The Decline of Gaming?

[Siberian Bear]

Does anyone else feel that there have been few outstanding games this year?

Most of the stuff that's come out has mainly been a "remake" (pardon the expression) of something that has gone before. Some games that were released this year:

• Battlefield 2

• GTA: San Andreas

• Codename Panzers Phase Two

• Guild Wars

With the exception of Guild Wars all these games are sequels. While they, of course, make improvements on their predecessors they are not entirely new. Nothing seems to have come up with something groundbreaking, or at least original.

It seems to me that, as with everything, publishers are going with the mass market games that will sell, rather than take the risk with something innovative. Let's take a look at some games released in the past:

• Hostile Waters - Had the ability to take control of a vehicle to go into first person perspective, and the ability to issue orders while still in this mode. What happened to the creators of this game? They went bust.

• Startopia: Humourous management in space. Mucky foot also went bust.

• Warzone 2100: Had the ability for the user to create thier own units from modules. Huge storyline, tons of missions. Pumpkin Studios (yes, you guessed it) also went bust.

I rest my case.

There is one good side to this: We can save money on upgrades.

[Jaggannath]

I was just abouts to say the major reason for this selling of sequels rather than new games is it's cheaper for everyone... you find a winning formula, with a good engine, and then you keep reusing it to run sequels to games people have enjoyed. Agreed the number of innovative games is down a bit, but that's because people don't want to support them. If they did, there'd be more on the market.

[Edit]:
Once people get sick, and don't buy BF9, then I'm sure a new game will come out to replace it with something new... it's a case of floods and famines, as so often happens

[DonVito]

I think the biggest problem is the industries obsession with graphics. Its gotten to the point where thats the absolute most important thing the developers care about. Im not saying good graphics arne't important. I just believe its the originality, creativity, and feel of gamplay that make a truly great game, not the eyecandy. Though it is nice to look at, its not the most important part of a game.

[Siberian Bear]

I've got to agree on the graphics issue. Perhaps developers think that good graphics will cover over the games flaws/lack of originality. I think a number of reviewers do too.....

[bigandy]

There's only so many different games you can make. A FPS is a FPS, no matter where you set it or what weapons you use. Sure it may be cool to play the new futuristic shoot 'em up game, but after awhile the novelty wears off and you realize you're essentially playing the same game you have a hundred times before. Same goes with RPGs, while they're not quite as easily run into the ground because of the fact that they are usually a little more imaginitive and open ended, but still, there's only so many different types of quests and settings out there.

I also agree with Jaggannath that the more imaginative games don't get the support. Game companies want to stick to what's tried and true because they know it will sell, and gamers want them because they know what to expect and what it is they're going to be getting. The games have to run their course and leave people bored before the next great idea is going to be put into the works for a game.

[ghost_of_war]

I agree. Seems they want to substitute good gameplay for graphics.

[spartan015]

just recently picked up Final Fantasy X, i was at a friends house and i thought huh ill try it... that was last week... played it last night for sooo long at my friends house... really addicitve. good graphics and its pretty old... good storyline too... so u get lucky on some of the sequels... of sequels? lol

[rspassey]

I think graphics are an important feature on games these days, wouldn't you rather be playing a game with crisp graphics, realtime shadow, and other neat features, or would you rather play the same game with crappy graphics. I don't think that by reducing the focus on the graphics they are going to come up with better games, game developers design the game first, then add cool graphics to it.

[bigandy]

Originally Posted by ryan124712 I think graphics are an important feature on games these days, wouldn't you rather be playing a game with crisp graphics, realtime shadow, and other neat features, or would you rather play the same game with crappy graphics. I don't think that by reducing the focus on the graphics they are going to come up with better games, game developers design the game first, then add cool graphics to it.

That's true, but I think the arguement here is that companies try to give us more eye candy to subsititute for a lack of depth in the games. Rather than having the writers/creators of the game do some more work and make a better storyline, the designers and developers simply make it prettier so we say "oooh" and "ahhhh" rather than "boy this game really bites the big one".

[Jaggannath]

Yup, I'm with bigandy... rather than HAVING to market a game on it's storyline, and games with sub-standard storylines not selling, games companies are now marketing games mainly on how nice their rendering is etc. In answer to your statement, I would honestly rather play a better game with shoddier graphics than an ordinarily game with brilliant graphics.

[rspassey]

Conflicting views, interesting, very interesting. I personally think that no matter where the emphasis is applied, game designers are not going to come up with better games, like I said, isn't the storyline created first, then its gets passed off to a group who makes the game all pretty and shiny. I just think that, yes the game story lines could be better, but I am sure they try hard to make a good plot, and if the plot they come up with isn't that great I would hope that they at least give it nice graphics.
Don't know if any of that makes sense, lol.

[bigandy]

Yes, it makes sense. But I think it's a case of trying to come out with a game as quickly as possible to try to make those bucks based on the aesthetics rather than the substance of the game. So rather than have the game sitting around in writing for a longer period of time, they just say this is good enough, and send it off to be coded and designed. I don't doubt one bit that it's difficult to write a good game. But that's what these people are paid to do.

[DonVito]

I think one of the best examples of this is KillZone on the PS2. Some people might disagree, but i though the gameplay on that was terrible. It was PAINFULL for me to play it.

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by AMD_freak I think one of the best examples of this is KillZone on the PS2. Some people might disagree, but i though the gameplay on that was terrible. It was PAINFULL for me to play it.

No questions or opposition there. I thought and still think (though I stopped playing it) that the game was horrible in all aspects.

[Nuclear Krusader]

The decline of gaming and of gamers as well.

This gaming thing has followed in the movies's footsteps. Once movies were a product of intelligence and creativity. Now Hollywood has become a crap factory because it's all about money. If not all, most of it is. The decline of the gaming industry. Why of gamers as well? Well, how can a gamer who has been fed crap through his computer screen since he started to play computer games is gonna tell the difference betwixt a good game and an abysmal one? What's his point of reference? His measuring stick, so to speak? Auld gamers who have been around when the games were mostly an artesanal piece of work know what a good game is (the one with immersive and flawless gameplay), but the new generation of gamers who have been raised on games such as Doom 3, multiplayer first person fragfests, and games where the most appealing feature are the humongous and irrealistic amounts of gore coming out of an opponent when you shoot him know not.

The issue with games today is that almost no one cares about gameplay. So the developers say, "give them graphics so they go out and buy that new VC that just came out. Who cares about games anyway? They want videocards!!"

Take for instance Doom 3. Built upon a winner, all about graphics (even when you can hardly see anything), and designed to make the gamers spend hundreds on new VCs. Gameplay? Not very good. Storyline? Sucks big time. But it has eye candy alright.

[bigandy]

That's a very good connection to the movie industry Nuke. If you take a look at the new movies, they're not creative either. It seems that almost every movie that comes out now is: a remake of an old movie, a sequel, an old TV series turned into a movie, or a comic book/novel made into a movie. And often the "original" movies are just filled with booms and bangs to get your attention, and don't have any real substance either. Sure there are some exceptions, but most of the major movies released are like this.

I'm sorry to get off topic here, but it's just something I've noticed and Nuke's post just reminded me of it.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Oh, and let us not forget sex. If violence sells, sex sells as good or even better. How many games nowadays sport women in scanty clothing and with big boobs/behinds? If it didn't take you more than three seconds to answer that question you've definitely been playing the latest titles. Why did the Tomb Raider titles sell so well? Especially the second and third installments, whose gameplay was not as stellar as the first game. Why do the GTA games sell so well? How many games have been denied publishing because the developers were unable to meet the tight schedules the publishers want? How many imaginative and innovative titles will never see the light because their developers didn't put in them bimbos in bikinis blowing things up with big guns? Even in really good games such as Max Payne, or the Prince of Persia ones, do we really need all that sexual elements and all that blood spurting like a fountain from foes? "Well, it adds realism to the game, you know, you ignorant and puritan Nuke?" Realism and ambience my foot, it just dulls the gaming experience.

Nah, you're not off-topic here, Andy, I don't think. The gaming industry has become "just another entertainment industry." And many gaming companies have hired Hollywood stars to appear in the in-game movies, or the game itself.

[spyder003]

No problem with the new games here. If you don't like them, don't play them.

[Nuclear Krusader]

You have to play them in order to find out if you like them, since most of the content I am talking about is not in the demo, so that argument has little strength.

[Blu_Munday]

Maybe this new Xbox 360 'Arcade' might be a light at the end of the tunnel. I believe it's a distribution channel on the new Live service for homebrew developers. These guys don't have the time or money for big gfx so they will have to concentrate on the gameplay.

Here's hoping and although I agree with the original post, there's no denying that although generic, FPSs like COD, counter-strike and BF2 are great fun. So it's not all bad, just maybe not original.

[DonVito]

Its just changing times. I'm 17 (from what youv'e been saying, Nuclear Krusader, im guessing your much older than me). If i pick up one of the best video games from say, 15 years ago, it maybe holds my attention for 15-20 minutes. Thats how I am about those games, and thats how you are about todays games. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, its just changing times. Everything else in the world around us goes through changes exactly like this.... Cars, Music, Dancing, Politics, whats "socialy acceptable", movies, fashion, ect., ect., ect. Video Games are no different.

I am with you though on the focus of developers being graphics over gameplay.

[spartan015]

yep...


u know whats a great game that should be on PC? FFX... man im soo hooked to that game but i cant play cuz i dont got a ps2... that game is really old but has really good graphics... plus an interesting storyline... thats how games should be... GTA SA has a good story, so does VC... and they really didnt upgrade the graphics on those... Half Life 2 is also good... both story and graphic wise... so yea its sorta balanced in a way.

[IronMentality]

There is a reason why Starcraft: Brood War is the #1 most played game in the WORLD.

An RTS, despite being out close (or even over seven years now) has complete balanced gameplay and is always delivering a new and fresh cutting edge game each time you play.

Yes, game developers have went too graphic-centric. I can't tell you how dissapointed I've been when I go to purchase a new basketball video game... the players look as real as ever, but it's a shame when my 5'3" Point Guard can block Shaq going for a dunk everytime...

Gaming will only be on the rise just due to the demographics of the new generation of people that move into full time jobs. People turned off there radios to watch television. Now, they are pressing the video button on there TVs to hook up there video game systems. However, the lack of good 'thinking' or 'clever' games, same as the lack of good original storylines for movies and sitcoms has been on the decline for sometime now.

The decline of gaming quality has been evident for the past few years across most genres. There will still be the few blockbuster titles that carry through though.

Only if they would release Super Smash Brothers playable online over broadband, I could waste years away playing that

- woot Post #300! - =D

[Jaggannath]

Should see the gameplay on FIFA 2003 on Gamecube... absolutely awful, whoever wrote the AI should hang their head in shame. It was honestly worse than FIFA 2000 AI

[Prew]

Wonder how games like WoW or online FPS like CS or BF2 efect the gaming industry. Instead of a typical FPS that lasts maybe 10 hours to finish, people might play games like WoW and the other sfor months or even a year or more almost exclusively- that is, not buying other games for up to a year because the gamer is consumed by a single game.

[|/|/1CK3D1337]

That is exactly what it is like for me. I used to buy a ton of games. I own over 60 ps2 games, and over 50 ps1 games, and about 40 pc games. But since I bought Counter-Strike, 2 years ago back in 1.5, I've only bought about 5 games. Those include, Half-Life 2, NFSU2, Painkiller, NFSUR, oh and Madden 2006. But I have hardly played any of them. I just like Counter-Strike 1.6 too much to choose playing another game over it. I find that when I do buy a new game, that I never play it because I have that one game that I like better, so why play a game that's not as good when I can play Counter-Strike 1.6?

[DonVito]

Games that i actually buy new, will be far and few between, with the next gen console games costing what.....$60-$70. Ill just rent and buy used. For me to spend $70 on a game, it has do be pretty darn good, with awsome replayability(ie. halo 2 on xbox live). Hec, I've always sweated out paying $50 on a game, even though i loved it.