Do gamers really want games to evolve?

[Matronadena]

some say yes, some say no, some are on the fence... many blame this fickle nature for the fact that more and more games are just starting to try to one up each other with petty gimmicks rather than the innovations they COULD be capable of.


mind you my first game system was an intellvision, and a commodore MM...and pong >.<..you played pong.. no matter what the game was masked as.. it was pong..

And I mean masked....you got tired of pong and wanted hockey?...you draped a plastic sheet with the " Ice" on it over the TV...and played pong...

sp for me I've seen amazing amounts of evolution in near 30 years...so Im personally all for just letting them go wild and experiment rather than milk the old and familiar to death.

 

[Outcast107]

I don't think we can expect games to evolve until we gamers do. Once we reach the point where we appreciate games for what they are, not bashing them for what they aren't, then we can expect the industry to follow suit.

This is what I think is true. I been to a few other game forums (DoW 2, and Gears of war 2) and wow, all their is mostly whining about stuff. I don't mind people stating problems with games, but they take it way to far. So we gamers have to appreciate games for what they give and not bash it to kingdom come because we didn't like one feature. Im not saying we have to love the game if it a poorly made game, but we shouldn't bash it if something we weren't expecting.

 

[AndyVale]

The trouble I find is that I don't really feel like I have the time to play MMO or completely open games. Ones where you spend 10 months levelling up and building tribes etc. just seems like such an intense commitment. It's one I'd love to make, but I genuinely don't have the time to be overly involved in a game like that again. I tend to prefer ones that I can happily pick up and have got somewhere in 15 minutes. I'm not saying I like easy or primitive games 4 thickoz, but the idea of months of exploration in a game just doesn't appeal to me anymore.

 

[Powerman88]

No. The market isn't responding to the consumer need anymore. It's more like an angry dictatorship, with people up in their ivory towers shouting down at the lower masses, telling them what they want. Frankly, I think we're past the golden age of video gaming and we're currently in the age where the icons wear their pants down around their knees.

Unique ideas, concepts, modus operandi, what have you have been shoved aside because, truly, we've become a community too scared of innovation. We've missed out on a lot because "OMGHALO!".

I completely disagree. I think games are evolving and we, as a community, are too jaded and self righteous to see and/or appreciate it.

I have mentioned this example in a few other threads, but I love to talk about Left 4 Dead. I bought this game a couple months ago on steam for $25 with a bunch of my buddies to play online. The game is a fresh, fun, new spin on an old fps concept. There has never been an experience of cooperation (or vs match depending on how you like to play) of trying to survive a zombie apocolypse with your friends. My only complaint is that there isn't enough campaigns.

I bought Civilization 4 a few years ago, and even though its a "tired" sequel of a game that came out ALMOST 20 years ago, it still innovates and is still fun for me, even though the game came out a couple years ago.

I loved Assassin's Creed despite the undeserved hate for it. Sure the game got a little repetitive but still it told a FRESH, UNIQUE story we really haven't seen before with excellent controls and a general fun interface.

The Wii has pushed what video games are capable of in general with accessible, casual games that are fun for everyone; not just geeky fanboys like myself and most of the other denizens of the Escapist.

World of Warcraft has completely changed how we view online gaming. Games are now more profitable than almost any other type of artistic medium. That doesn't happen because there are no new, fun games to play.

All I want is that my games are fun and worth the money. Sadly, I'm seeing a decline in the fun/price ratio. So hrm.

Heh, see my above comments on L4D or Civ4. I've gotten an EASY 100+ hours out of both.

I don't think we can expect games to evolve until we gamers do. Once we reach the point where we appreciate games for what they are, not bashing them for what they aren't, then we can expect the industry to follow suit.

I started playing games in 1988 when I was 6. Games have come a LONG way and are still improving every Tuesday (general release day in the US). Look at Diablo, Diablo 2, and soon Diablo 3.

If you don't think there is any progress in gaming you should find another hobby and stop funneling your money into this industry. I for one have never been happier to be a gamer.

 

[onelifecrisis]

I have mentioned this example in a few other threads, but I love to talk about Left 4 Dead. I bought this game a couple months ago on steam for $25 with a bunch of my buddies to play online. The game is a fresh, fun, new spin on an old fps concept. There has never been an experience of cooperation (or vs match depending on how you like to play) of trying to survive a zombie apocolypse with your friends. My only complaint is that there isn't enough campaigns.

I bought Civilization 4 a few years ago, and even though its a "tired" sequel of a game that came out ALMOST 20 years ago, it still innovates and is still fun for me, even though the game came out a couple years ago.

I loved Assassin's Creed despite the undeserved hate for it. Sure the game got a little repetitive but still it told a FRESH, UNIQUE story we really haven't seen before with excellent controls and a general fun interface.

I'm not necessarily saying that any of those are bad games, but they seem like strange examples with which to back-up an argument that games are evolving. A co-operative first person shooter, a third person beat-em-up, and Civ4? You say "there has never been... a zombie apocalypse" game before, and AC has "a FRESH, UNIQUE story". So they both have new stories. OK, but since when did a new storyline count as an evolutionary step forward in gaming?

The Wii...

Here I can agree with you. The Wii really has offered something new (or at least new to home gaming).

World of Warcraft has completely changed how we view online gaming.

I thought WoW was just a very user friendly MMO. Did I miss something? I'm really not trying to be patronising here, but do you know how old the MMO genre already was when WoW was released?

After reading your post I wonder if you've misunderstood what I meant by the word "evolve"? I hope this doesn't turn into a semantics debate.

 

[squid5580]

No. The market isn't responding to the consumer need anymore. It's more like an angry dictatorship, with people up in their ivory towers shouting down at the lower masses, telling them what they want. Frankly, I think we're past the golden age of video gaming and we're currently in the age where the icons wear their pants down around their knees.

Unique ideas, concepts, modus operandi, what have you have been shoved aside because, truly, we've become a community too scared of innovation. We've missed out on a lot because "OMGHALO!".

I completely disagree. I think games are evolving and we, as a community, are too jaded and self righteous to see and/or appreciate it.

I have mentioned this example in a few other threads, but I love to talk about Left 4 Dead. I bought this game a couple months ago on steam for $25 with a bunch of my buddies to play online. The game is a fresh, fun, new spin on an old fps concept. There has never been an experience of cooperation (or vs match depending on how you like to play) of trying to survive a zombie apocolypse with your friends. My only complaint is that there isn't enough campaigns.

I bought Civilization 4 a few years ago, and even though its a "tired" sequel of a game that came out ALMOST 20 years ago, it still innovates and is still fun for me, even though the game came out a couple years ago.

I loved Assassin's Creed despite the undeserved hate for it. Sure the game got a little repetitive but still it told a FRESH, UNIQUE story we really haven't seen before with excellent controls and a general fun interface.

The Wii has pushed what video games are capable of in general with accessible, casual games that are fun for everyone; not just geeky fanboys like myself and most of the other denizens of the Escapist.

World of Warcraft has completely changed how we view online gaming. Games are now more profitable than almost any other type of artistic medium. That doesn't happen because there are no new, fun games to play.

All I want is that my games are fun and worth the money. Sadly, I'm seeing a decline in the fun/price ratio. So hrm.

Heh, see my above comments on L4D or Civ4. I've gotten an EASY 100+ hours out of both.

I don't think we can expect games to evolve until we gamers do. Once we reach the point where we appreciate games for what they are, not bashing them for what they aren't, then we can expect the industry to follow suit.

I started playing games in 1988 when I was 6. Games have come a LONG way and are still improving every Tuesday (general release day in the US). Look at Diablo, Diablo 2, and soon Diablo 3.

If you don't think there is any progress in gaming you should find another hobby and stop funneling your money into this industry. I for one have never been happier to be a gamer.

Ok how are they improving every Tuesday other than graphics? I am not saying games haven't evolved. Hell I was playing Colecovision back in the day. My point is we gamers are the ones holding the industry back. We are the ones who jump on the forums and whine about how the game didn't do this or have that. We are the ones who they make games for so how can we ask them to take it to the next level and put millions of dollars on the line? We are the ones who support proffessional reviewers who say that Bioshock would have gotten a 10 if it had multiplayer but since it didn't it gets an 8. We are the ones who shy away from original IPs and spend our money on the next sequel. We can't expect evolution until we start supporting it.

It isn't the games that make me sad. Hell I am loving RE5 which is just an updated version of RE4. It is going on the internet and reading what people have to say that makes me sad because it is them that are holding up what could be the next amazing original game.

 

[090907]

Games are still young, we found the fire some years ago and now we enter the dark ages... the enlightenment is coming.

Oh God, I hope so.

 

[onelifecrisis]

We are the ones who shy away from original IPs and spend our money on the next sequel. We can't expect evolution until we start supporting it.

Speak for yourself! I used to buy a dozen games a year, but in the last four years I've bought only two games total because there's nothing out there I want to buy. You have a good point in that consumers are effectively voters in a sort of democracy, and as long as they keep using their cash to "vote" for crap then they'll keep getting crap. But where your argument falls down is in the lack of anything else to "vote" for (buy). If and when games really do evolve (or at least get back to where they were at the turn of the millenium) then I'll be the first to start shelling out cash on those games. In the meantime, by your very own argument, I for one am entitled to complain about it on the internet because for years I've hardly bought anything at all.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well I guess that years ago games had more thought put into them, instead of now where some just seemed to be grind out for the purpose of money making.

One of my friends, not a gamer but a politics major, made the point to me that our stander for a "good" game might be a little high. While I don't dismiss the fact that some times we ask too much every now and again, I think over all we ask very little.

That's an interesting point. Collectively it's really easy to get people to agree that games need to be "better" or that certain titles were not good enough. When you try to get everyone to agree on the details of what needs to be better then things start to fall apart as lots of people have different, often conflicting, bug bears. It all adds up to impossible demands on a developer who has to sell 3 million copies of her game to make the accounts add up. It's no surprise that they sometimes try to play it safe.

I think that a lot of the attraction of indie gaming for me is that there are a lot of people who are making games that appeal to a smaller group of 100s of thousands instead of millions. Groups who are, maybe like me and you, satisfied with relatively little as long as it's a little of the things that make us happy.

Overall there has never been a better time to be a gamer, but I do wish that more of the major publishers would show some of the creativity and range they had in the last millennium.

 

[squid5580]

We are the ones who shy away from original IPs and spend our money on the next sequel. We can't expect evolution until we start supporting it.

Speak for yourself! I used to buy a dozen games a year, but in the last four years I've bought only two games total because there's nothing out there I want to buy. You have a good point in that consumers are effectively voters in a sort of democracy, and as long as they keep using their cash to "vote" for crap then they'll keep getting crap. But where your argument falls down is in the lack of anything else to "vote" for (buy). If and when games really do evolve (or at least get back to where they were at the turn of the millenium) then I'll be the first to start shelling out cash on those games. In the meantime, by your very own argument, I for one am entitled to complain about it on the internet because for years I've hardly bought anything at all.

I am not talking about 1 individual. I am talking about the millions who bought Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 and GTA 4. The ones who want original IPs are a minority to them. The only way things are going to change is when we as a community can put our petty differences aside (starting with the "my console is better than your console BS") and work together. And not buying a game is voting. It is just as powerful as voting yes. Unforunately the No vote is outnumbered and loses out the majority of the time when it comes to games like the ones I listed. Which is why I firmly believe the community must evolve before we see any major revolution in the industry.

 

[Crash486]

The problem isn't the evolution of games, it's the watering down of gameplay and the straightening of learning curves. Ever since gaming has become more mainstream, developers have been trying to design simplistic controls where anyone can just jump in and play. This somewhat betrays the gamers of ol who are used to having to work hard to become good at games.

Take Starseige Tribes, a masterful fucking game. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a shooter even these days which even compares to that game in the way of scope. Movement was a skill, not a given.

Nowdays games are just too easy, and thus they've become boring and generic.

 

[Librarian Mike]

A big step for the evolution of gaming will come when mature games criticism surfaces. As it is now, most criticism is skewed so high that it's ridiculous. I suppose it's a result of the dependency these magazines/sites have on advertising, so they are obliged to score higher than they would under other circumstances.

The problem with this is that it is very hard to know what a good game is when everything is getting 4/5 stars.

 

[Trisk]

The only thing that has evolved in games nowadays are graphics. Games have always had innovative designs in them ultimately what changes now is how we perceive them through graphics.

That being said QTE's suck.

 

[Gamer137]

There are different ways to evolve the industry. You are talking specificly about story telling. Personally, I don't like open-ended stories. I like being told a story with developed characters and an environment that changes based on what the author wishes to tell. The difference between linear stories and player choices is like novels and choice your own adventure books. I want the author to tell me a compelling story. I don't like having that quality degraded due to have a lot of choices that can ruin the development of an aspect of the story.

Games can evolve in other ways then simply story telling. I may prefer linear stories, but the gameplay itself that occures between story points can be greatly improved. Look at Portal. Great game, and the innovation was the portal concept, not an advancement in story. Developers should focus on gameplay itself rather then trying to set up a virtual Earth for players to just make choices. If a game wants to evolve story telling, I would prefer the evolution to be atmosphere rather then trying to expand choice. How do people choice that shooter game they like most? The atmosphere, the enviornment, the weapons that suit the atmosphere. Halo 3 and CoD4 are pretty identical. Pick a gun and kill whatever person gets in your way. People choice Halo 3 for its sci-fi atmosphere and scale of combat, such as adding vehicles and shield which makes the scale of combat more grand and encourages more diverse tactics. People choice CoD4 for its near realism, more serious in tone both in enviornments and violence, higher demand for reactions and persision due too quick combat, etc. Two very similar playstyles, but different story atmosphere. Stylish and humorish sci-fi vs serious and down-to-Earth.

To quote Yahtzee. Captain Boring's Monotonous Adventure!!!!

It's Cpt. Bland, not Boring.

 

[onelifecrisis]

You are talking specificly about story telling.

I'm not sure who that was to (?) but in the OP I wasn't talking about story, although admittedly I prolly should have made that clearer. I meant open-ended gameplay, where a player can choose how to go about doing things. RPGs are the usual attractions for people who want that sort of thing, but even FPS games can feature open-ended gameplay to some extent. Far Cry and STALKER are both good examples of FPS games that tried to deliver some open-ended gameplay (but both failed due to really, really bad bugs).

BTW, who here is familiar with the concept of "emergent" gameplay?

 

[Gamer137]

You are talking specificly about story telling.

I'm not sure who that was to (?) but in the OP I wasn't talking about story, although admittedly I prolly should have made that clearer. I meant open-ended gameplay, where a player can choose how to go about doing things. RPGs are the usual attractions for people who want that sort of thing, but even FPS games can feature open-ended gameplay to some extent. Far Cry and STALKER are both good examples of FPS games that tried to deliver some open-ended gameplay (but both failed due to really, really bad bugs).

BTW, who here is familiar with the concept of "emergent" gameplay?

Maybe I should explain my own opinion more. Open worlds and player choice are story related ideas. There is a difference Fallout 3 open world and having a big playground like Mercenaries. Fallout 3 uses the world to expand on story, background info, and characer development in social and inventory/stats aspects. Mercenaries may have a a large area with no real movement restrictions, but there is no story advancement, no social aspect, and no development. Just go from A to B to shoot more things. When I hear open-world, I instantly think Fallout 3 style. I think "open-world" and "playground/sandbox" are two totally different aspects with different names. Too me, an open world will aid the story and make it less linear. Playground means just multiple ways to reach an area, but the game itself is linear.

That being said, I still disagree with you. Gameplay can evolve in more ways then playground openness. In most games, it just feels gimmicky. GTA games do playground well. But games like CoD4 would suck as playground games. Developers should move past an expansive world or playground and keep developing new gameplay aspects or refine what has been made.

 

[onelifecrisis]

Gameplay can evolve in more ways then playground openness. Developers should move past an expansive world or playground and keep developing new gameplay aspects...

Like?
(I'm not disagreeing, I'm curious)

 

[Gamer137]

Gameplay can evolve in more ways then playground openness. Developers should move past an expansive world or playground and keep developing new gameplay aspects...

Like?
(I'm not disagreeing, I'm curious)

I don't know. Not a very creative person. The best examples I can give are Portal and Mirror's Edge. Both were very innovative and fun. But I still enjoy traditional games. CoD4 was just another shooter, but something about the refining drew me in. I can't put my finger on it. But I don't think openness should come to a screeching halt. GTA V should vastly improve on it. But I think it is overrated and focus should go more to gameplay.

 

[SimuLord]

I've said this often enough that it's practically become a scripted speech, but...

I detest interactive movies. Hate them with every fiber of my being. I want my games to be toolboxes, not point A to point B romps. I want an open world that follows one of two design philosopies:

1) The world was doing just fine before my character showed up, it'll do just fine after my character leaves, and if a story shows up in the interim and says "hey, do me, or not, your choice" (as in the Elder Scrolls and Mount&Blade) then I'm likely to think that game is a blast. The fact that I can do Morrowind and Oblivion's many sidequests while completely and utterly ignoring the main quest (and the fact that in Oblivion the various Daedric who-za-whatzits are content to sit in Hell until I say "OK guys, come on out now, I'll beat the crap out of you whenever you're ready"---talk about a Nice Job Breaking It Hero! [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero]) is the best part of those games.

2) The world was a dull, empty place before I showed up but check out how awesome it is now that I've built entire cities and have more money than the king (as in Patrician/Port Royale and any game in the Tycoon genre, not to mention any SimCity derivative). I don't even like scenarios in those kinds of games because I've seen what the true open-world is capable of.