Is gaming dead?

Recommended Videos

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
Since I was about twelve years old--in 2001--gaming has visibly been in a state of decline. In the years before then, things were stellar: the 3D revolution, in the mid-nineties, forced developers to rapidly adjust to a new design environment. This change, combined with the strength of the economy, which encouraged publishers to take risks, and production values that had improved but nevertheless weren't so exorbitant that they prohibited corporate risk-taking, all conspired to lead to a string of brilliant releases. Just consider 1998 alone: that year, StarCraft, Pokemon Red/Blue, Fallout 2, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grim Fandango, Half-Life, Thief, and Baldur's Gate were released--all some of the finest games ever made.

This generation has seen a few titles that live up to these lofty standards (Valve's games spring to mind, as well as Super Mario Galaxy), but not many--if the sixth generation was less impressive than the fifth, it was still fueled creatively by the sandbox revolution launched by Grand Theft Auto III. But this generation's chief revolution--digital content delivery--has had little to no impact upon the actual gameplay of AA titles. Where it has affected the industry, it has done so by ennobling indie designers to produce budget-priced titles, which--while often amusing--are rarely as ambitious as the great games of yesteryear (many of which had equally crude graphics). So with the mainstream game industry in a ruinous creative state, and indie designers failing to fill the void, the new question becomes: whereto from here?

The problem, of course, is that things may have to get worse before they get better--a strange thought, since for the past five years I've repeatedly assumed each year that things have bottomed out; that they couldn't possibly get worse. Bad news abounds: Nintendo, one of the greatest of all design firms, looks like it's on the verge of crisis. Yet another historically great studio--LucasArts--auctioned off its most valuable IP to EA. The releases scheduled this year are largely unexciting, and so far almost all of the projected next-gen releases are blatant rehashes.

The point, here, is that the 'mainstream' game industry may be shooting itself in the foot: developer costs that have continued to spiral upward even in a recession have created unassailable barriers to entry that result in only the most creatively asinine games being greenlit for production on mainstream consoles. The net effect of this is that other, less costly platforms--phones or computers--are increasingly gaining a larger share of the gaming public's attention. In this sense, the inert public response to the Wii U may foreshadow how people are going respond to the PS4 and next Xbox--with Ouya and Steambox being the possible beneficiaries.

If things come crashing downward, we may see a dearth of good corporate-produced titles for a few years--a kind of modern-day version of the E.T.-caused Atari crash of '83. Maybe this will be good: it will force indie designers to pick up the slack. In any case, playing games like L.A. Noire or Portal 2 these days, I'm aware I could be experiencing the end of a phenom: one in which it was possible for games with artistic aspirations to compete, in terms of budget, with market-tested commercial drivel.

We may be at the beginning of a new cycle; one that challenges our assumptions--that graphics will always improve overtime; that proprietary consoles will inevitably dominate the marketplace; that games with creative aspirations can coexist on the same economic footing as ones that are created for purely economic reasons. Right now, there is great chaos under heaven. Hopefully the situation will be excellent.

And--of course--what do you guys think?
 

Exius Xavarus

Casually hardcore. :}
May 19, 2010
2,064
0
0
Certainly not. Even if another crash were to happen, gaming would pick right back up, like it did last time. And the time before that. History's shown that gaming isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
 

IGetNoSlack

New member
Sep 21, 2012
91
0
0
Short answer: No.

Medium answer: What we're seeing is the re-democratization of game development. Easier distribution and more easily accessible tools have made it easier for anyone to get their game out there.

And while yes, some of it's completely horrible, there are diamonds in the rough. The smaller budgets of indie games allow for new ideas to come out. With the PS4, Sony's taking down some of the barriers that it has put up with the PS3.

Also, an '83-type crash won't happen. Atari had monopolized the industry, and if you think we have it bad now, games made in that period make today's "shovelware" look golden.
 

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
Exius Xavarus said:
Certainly not. Even if another crash were to happen, gaming would pick right back up, like it did last time. And the time before that. History's shown that gaming isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
I didn't mean literally--just whether it's going to recover from its current creative nadir, or whether a new crash will instate terrible games as the norm.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
So what you are going to get . Is a bunch of people listing their favorite games to prove gaming isn't dead . Iv'e seen this happen dozens of times.

OT: is gaming dead ? No . Of course not , these people make millions of dollars a year . Is it stagnating and in a rut ? Yes . With all the money the AAA industry is pumping into these games, they are afraid to take risks . Ironically , however , when they did take risks with games , they got a fanbase that turned one game into a series making millions of dollars . Their strategy is , to milk as much from one franchine as possible , before making a new one . This leads to stagnations . Sequels upon sequels to squeese as much money out , before having to take another risk . What i find funny is, AAA publishers assume they have to pump on millions of dollars into a game , to make a lot of money . This of course isn't true , and actually reduce the profit they would make , of they simply , reduced the cost for some games ( such as taking out VOice acting and A LOT of cinematics ) they could sell just as much and make more money.


But games are all about the dollar now , rather than the passion.
 

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
IGetNoSlack said:
Short answer: No.

Medium answer: What we're seeing is the re-democratization of game development. Easier distribution and more easily accessible tools have made it easier for anyone to get their game out there.

And while yes, some of it's completely horrible, there are diamonds in the rough. The smaller budgets of indie games allow for new ideas to come out. With the PS4, Sony's taking down some of the barriers that it has put up with the PS3.

Also, an '83-type crash won't happen. Atari had monopolized the industry, and if you think we have it bad now, games made in that period make today's "shovelware" look golden.
1) Is re-democratization really good, though? It seems to be that what made the fifth generation so special was the combination of financial accessibility and corporate finesse. Now we have creative mobile games that can't be so ambitious on account of the limited resources possessed by their creators, and boring high-budge games, but very little in-between.

2) I actually have a disc of "Activision Classics" from the 2600-era for the PSX and I can totally unironically state that I prefer them to most games on PS3 today.
 

Exius Xavarus

Casually hardcore. :}
May 19, 2010
2,064
0
0
EzraPound said:
Exius Xavarus said:
Certainly not. Even if another crash were to happen, gaming would pick right back up, like it did last time. And the time before that. History's shown that gaming isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
I didn't mean literally--just whether it's going to recover from its current creative nadir, or whether a new crash will instate terrible games as the norm.
I don't believe terrible games will become the norm. Every time a crash happened, things got better before another crash. But as IGetNoSlack said, we won't be getting another crash the likes of what happened during the Atari era. We aren't quite so monopolized.

I don't think things are gonna budge anytime soon, personally. Greedy corporations aren't going anywhere, the indie scene isn't going anywhere and anything between is still going strong. Basically, I don't think it's going to get any worse or any better.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
EzraPound said:
Yet another historically great studio--LucasArts--auctioned off its most valuable IP to EA.
They were closed down by Disney. I doubt LucasArts themselves had anything to do with "auctioning off" their IP to EA.

And historically great, sure. But recently? Ever since 2006 LucasArts was stumbling around like a drunken baby. They abandoned all of their old adventure game titles, in addition to all of the actual good Star Wars licensed titled that made them money, in favor of pumping out shoddy tie-ins for the cartoon Clone Wars show and Star Wars Kinect. And a sequel to The Force Unleashed that was worse than its predecessor.

I don't begrudge you getting more out of older games. Whatever floats your boat and all. But personally? Many of my favorite games ever have come out of this current generation. The stupidity of EA or Ubisoft or the short-sightedness of Activision are going to come back and bite them eventually, and when it happens either another company will rise to assume their position, or they'll wise up and shy away from what's getting them such commercial lashings. But there are a lot of companies in the industry right now, even in the big-money section. So as long as games I enjoy continue to get made and released, I can't say I hope that everything will come crashing down and the indie guys will 'pick up the slack'.

Especially considering that for every unique and interesting title that releases in the indie market, there's five 2D retro-puzzle-platformers or Diablo/Torchlight knock-offs. (I know Torchlight is indie too.)
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
EzraPound said:
I always have a hard time to understand where posts like this are coming from. Especially your first statement, that its downhill since the beginning of this millennia. The only explanation I have is a very strong case of nostalgia goggles.
Dont understand me wrong I'm not trying to be hostile, but this is such utterly subjective assertion, that "visibly decline" is a completly inappropriate term.

I too would describe games like FO2 or the Baldurs Gate games as among the best I ever played, but if I would compare them directly to games like The Witcher series or the Total War Games or Dragon Age Origins, I could never say I like them better or had more fun with them. I probably spend more time on Medieval 2 alone, than everything released before 2001 combined.

Saying the industry is in decline seems to be somewhat untrue, that would mean nobody is buying games. But fact is the gaming industry is bigger than ever, it has grown into a multi billion dollar industry, and there are more games produced and consumed than ever before.

And your fear of terrible games becoming the norm is again highly subjective, because what is a terrible game? I think thats something everybody decides for themselfs. And all the games that get made, get made because people buy them and they buy them because they like them.

I for one am looking forward to quite a few games this year, Dragon Age 3, AC: Black Flag, and Rome 2 for example. And I already enjoyed others that are already released, currently Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon. And there are more in the making, I fully expect Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3 to absolutly blow my mind.

Stating all these subjective opinions as facts always bugs me, it comes across like:

"Everything is uninspired shit nowdays and only the filthy casual-peasents, who are to stupid to see the truth, could enjoy games these days."

Again, I am not trying to anger you or accuse you of arrogance, that is just how this sometimes sounds to someone who enjoys the heck out of games since he first played Prnice of Persia (the pixely 2D kind) and thinks it has only gotten better ever since.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
Short answer no

long answer, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Gaming is not dead nor will it die. I don't get you people, sure we are in a slump but we will get out of it. Even if it takes a crash to make them see it the publishers will see that they were being stupid.

Have some fucking optimism for God's sake.
 

Dead Seerius

New member
Feb 4, 2012
865
0
0
No, silly goose!

The AAA market might take a few beatings if 'stagnation over innovation' continues to be its most popular practice, but the indie market has already proven that we won't be for lack of innovation all across the board, and so long as that remains true, gaming will never end.

Even though most people seem to jump right aboard the 'next gen won't offer anything new' bandwagon, I'm going to withhold my two cents on that front until, you know, the next gen actually gets underway.
 

IGetNoSlack

New member
Sep 21, 2012
91
0
0
EzraPound said:
2) I actually have a disc of "Activision Classics" from the 2600-era for the PSX and I can totally unironically state that I prefer them to most games on PS3 today.
That's fine, and if it did come to you that I said everything on the 2600 was shovelware, I didn't mean it that way, and i'm sorry I didn't clarify.

And yes, re-democratization IS good. It allows for experimentation with new ideas, so that the corporate finesse can be applied to the stuff that works. It's practically Valve's MO.

Now, that was not a knock against Valve, I meant it as a compliment, as Valve is a great example of a successful application of corporate finesse to a new idea, think TF Quake, Tag: The Power of Paint(used in Portal 2), the original Portal demo, DOTA, etc.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
*sigh* Another one of these threads.

I find it kinda funny you're asking whether gaming is dead on an ACTIVE internet forum centered around GAMING.

I swear, I'm starting to hate a lot of other gamers now. Always talking about the negative aspects of gaming and speculating about a crash. What's the fucking point? What ever happened to just enjoying games as they are? Sure, use constructive criticism where it's needed, but there's no need to go all doom and gloom.

Sure, things aren't exactly all peaches and cream right now, but the fact is, they never have been. There have always been issues with the game industry, and there always will be. People are just too blinded by their nostalgia boners to see it!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be playing MGS3. A game that came out AFTER 2001 by the way.
 

CityofTreez

New member
Sep 2, 2011
367
0
0
Uh, no? Gaming might be in a rut in certain areas, but the industry will never be perfect and there will always be areas where we can improve on. I would say games cost too much to make and AAA devs release the same thing every year, but for every "Dead Space 3" we have "Bioshock Infinite". We needs less rushed games and a better product, but hey, that's in OUR hands. We don't like the product? Don't buy it.

EzraPound said:
Just consider 1998 alone: that year, StarCraft, Pokemon Red/Blue, Fallout 2, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grim Fandango, Half-Life, Thief, and Baldur's Gate were released--all some of the finest games ever made.
2007: Portal, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Team Fortress 2, Modern Warefare, The Witcher.

Not speaking on pure nostagia and not claiming those games as the "greatest ever!" based purely on their names alone, 2007 was damn comparable to 1998.

And the quality has only gone up. People only remember the good games but there were a lot of shitty games in the late 90/early 2000's. We have shitty games today, but I would say the average games released has a higher quality today than that of 10-15 years ago.

scorptatious said:
*sigh* Another one of these threads.

I find it kinda funny you're asking whether gaming is dead on an ACTIVE internet forum centered around GAMING.

I swear, I'm starting to hate a lot of other gamers now. Always talking about the negative aspects of gaming and speculating about a crash. What's the fucking point? What ever happened to just enjoying games as they are? Sure, use constructive criticism where it's needed, but there's no need to go all doom and gloom.

Sure, things aren't exactly all peaches and cream right now, but the fact is, they never have been. There have always been issues with the game industry, and there always will be. People are just too blinded by their nostalgia boners to see it!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be playing MGS3. A game that came out AFTER 2001 by the way.
What's sad is that there are a lot of "gamers" who would fucking want a crash to happen. It's disgusting.
 

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
CityofTreez said:
Uh, no? Gaming might be in a rut in certain areas, but the industry will never be perfect and there will always be areas where we can improve on. I would say games cost too much to make and AAA devs release the same thing every year, but for every "Dead Space 3" we have "Bioshock Infinite". We needs less rushed games and a better product, but hey, that's in OUR hands. We don't like the product? Don't buy it.

EzraPound said:
Just consider 1998 alone: that year, StarCraft, Pokemon Red/Blue, Fallout 2, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grim Fandango, Half-Life, Thief, and Baldur's Gate were released--all some of the finest games ever made.
2007: Portal, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Team Fortress 2, Modern Warefare, The Witcher.

Not speaking on pure nostagia and not claiming those games as the "greatest ever!" based purely on their names alone, 2007 was damn comparable to 1998.

And the quality has only gone up. People only remember the good games but there were a lot of shitty games in the late 90/early 2000's. We have shitty games today, but I would say the average games released has a higher quality today than that of 10-15 years ago.

scorptatious said:
*sigh* Another one of these threads.

I find it kinda funny you're asking whether gaming is dead on an ACTIVE internet forum centered around GAMING.

I swear, I'm starting to hate a lot of other gamers now. Always talking about the negative aspects of gaming and speculating about a crash. What's the fucking point? What ever happened to just enjoying games as they are? Sure, use constructive criticism where it's needed, but there's no need to go all doom and gloom.

Sure, things aren't exactly all peaches and cream right now, but the fact is, they never have been. There have always been issues with the game industry, and there always will be. People are just too blinded by their nostalgia boners to see it!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be playing MGS3. A game that came out AFTER 2001 by the way.
What's sad is that there are a lot of "gamers" who would fucking want a crash to happen. It's disgusting.
It's pretty sad that you have to use the best year in recent memory to defend the seventh generation, and it still doesn't stack up. How about we compare 2006 to 1997, or 2008 to 1999? It's obvious which era had better games. Take BioShock, for instance. History won't remember the game--it will remember System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, which achieved far greater things at a much earlier point, even if their developers were unable to make six-figure profits at the time because of it.

This is a fact: most acclaimed games today are just shittier versions of games that came before them (or just literal repackages, like Enemy Unknown or VC sales). At best, they're barely improved. GTA IV is not a better game than GTA III--and even if it were, it would have six years to justify, the same time period that separated Super Mario World from Super Mario 64. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is not a better game than Deus Ex. Heavy Rain is a vastly inferior reinterpretation of Shenmue, which was brilliant but ignored because--in 1999--it was possible to actually ignore good console games, on account of the fact more than 2-3 good ones came out per year. Final Fantasy XIII is a far worse game than Final Fantasy VII. DOOM 3 can't hold a candle to DOOM 2--and wasn't half as fun the day of its release. Those Telltale adventure games are mediocre compared to the LucasArts ones. Zelda: Skyward Sword only continues the progressive decline of the series since the N64 era. The Star Wars license--which once gave us the likes of TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight--was just sold to EA. Diablo III and StarCraft 2 contribute basically nothing to their precursors' legacies. Westwood was busted to noncom years ago, and if we're honest with ourselves Halo 4 will probably be more painful to endure than Marathon. And on and on...

So yeah--games like the ones Valve publishes are the exception that prove the rule. In 1998, Valve were not a remarkable developer--just another shooter dev. Since then, they've waxed while literally the entire industry has waned, and now the look like titanic geniuses.

Oh, and while I agree that the average caliber of games has improved, it doesn't really matter--since consumers disproportionately (I've read ninety per cent) purchase games that receive critical acclaim, when the best games wane in quality it has a direct effect on the experiences of most players. You know--the fish rots at the head and all of that.

P.S. To say we only remember the good games is moot here--I played as many games as a kid in the late 90s and early 2000s as I do now. I was also intuitively aware, I think--having a cursory knowledge of previous software--how special they were. Since 2001, barely anything has changed in terms of gameplay fundamentals.
 

Ashadowpie

New member
Feb 3, 2012
315
0
0
its not dead, its just boring and yah i did buy Bioshock and Skyrim and Hitman and all the new awsome games because i like them but to be totally honest, i play all of the ( except Skyrim) for maybe 4 hours in bits and i just want to go back to playing my older games.
 

Tyelcapilu

New member
Mar 19, 2011
93
0
0
Kids these days just have their nostalgia goggles on for the games they played as a child (including me). I can shamelessly admit my love for Might & Magic 6 and Battlezone (both from 1998, wonderful games) that somehow beats my love for TF2 and Dorf Fortress

As for recent games that I really like:
Far Cry 3 (2012)
Hotline Miami (2012)
Hitman: Blood Money (2006)
TF2 (2006?)
Mirror's Edge
Castle Crashers

Now, you might argue that a bunch of these are done by indie devs, but remember, id software was just a tiny group of guys when they made their first breakthroughs.
I don't see how indie devs are failing to fill any voids, either, just the wrong ones are getting all the attention.
Oh, and Activision made Battlezone
 

CityofTreez

New member
Sep 2, 2011
367
0
0
EzraPound said:
It's pretty sad that you have to use the best year in recent memory to defend the seventh generation, and it still doesn't stack up. How about we compare 2006 to 1997, or 2008 to 1999? It's obvious which era had better games. Take BioShock, for instance. History won't remember the game--it will remember System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, which achieved far greater things at a much earlier point, even if their developers were unable to make six-figure profits at the time because of it.

This is a fact: most acclaimed games today are just shittier versions of games that came before them (or just literal repackages, like Enemy Unknown or VC sales). At best, they're barely improved. GTA IV is not a better game than GTA III--and even if it were, it would have six years to justify, the same time period that separated Super Mario World from Super Mario 64. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is not a better game than Deus Ex. Heavy Rain is a vastly inferior reinterpretation of Shenmue, which was brilliant but ignored because--in 1999--it was possible to actually ignore good console games, on account of the fact more than 2-3 good ones came out per year. Final Fantasy XIII is a far worse game than Final Fantasy VII. DOOM 3 can't hold a candle to DOOM 2--and wasn't half as fun the day of its release. Those Telltale adventure games are mediocre compared to the LucasArts ones. Zelda: Skyward Sword only continues the progressive decline of the series since the N64 era. The Star Wars license--which once gave us the likes of TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight--was just sold to EA. Diablo III and StarCraft 2 contribute basically nothing to their precursors' legacies. Westwood was busted to noncom years ago, and if we're honest with ourselves Halo 4 will probably be more painful to endure than Marathon. And on and on...

So yeah--games like the ones Valve publishes are the exception that prove the rule. In 1998, Valve were not a remarkable developer--just another shooter dev. Since then, they've waxed while literally the entire industry has waned, and now the look like titanic geniuses.

Oh, and while I agree that the average caliber of games has improved, it doesn't really matter--since consumers disproportionately (I've read ninety per cent) purchase games that receive critical acclaim, when the best games wane in quality it has a direct effect on the experiences of most players. You know--the fish rots at the head and all of that.

P.S. To say we only remember the good games is moot here--I played as many games as a kid in the late 90s and early 2000s as I do now. I was also intuitively aware, I think--having a cursory knowledge of previous software--how special they were. Since 2001, barely anything has changed in terms of gameplay fundamentals.
You know, I really don't know how to respond, or at least want to considering this post is basically old games > new games, or at least personal opinion. I really can't say my, or your, opinion is correct, but...

Take BioShock, for instance. History won't remember the game--it will remember System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, which achieved far greater things at a much earlier point, even if their developers were unable to make six-figure profits at the time because of it.
Who's this "history"? Last I checked, its regarded as one of the most well received game of all-time. (Both at the time of release and the years after) Considering it's still being talked about to this day, I would say history remembered it pretty well.

So yeah--games like the ones Valve publishes are the exception that prove the rule. In 1998, Valve were not a remarkable developer--just another shooter dev. Since then, they've waxed while literally the entire industry has waned, and now the look like titanic geniuses.
Are you saying that Valve is the only good dev out there? That's ridiculous if so.

This is a fact: most acclaimed games today are just shittier versions of games that came before them
Whoa, a fact? Well damn. Got me there.

I hope that we move on regarded older good games as perfection. Games improve. They get better. Are we going to be in the year 2025 and still calling Deus Ex as the pinnacle of gaming?