says that, at least at some level, there is a huge sector of the public willing to eat crap and call it great. Judging from the ongoing poor level of quality in all other media for as long as anyone can remember, it seems that this sector of the public is here permanently and thus there will always be a huge market for drivel. Oh well.
Re:Creativity study on GBA (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is funders and bad management... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is with the people FUNDING the game industry. The independent shops are being swallowed by companies that have made loads of cash getting away with pumping out sequels that have only minor engine improvements. This sucks, but worked for a while in a few profitable genres. Many companies that tried to push it died after too many generations (I used to work at Accolade, that's part of what killed them...)
Unfortunately, people that funds games look at this seeming no-risk model, and refuse to fund anything that doesn't look like the same. They all want you to license an existing engine, and make a game that can be described in a single sentence as {profitable game A } crossed with {profitable game B.}
If you don't follow this model, you don't get funds.
As a related point, there are WAY too many companies in the industry for the amount of shelf space available, and the big players BUY shelf space, so its nearly impossible to compete anyway without cutting a deal with an existing major distributor. Want to do that? Guess what, you have to change your game to follow the same model as everyone else.
In the mean time, the EA's and Sony's of the world are pushing their developers harder and harder - they've currently got a surplus of available headcounts to replace all the burnt out ones with...
The industry needs more "angel" funders. But in this economy...
"New" was never a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider that men have been going to bars, drinking too much and going home with ugly women for thousands of years. (The oldest known human recipe is a Mesopotamian recipe for beer) Obviously humans can do what they like indefinately, even if they regret it the next morning.
Re:"New" was never a requirement (Score:4, Funny)
Now that is patently false. I drink too much and go home with hot women... I just wake up with ugly ones.
Product Comparisons (Score:5, Interesting)
How do most game concepts start? "Super Killer Frenzy Shooter is a cross between Quarter-Life 3 and ReallyFarOutCry, with an RTS component based on..." Even game developers are constantly comparing games to other games by saying this is a little of that, and a little of this, or just like game X but with feature Y. I can only imagine that other creative industries do the same (movies come to mind.)
This is not just the way big publishers do business. A lot of pitches I've seen from smaller developers include how they are different or better than a list of already released games. Mostly popular games.
Most game companies are out to make money. Usually so they can continue to make games and not end up on the dole. So, we tend to look at what is popular and selling. It's very risky, especially with the game development budgets these days, to try something brand new. It still happens, it just doesn't happen as much as the early 8-bit days when it was literally one guy in the garage doing all the design, coding and art. Unless you look at the shareware, PDA and demo scenes where small teams and individuals are still making games there.
Sequels are popular with publishers because a) they tend to cost less to develop since you can use assets/engines/design from the first game, b) if the first game was popular, the sequel _usually_ sells well unless it's a bad game, c) you can get more press since you don't have to sell the magazines on a completely brand new concept that they are not sure will appeal to their market and d) you find it easier to get "buy-in" from your internal sales and marketing staff when dealing with a known property.
I don't think the games industry is non-creative, but we've definitely matured and tend to take less risks overall. Sequels and derivitive products are a way of reducing that risk.
It's worse than just retro (Score:3, Insightful)
The basic problem is the one we discovered in the early days of virtual reality - no matter how good the graphics get, all you can really do in there is move around, shoot stuff, point at stuff, and select things from menus.
Ratio vs number? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like, the number of new games showing up is constant, but besides them, more sequels appear?
I wouldn't be too surprised. Creativity not waning, but not growing either, market growing seriously, gap between market growth and available creativity filled with sequels. Nothing to really worry about.
'Only' because their predecessors were successful? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wholeheartedly agree that there nearly isn't enough creativity in the video-game industry. Because it is a mass entertainment medium, the incentive to give the creative people real creative freedom is severely lacking. But also, because video-games are such a mass entertainment media, the laws of market apply to it, i.e. more often than not, a bad game will flop, and a good game will sell, sequel or no sequel. Like with movies. This is what recently happened with, say, Deus Ex 2, which had a lot of hype going for it and a huge fanbase but (even though I loved it) most people didn't like it and it flopped, even though it was a sequel to one of the most critically acclaimed games of the past decade.
That said, there are several other things to take into account.
First of all, what matters in a game isn't the title as much as the gameplay mechanics. In a movie or a book, a sequel implies a lot of things : same characters, same genre, same universe... Of course there are lots of unconventional sequels out there, but in a videogame what is appealing is the gameplay (in the broader sense, i.e. gaming experience, graphics, etc.) more than the characters or the story. Look at a game like The Legend of Zelda : The wind Waker. It's, what, the tenth sequel to one of the most successful franchises in videogame history? And yet wasn't that a very ballsy game? The Wind Waker was a very innovative game in more than one way. A very creative game, no matter how much of a sequel it was. Sams with an other hit console game like Prince of Persia : The Sands of Time. An other adaptation of an old school 2D game into a 3D masterpiece. Boooring you say? No, because even though it's a sequel, there are tons of creativity jammed into it. The gameplay mechanics, the famed rewind, the animation, the level design... The point here is that because videogames rely so much on gameplay mechanics, a sequel is far from meaning an uninnovative or non-creative game.
Very far from it.
The main problem with the videogame industry isn't that there isn't creativity, it's that there is no incentive to give the creative people the creative freedom they require -- much like Hollywood. As long as boring, unimaginative sequels will sell, why should execs look further than boring, unimaginative sequels? I only wish that there was a 'creativity crisis' in the video-game industry. Those things force the people with the big $$$ to take chances, to crop the useless fat out. Look at what happened with television : HBO proved with The Sopranos that a quality TV series could actually make money. Now we see all kinds of great shows pop up all around the place like Six Feet Under, K Street, but not just on cable, with The Shield, CSI, and many more like The Wire, Dead Like Me, and more I'm forgetting. Only a few years back the only reason I kept a TV was out of habit, for DVDs and the occasional documentary or Star Trek. Now I find myself cancelling dates (yes, I can get dates) to watch a great TV show. The problem with the videogame industry is that a good videogame takes a lot of money, and a lot of skills. The time when you could program a game on your Amiga in your bedroom while your brother drew the sprites and made a bad MIDI soundtrack for it is long gone. Once again, why is HL so good? Because they've been working at it since the first one came out! And because Valve hired some of the best programmers they could find! That's what, six/seven years of development and with very talented people. I can only imagine how much money has been invested in this project. And it paid off! The game is fantastic, even before it came out. It's got the best graphical engine anyone has ever seen (John C
Few "New" games capture my interest nowadays (Score:3, Insightful)
I am in my mid 30s. Most of the games I loved as a teenager are on MAME but don't allow for progression/devlopment - unless you play the sequal, of course.
Precious few computer games of recent memory really engaged me for more than a few days. They were, in no particular order:
1) Civilization II (the king of them all) and III
2) DungeonMaster (a close second from the Amiga, which hit the PC way too late)
3) Ultima III and IV (now I'm really showing my age...).
4) Diablo II and the expansion pack
5) Starcraft and Warcraft III
6) Myst and Siberia
7) uMoria (DOS and GUI).
IMO, these games were either truly innovative or so improved on their predecessor to merit BUYING the game and reccomending it to my friends.
also, IMO arcarde games were moved faster into obscurity by the fact that they focused to heavily on the street fighter genre. This is not to say that street fighter was not a great game because it was, but as time went by these were all I saw in the arcades.
Similarly, when I go into the computer stores today to buy games, I see a clear focus on the 1st person rendered/shooter types to the extent that they appear to be crowding out ideas for other games. Unreal is great fun if your reflexes are great, but snipers picking me off from God-know where just takes the fun out of it for me. Maybe this is the criticism that the article had in mind about few truly innovative game ideas.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to be said for gorgeous 3d rendered graphics and visual realism, but that should be the foundation, not the substance of a game.
.
Creativity vs. Finance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is music repetitive, cliche, formulaic?
Why are motions picture even worse... special effects fodder? Mindless, action packed fantasies, design scientifically to appeal to the male and pimply... in the never ending quest to suck dollars out of young people's pockets.
If anything... the games genre is even more clearly designed to go after that young male demographic, with a second wave of assault aimed at male adults (namely violent games that include some degree of sexually explicit content.)
What has always been at the bottom of human experience is the compelling story, the deep and moving experience, a chance to go, do, be something you might never get the chance of doing or being in this life. A great game, has to first be a compelling story... it has to have a context, which is artful, involving, absorbing. It has to create a viable universe that allows people to discover themselves newly, heroic, or antiheroic. There will always be new and compelling paradigms for human interaction.
One could combine existing game categories creating comletely new game types... one could come up with a new game genre all-together... The interactive novel, you press a button, and suddenly you're part of an interactive, compelling universe, a story driven by actions, choices, and an author's intent. A story that is complex. subtle, mysterious, that demands that you be smart, show finesse, and strength... Or maybe one could create a game which is a puzzle, where a team of players has to take elements, visual, linguistic (programmable code?), or alternately perceptual (music, motion, magic.) And combine them, related them, assemble them into a whole, a creation, a unique solution to the puzzle space. Then in an arena, teams compete, either for the love and appreciation of the spectators, or for some kind of game points... It took only a few seconds to invent something unique... A bright person could spin ideas out all day long... this isn't magic.
People... it's a wide open universe, you can do anything y'damn well please. The limitation of guaranteed profit (the worst kind of fallacy), or get in quick, get out quick, hit and run, sloppy. greedy half-assed attempts to shakedown the lusers, is it's own resolution. In the end, people will just walk away shaking their heads and find something else to do with their time and money.
It's not hard to create something unique. It's not hard to create something compelling and beautiful. It is however impossible to create anything that satisfies the bakers and beancounters, when the first contraint, is to make money without risk...
One more reason, to give people who aren't bound by the profit motive, the tools and space to create new and unique play environments.
Genda
The Apocalypse of Gaming (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, people, let's pull out heads out of our short term asses and realize:
-The Gaming Industry isn't doomed
-PC Gaming will not die out because of console competition
-The industry goes through cycles and there's no shortage of creativity
Oh yeah-- We'll be running out of oil in 25 years too.
plenty of creativity on display at GDC (Score:5, Interesting)
At the IGDA awards, three games were given "Game Innovation Spotlights": the EyeToy, Viewtiful Joe, and WarioWare Inc. All three of these seem quite novel and worthy of the attention.
At the Experimental Gameplay Workshop, both indies and mainstream games were shown. On the indie front, this year's Indie Game Jam [indiegamejam.com] games (full disclosure: I co-run this event); Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates [puzzlepirates.com]; and Zoesis' [zoesis.com] The Demon and the Princess. On the commercial front, the creator of Namco's Katamari Damashii [gamespot.com] spoke about and demoed the game ("Was it difficult to convince Namco to let you do this game?" "Of course." was even funnier with the long pause for translation between question and answer); we had presentations about WarioWare and about the explorations of time as a game mechanic (specifically in Prince of Persia, Max Payne 1 & 2, and Viewtiful Joe).
(There were a few more presentations about more academic "games": Ken Perlin's work on natural-language-programming for kids, "Haptic Battle Pong", and I forget what else, as I was developing a fever during the 3-hour EGW.)
The winner of the Indie Games Festival's web downloadable grand prize, Oasis [oasisgame.com], is a fairly original and creative game (full disclosure: I did contract work for Oasis' developers on a different project), and since this is announced at essentially the same ceremony as the IGDA awards it has a fairly significant cachet.
So I think the Reuters reporters just didn't go to the right events at the GDC.
The story itself has plenty of debatable claims. Are gamers, as the article claims, getting more conservative, or are publishers just getting extremely conservative and releasing more sequels and focusing their marketing dollars there? Hint: nobody debates the truth of the latter.
Industry right on track. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will use the movie industry as an example and I believe the analogy will become fairly self evident. In the early phases of film making the director had to struggle with many technical issues as the art form was in it's infancy. Low light shots, grey balance, film processing, sound editing and duplication were enormous technical and logistical hurdles. As the technology of this artform became more complex, people involved became specialized in their particular niche of the process. The technical resources are now available to the director without the complete, in depth knowlege of each process. The director is free to focus on his particular job: making the best movie possible. (Please note, I'm not in the entertainment industry, I'm just hoping to make a point here)
A video game, without question, is a form of art and entertainment. I believe that the industry is still in a developing phase. In the beginning, the person programming the game WAS the director. Typically they concieved the game, developed, programmed and had the challenge of overcoming all technical and creative issues. (Relatively few creative issues, I might add [think: pong]).
Now the indusrty is seeing it's split of fields. People are now only responsible for texture mapping 3-d models. Other people work on physics engines. We have been seeing the specialization of technical fields within this industry. My arguement is that this specialization allows for greater creative freedom by those whose job it is to just "make great games".
Lastly, I think there have been a lot of crap games recently, but let's look at why that is. Well, why is it such a high percentage of early movies made are now considered classics? Well, they were good movies, but why? Because the people who made them were professionals and it was expensive to make a movie back then, so they took it seriously. Today, anybody with a DV Camcorder and iMovie can make a film, but how much of the stuff thats churned out is actually worth watching? It's the same with video games, the development and distribution costs of game making has dropped dramatically and the technology to produce games is now as easy as getting a developers kit and a PC.
Any discussion of the current state (or future) of the gaming industry without at least a footnote to the entertainment industries history, I think, is somewhat lacking perspective. I believe the industry is in an acceptable place, given its relatively short history.
Games we really need (Score:4, Funny)
Finally, massively multiplayer comes to GTA. The bad guys are played by players in South Central LA and Medellin, Columbia. You can do actual drug deals in the GTA world. "Live in your world - deal in ours". Now with fully encrypted voice chat.
The first soap opera video game. Online, but requires only occasional dialup, because the pace is so slow. Includes in-game shopping. Astrology option included.
Try to do Karl Rove's job, manipulating the electorate to get Republicans elected. High-scorers win internships at the Heritage Foundation.
Get in touch with your inner sniper. Comes with a light gun that emulates a full-sized sniper rifle. Choice of M-40A1, Dragunov, or H&K G3. A press of a single key turns the game into Deer Hunter, in case right-wing parents come in the room. Includes NRA membership application and one-year subscription to Guns and Ammo.
Tropico for the Islamic world. You're the dictator. Get too oppressive, and there's a revolt. Lighten up too much, and the religious fanatics overthrow you. Can you develop nuclear weapons before the US catches on?
Why just gamble? Run your own online casino. Take bets, pay off bets, make or lose money. All transactions are fully anonymous and are routed through servers in the Bahamas. A Donald Trump popup gives you advice. Screw up, and he bellows "You're Fired", and your machine shuts down.
Now, buy Baby Think It Over, the doll that teaches you how to care for a baby, at a low, low affordable price. Screams when hungry. Screams when diaper needs to be changed. Screams at threshold of pain if treated roughly. Can't be turned off. Uses special disposable single-use diapers, available wherever toys are sold.
Thumpa, thumpa, thumpa, all night long. Set a few sliders, twist a few mix pads, and out comes original house music. Upload your songs to peer-to-peer networks. Subwoofer optional.
Risk vs. Return (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes a lot of money to make a commercially successful game, and most investors don't want to invest in "starving artists" with just and idea and no real solid plan for financial return.
Young Gamers are poor, Older gamers are frugle... (Score:4, Interesting)
And to tell you the truth that hasn't changed in all these years I still like games from those categories/genres. I have expanded my gaming to included PC gaming, RTS and online FPS like Quake/unreal. But the gameplay/genre could still be boiled down to 5-6 genres you can count on your fingers.
There's a few problems and realities that the industry has to face:
1) Games and gaming are $!@# expensive (Esp for teens/kids who don't have rich parents) which limits the size of the market who can afford them. Look at what happened when Nintendo dropped their Gamecube to $99 they sold 2.5 million more! Thats nothing to sneeze at you just increased your market by 15-20% with a single price cut. I believe games themselves could reach a much wider audience if they didn't cost so much to produce and retail for over $40US ($60-70$CDN).
2) The older you become the more discriminating and jaded you get with the more games you play. It's unavoidable, the novelty loss gets worse with time, it becomes harder and harder to wow a seasoned gamer. Your nostalgic 'old favorites' from when you were a kid look like a pile of crap nowadays, with the rare few old games that are as your nostalgic mind remembers them.
3) Game rentals, I'm sorry but game renting negates almost any reason for anyone to purchase a game. The publishers and companies are just F'n dumb I swear! Available game rentals should be DEMOS of the game, not the complete thing. How moronic it is when you can buy and finish a game on 4-7$ weekend rental at blockbuster then fork out $40-50 for a brand new singleplayer game that once finished sits on the shelf and collects dust, thats over 500% savings at least for the same gaming experience!
Gaming industry has to wake up and realize that games are consumed differently them movies. It's not like the movie industry where you release to the theatres first and then make DVD/VHS versions available later, and you can consume movies much faster then you can consume games due to their short length of usually 1-2hrs. Rented games are available usually the day they are released, which totally negates any reason to buy them, after you've already played them! It's very simple economics really. Thats what has been the norm all throughout these years in thh industry, you can rent any game and finish it in a weekend rental for %500 less then actually buying the game.
Re:New, must-have games drive console sales. (Score:3, Interesting)
Morrowind to a lesser degree, as well.
Re:i blame EA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mario
Zelda
Metroid
Sonic
Street Fighter
King Of Fighters
Pokemon (hell this year they are just re-releasing Red/Blue!)
Final Fantasy
Metal Gear
I could go on, but the point stands. And I'm tired of typing for today. Silly AC.
Re:4 kinds (Score:3, Funny)
Re:4 kinds (Score:3, Funny)
Suggestions. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I've come up with several ideas for games which I would LOVE to play. They, of course, contain derivations at the lowest level, (for any computer game designer there are only two choices in only two categories; 3d/2d, (Doom vs Pac Man) and realist/iconic. (GTA vs Tic Tac Toe). You can jump/slide between degrees within both categories, and mix and match as you please. In the truest sense, of course, there is only 2d and iconic, as the screen is flat and points of light can only be representational. --I've yet to see a game where pixels are actually thought of as pixels. Sound is also a layer I consider to be largely under-exploited as a challenge/reward mechanism.
In any case, I certainly have game concepts which could be enormously enjoyable.
And guess what? I'm not the only guy with good ideas. Not by a long shot. I know a couple of game designers who cry, "There ARE cool new game concepts! Lots of them! It's just that they don't get any production and promotion money because financiers are too conservative!"
Money people would rather invest in a tried and proven concept than gamble on a new idea. New ideas come from weird people who don't fit in and who it is hard for people to overcome their self-protective herd mentality in order to listen to. This is self-evident. Financiers don't care about advancing the medium; they care about making their money back! If they cared about advancing the medium, they'd be Art and Design people. Not Money people.
Anyway, I don't really care. Computer games are a flimsy distraction from the much more vital and rewarding game of Life.
-FL