Is gaming dead?

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

AAA in a rut? Yes.

Gaming a whole dead? NO.

AAA =/= Gaming. You just have to look beyond it to see that gaming (PC gaming at least) isn't fading or growing stagnant.

 

[EzraPound]

Alot of great games out there. Really more done with talking about games with people. Can take whiny gamers when it's on the internet, not in real life. Have to say that the industry is not pissing me off, it's the people that play the games. I am not talking about gamers bitching about stuff that is legit. Every time I listen to one go on and on about how some game sucks because it has stayed the same and blah blah blah(You have no idea what you are talking about.)

If gamers with any grasp of history are whiny in 2013, it's because games are shitty--it's not as if their sense of collective discontent arose in a vacuum.

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.

You forget that for every golden game you mentioned in your OP, there were a 100 creatively bankrupt titles.

Seriously, look at the list of all PSX games released in the West. You'll quickly notice how crap the majority of games were. I mean, they made an M&M's platform game for Christ' sake!

I'm not really concerned about the ratio of good games:bad games--I just want good stuff to play, and while the 'average' mainline game in 2013 may be better than in 1998, the best games for the most part don't even come close.

I KNOW I got into an argument with somebody else over this topic recently. Kinda' bothers me that there's another one. The long and the short of it is that NO, I don't think gaming is dead. And before we get on any sort of historical debate about the great video game crash and if times now resemble it at all, I'm just going to flat out say NO IT DOESN'T.

There's way too much money in it than those days, and as long as they see dollar signs, it's not dead. That's the bottom line.

Funny since creativity--the real benchmark for the health of the industry--has actually declined as the industry's collective value has surged...

This is the era that gave us Journey, Bastion, Limbo, and the Arkham games. Honestly, you're just letting your nostalgia goggles get the better of you. There were plenty of shitty games during the so-called golden years, and they all washed away. Soon, all the crappy games of today will fade away, leaving the gems in public memory.

So your argument is that because 1) five good games were made, and 2) there was bad games in the past, that 3) the game industry is not declining. Sheesh, by that standard it will never decline--or incline, for that matter.

Given I am an old coot around here (I was 12 years old in 1983 and started gaming with at Atari 2600) I have to say that it's a bit strange to think that gaming has been in decline since 2001. From both a well-established industry record and my own perspective thee last 12 or so years have been the best yet, and after decades I'm finally enjoying games that are truly amazing on many levels, both in terms of immersion, presentation, graphics and design.

It's fine to enjoy some old Atari Classics now, because you can choose from the vast array of titles that have flooded the market....but trust me when I say that when that was all there was, and the prospect of better was just a fever dream....yeah, I never want to go back to that.

What 'well-established industry record' suggests that games are improving? That they sell more? American films grossed more in the 80s than in the 70s, yet anyone with an inkling of critical judgement can tell The Godfather from Return of the Jedi.

I don't seriously think 2600 games are more enjoyable than most releases today--but they just might be better. Hell, there's more creativity manifest in one frame of Pitfall! or Adventure than there is in the entirety of most hyped AA releases today.

Oh look, another one of those "I don't like any modern games because my nostalgia glasses prevent me from seeing that games these days are still pretty good, so that means GAMING IS RUINED FOR EVVEEERRRYOOONNNEE!!" threads. Haven't seen this sort of thing before at all. [small]/sarcasm[/small]

To put it lightly: no. Gaming is not dead. And no, gaming is not worse than it was way back in those golden years you ramble about like some old guy in a rocking chair on his porch yelling at the kids on his lawn. Yes, there's a lot of crap out there today, but guess what: there were a lot of crappy games a decade/two decades ago too! Shocking, right? I mean, yeah, we've got a lot of bad CoD-ish clones these days, but remember back in the late 80's when there were a shitton of bad Mario clones? Or what about in the early 90's where everybody was trying to create an anthropomorphic mascot with "attitude" to cash in on the success of Sonic the Hedgehog? Or all of the bad Doom clones of the mid 90's? The explosion of open world action games made to ride on the GTA bandwagon in the 2000's?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say all games are better today than they once were. Nor am I some little youngster who never was alive during that "golden age" of video gaming everybody seems to be unable to agree on when it actually existed. And yes, I do realize that there are some bullshit business practices out there today. I just actually, you know, realize that everything old isn't better than everything new. I actually have an open mind and don't superglue my rose-tinted nostalgia goggles to my head in a vain effort to look like I know better when I actually don't. I just have fun, because guess what: games are still fun.

Gaming never has been and never will be "dead". Simple as that.

So the fact that both Mario and CoD spawned a host of inferior imitators proves that the caliber of games hasn't declined from 1998 to 2013? Wow, that's some inscrutable logic right there.

P.S. Doom clones are a myth; there never was a barrage of awful Doom clones, just a few ham-fisted releases. Actually, most DOOM imitations were pretty good, from Rise of the Triad to Dark Forces to Duke Nukem 3D.

I wanted to make a long, elaborate gag involving a Regina Spektor song about Ezra Pound (which happens to be the name of the OP) which involved lyrics that basically said "if you do not die... then Ezra Pound will come to you, sit on your bed... etc).

But then I realized it's REALLY late and I should go to bed before I do anything I regret.

<youtube=LRUIiwaS0_4>

OT: Nope. Personally, this generation have given more pleasure and impressed me more than the oft-whispered year of 1998.

Starcraft < Starcraft II.

Thief < Splinter Cell (Oh yes, I just went there).

Tomb Raider III < ... OK, admittedly no Tomb Raider style game is better than Tomb Raider III.

Pokemon Red/Blue < Pokemon Black/White.

Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment all have similar style spiritual successors in the works with no publishing constraints.

Etc.

Seems like an amusing gag--I like Spektor and her weird jibe at antisemitism. But returning to point, how are those titles better? Thief invented 3D stealth gaming--without which Splinter Cell and a million other titles wouldn't exist--Pokemon R/B kick-started the entire Pokemon craze and established the game template still aped today, and StarCraft 2 only introduced minor changes to the original's formula (the difference between WC2 and SC is greater than between SC and SC2 even though two years elapsed between the former games and twelve between the latter).

 

[Joccaren]

Pokemon Red/Blue < Pokemon Black/White.

Wowowowowow....
Ok, opinions and everything, but if I was going to argue the case of something better than Red/Blue that was released later it would be Ruby and Sapphire. Black and White struck me as the worst pokemon games to date really.
A couple of interesting concepts, but designed around what I can describe as nothing more than gimmicks that really make me hate the game.
As an example, that city that is a circle. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Its a pain to navigate, poorly laid out, the perspective is slightly confusing, all to say "We can do circles". And the bridge. That freaking massive bridge that in Red/Blue would have had some battles on it, some interesting things to do, some team Plasma plot or something [Or more likely been a large cave filled with Zubats that, whilst annoying, was fun to explore], but instead its a large, empty bridge that exists to say "We can do pseudo 3D, and curvy walking paths". So much that could have been interesting, could have been fun, could have made me like the game... but no. And another fire fighting starter but lets not go there...
Really, I want to like it, but I honestly can't. It does some things right but... God, the things it gets wrong just piss me off to no end, and are a big part of IMO one of the most important parts in a Pokemon game - the world you explore.
And that I'd say hit its peak in Ruby/Sapphire with not only a good looking world with varied environments that were well designed and interesting, but also with a variety of different things to explore with - like diving as well as surfing - and a couple of fun minigames that made it a joy to play.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Maybe try taking off those rose-tinted glasses for a second... The gaming industry is better than it ever has been. Even the worst AAA games are light years ahead in terms of gameplay, accessibility, and story than most games in the late 90s/early 2000s (and ESPECIALLY those from the Atari era, ever seen Atari Golf? Yeah, that's a whole new level of "broken on release" than something like Aliens: Colonial Marines).

 

[Ratties]

Alot of great games out there. Really more done with talking about games with people. Can take whiny gamers when it's on the internet, not in real life. Have to say that the industry is not pissing me off, it's the people that play the games. I am not talking about gamers bitching about stuff that is legit. Every time I listen to one go on and on about how some game sucks because it has stayed the same and blah blah blah(You have no idea what you are talking about.)

If gamers with any grasp of history are whiny in 2013, it's because games are shitty--it's not as if their sense of collective discontent arose in a vacuum.

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.

You forget that for every golden game you mentioned in your OP, there were a 100 creatively bankrupt titles.

Seriously, look at the list of all PSX games released in the West. You'll quickly notice how crap the majority of games were. I mean, they made an M&M's platform game for Christ' sake!

I'm not really concerned about the ratio of good games:bad games--I just want good stuff to play, and while the 'average' mainline game in 2013 may be better than in 1998, the best games for the most part don't even come close.

I KNOW I got into an argument with somebody else over this topic recently. Kinda' bothers me that there's another one. The long and the short of it is that NO, I don't think gaming is dead. And before we get on any sort of historical debate about the great video game crash and if times now resemble it at all, I'm just going to flat out say NO IT DOESN'T.

There's way too much money in it than those days, and as long as they see dollar signs, it's not dead. That's the bottom line.

Funny since creativity--the real benchmark for the health of the industry--has actually declined as the industry's collective value has surged...

This is the era that gave us Journey, Bastion, Limbo, and the Arkham games. Honestly, you're just letting your nostalgia goggles get the better of you. There were plenty of shitty games during the so-called golden years, and they all washed away. Soon, all the crappy games of today will fade away, leaving the gems in public memory.

So your argument is that because 1) five good games were made, and 2) there was bad games in the past, that 3) the game industry is not declining. Sheesh, by that standard it will never decline--or incline, for that matter.

Given I am an old coot around here (I was 12 years old in 1983 and started gaming with at Atari 2600) I have to say that it's a bit strange to think that gaming has been in decline since 2001. From both a well-established industry record and my own perspective thee last 12 or so years have been the best yet, and after decades I'm finally enjoying games that are truly amazing on many levels, both in terms of immersion, presentation, graphics and design.

It's fine to enjoy some old Atari Classics now, because you can choose from the vast array of titles that have flooded the market....but trust me when I say that when that was all there was, and the prospect of better was just a fever dream....yeah, I never want to go back to that.

What 'well-established industry record' suggests that games are improving? That they sell more? American films grossed more in the 80s than in the 70s, yet anyone with an inkling of critical judgement can tell The Godfather from Return of the Jedi.

I don't seriously think 2600 games are more enjoyable than most releases today--but they just might be better. Hell, there's more creativity manifest in one frame of Pitfall! or Adventure than there is in the entirety of most hyped AA releases today.

Oh look, another one of those "I don't like any modern games because my nostalgia glasses prevent me from seeing that games these days are still pretty good, so that means GAMING IS RUINED FOR EVVEEERRRYOOONNNEE!!" threads. Haven't seen this sort of thing before at all. [small]/sarcasm[/small]

To put it lightly: no. Gaming is not dead. And no, gaming is not worse than it was way back in those golden years you ramble about like some old guy in a rocking chair on his porch yelling at the kids on his lawn. Yes, there's a lot of crap out there today, but guess what: there were a lot of crappy games a decade/two decades ago too! Shocking, right? I mean, yeah, we've got a lot of bad CoD-ish clones these days, but remember back in the late 80's when there were a shitton of bad Mario clones? Or what about in the early 90's where everybody was trying to create an anthropomorphic mascot with "attitude" to cash in on the success of Sonic the Hedgehog? Or all of the bad Doom clones of the mid 90's? The explosion of open world action games made to ride on the GTA bandwagon in the 2000's?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say all games are better today than they once were. Nor am I some little youngster who never was alive during that "golden age" of video gaming everybody seems to be unable to agree on when it actually existed. And yes, I do realize that there are some bullshit business practices out there today. I just actually, you know, realize that everything old isn't better than everything new. I actually have an open mind and don't superglue my rose-tinted nostalgia goggles to my head in a vain effort to look like I know better when I actually don't. I just have fun, because guess what: games are still fun.

Gaming never has been and never will be "dead". Simple as that.

So the fact that both Mario and CoD spawned a host of inferior imitators proves that the caliber of games hasn't declined from 1998 to 2013? Wow, that's some inscrutable logic right there.

P.S. Doom clones are a myth; there never was a barrage of awful Doom clones

Are a ton of good games that get slack from a whiny community. Really nothing wrong with the game, it's in a genre that they don't really enjoy. Can't sit there and accept that. Have to bash the game with stupid long winded sentences that don't really go anywhere. I know gamers have been bitching since the dawn of time. Everybody just accepted the fact that they don't like the genre, then we could move on. A gamer whining about the fact that all you do in this game is fight wave after wave of enemies.(Its a brawler you dummy.)

 

[lacktheknack]

Pokemon Red/Blue < Pokemon Black/White.

Wowowowowow....
Ok, opinions and everything, but if I was going to argue the case of something better than Red/Blue that was released later it would be Ruby and Sapphire. Black and White struck me as the worst pokemon games to date really.
A couple of interesting concepts, but designed around what I can describe as nothing more than gimmicks that really make me hate the game.
As an example, that city that is a circle. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Its a pain to navigate, poorly laid out, the perspective is slightly confusing, all to say "We can do circles". And the bridge. That freaking massive bridge that in Red/Blue would have had some battles on it, some interesting things to do, some team Plasma plot or something [Or more likely been a large cave filled with Zubats that, whilst annoying, was fun to explore], but instead its a large, empty bridge that exists to say "We can do pseudo 3D, and curvy walking paths". So much that could have been interesting, could have been fun, could have made me like the game... but no. And another fire fighting starter but lets not go there...
Really, I want to like it, but I honestly can't. It does some things right but... God, the things it gets wrong just piss me off to no end, and are a big part of IMO one of the most important parts in a Pokemon game - the world you explore.
And that I'd say hit its peak in Ruby/Sapphire with not only a good looking world with varied environments that were well designed and interesting, but also with a variety of different things to explore with - like diving as well as surfing - and a couple of fun minigames that made it a joy to play.

I had more fun with it. The end.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one's attacked me for declaring Splinter Cell to be superior to Thief.

 

[Sordin]

No, no its not dead. That's a really silly suggestion. Good and fun AAA and indie titles are still being released, steam and origin are multi-million user bases and consoles and consoles are gearing up for an expensive new generation. I really don't think gaming is dead.

 

[The Funslinger]

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.

You forget that for every golden game you mentioned in your OP, there were a 100 creatively bankrupt titles.

Seriously, look at the list of all PSX games released in the West. You'll quickly notice how crap the majority of games were. I mean, they made an M&M's platform game for Christ' sake!

I actually played that when one of the local shops ran a rent-a-game scheme. Wasn't too bad.

You're right, though. Ten years down the line, we'll be having this argument again with Baldur's Gate, OoC and Grim Fandango replaced with Bioshock Infinite, Portal, and Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. There's shit to wade through with every generation, it just gets forgotten.

This whole thread needs the "in my opinion" stamp.

Technically speaking, what with the technology going into games increasing by leaps and bounds, it's as far from dead as can be. I'm very excited for what could happen.

 

[Nazulu]

Gaming isn't dead, it's undead. It's shambling corpse will walk around for eternity because its loved ones wont let it die.

It's easy to say such hyperbolic things when you've lived through 98-02, but for those who haven't, I just feel sorry for you. The last time games hit its stride before that was with the SNES, and even then, games were far more hit and miss.

So yes OP, I agree with your observations, but I am a little more hopeful that things will turn around eventually. There still are devs out there that don't want to make a game for the sake of the big bucks, but because of their passion for the medium. Besides, once gaming dies down as a fad in the mainstream consciousness, all that cash those casuals threw around won't be feeding any CEOs any longer, and they will have to try harder.

I didn't think I would be ninja'd.

Anyway, yes. It's a zombie surviving off the blood of classic games that made them popular and have mostly done it better. The magic I used to see in the industry desperately needs more potions for replenishment (creative talk here) and publishers need to stop trying to copy recent formula's because they want big bags of money.

Ignore those hypocrites telling you that you have nostalgia goggles on, they're the ones that are really blind. Though you can't blame them since they don't understand that there is nothing that really caters to us anymore.

 

[EzraPound]

[snip]

Huh? I never criticized any genre in particular, since they've almost all declined--RTSes, FPSes, sim games, fighters, point-and-click adventure games, 3D platformers, and JRPGs have all declined since the new millennium. Though on the bright side, WRPGs have been strong, MMORPGs are better than ever, and 2D platformers seem to be making a partial comeback.

 

[Pink Gregory]

For people who only want to play something that's 'better' than Deus Ex or System Shock or whatever, I assume it is; because their ideas are so damn narrow.

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.

You forget that for every golden game you mentioned in your OP, there were a 100 creatively bankrupt titles.

Seriously, look at the list of all PSX games released in the West. You'll quickly notice how crap the majority of games were. I mean, they made an M&M's platform game for Christ' sake!

Same is the true of the last generation, this generation, and the next generation.

'Creative Nadir'?

What the fuck are you talking about, OP? With the availability of skills and development tools, there's more creativity going on than ever. The only restriction is the publishing and the corporations. Same as it's always been.

'The AAA industry' is not at all representative of the industry as a whole. If anything, Kickstarter is the thing that's creatively bankrupt, and yet we're all saying it's going to save the industry. Basically, 'creativity' is a completely subjective term that can't be objectively applied.

 

[JonnyHG]

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.

It seems that at on least some level, you realize that it's essentially about preference. Have you considered that perhaps it's your passion for gaming that is dying?

 

[likalaruku]

Stupid question is stupid.

The 2010s are the time for indie developers to shine.

 

[Yopaz]

You actually make a compelling case. There have been little exploring of new ways of playing games and we are seeing a lot more games using the same basic principles.

However game quality is a subjective thing and I have enjoyed too many games of this generation to say that there are no good games. There are a lot more games and thus there will be more that don't make the cut of what we consider good.

Either way gaming is not dead. Stagnant, possibly, but it's bigger than ever.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

2 things:

First, that idea that modern games don't live up to the "lofty standards" of older games in ridiculous. I've been going through gaming history as of late playing all the greats and I can safely say gaming has really only improved for the most part. It's really just a matter of opinion and taste. You may think 90s games are all incredible. I find most don't stand any sort of test of time and the ones that do are only just on par with the really good modern games.

Second, the idea that gaming is dead is ludicrous. The fact is, gaming is really still in its infancy. We have no idea what possibilities may arise in the future.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'm sorry, OP, but this is a rather staggeringly subjective opinion. Like others have said before, there's some strong nostalgia goggles being worn, here. Not judging, though - I can relate. Being a child of the eighties, I picked up gaming in the nineties. My personal golden standards have absolutely nothing to do with the current standards of the industry.

Even so, I won't claim to think that the industry's unilaterally "dumbed down" over the years, nor will I get so cynical as to claim that the gaming scene is all about the money now, and nothing else. With gaming becoming more of a democratized leisure and with studios competing with blockbusters for attention, it stands to reason that the medium would try to cater to the lowest common denominator. Hence the yearly Call of Duty prescription, or Ubisoft's weird idea that Assassin's Creed is a concept that will absolutely never run out of steam.

That's not all there is to gaming, though. Try out stuff by Introversion Software, for instance, and I don't think I need to remind you to give Minecraft a whirl. Some of the least conventional game mechanics out there aren't championed by the triple-A industry, but by indies. By and large, it's the AAAs who are to blame for that impression you're having that the scene is dead.

Don't forget, though: gaming is an organic pastime. It's alive, the same way we are. Gaming won't ever be crystallized in a definitive form you'll be able to nurture and appreciate with your eyes closed. Entire markets might drop off for a few generations, financial dire straits might and probably will reshape the entire industry over the next few decades, what was old becomes new again and vice versa...

Anyone who claims to honestly, seriously *know* gaming in a definitive form is kidding himself. Unfortunately, some facets might be a long time coming before their rebirth, or they might not be revisited at all. Pre-Y2K gaming is filled with gems that have come to influence practically everything made in the past thirteen years - but you might not get to see those gems in action as often as you'd like.

Chalk it up to lack of innovation, copyright problems, pig-headedness from a greedy publisher or just about three berjillion other outstanding factors.

Plus - let's not forget those instances where things have actually IMPROVED, after all. Try replaying Deus Ex after going through Human Revolution. You'll realize the level designs were dumb at times, that the enemies were absolutely braindead and that stealth was both criminally easy and improperly implemented. Fast-forward thirteen years or so and we earn ourselves lines of sight in the radar portion of the screen, an alarm countdown, clear stealth layouts and enemies that aren't quite as hilariously blind.

And that's coming from a Deus Ex 1 fan!

 

[MindFragged]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but you don't really assert why the games from pre-2001 are actually better. It's safe to say there is a degree of homogenisation in the current AAA market, but that doesn't mean there are brilliant examples of the form therein. Plus, you ignore everything that is not in the AAA market atm. I know they don't get as much publicity, but there are plenty of weird and interesting games being produced for PC especially.

I think games now are kind of like movies in the 50s. All the big studios trying to out-do each other with massive productions that need to make massive returns to make a profit. Instead of the nuclear family they pander mainly to white, hetero men. When this system of making movies collapsed under its own weight, there followed a period where Hollywood started to fund smaller projects with more risk but which needed a smaller return to succeed and which tried to pander to as-yet-ignored demographics. This period birthed a lot of talent that is still revered today, like Scorcese, Coppola, Spielberg etc.

I'm just hoping we get our own 'Hollywood Renaissance'.

 

[Terramax]

I'm not really concerned about the ratio of good games:bad games--I just want good stuff to play, and while the 'average' mainline game in 2013 may be better than in 1998, the best games for the most part don't even come close.

That's just a personal choice though. It's not a fact that there are more classics or great games back then as there are now.

Now, hear me out. Honestly, I'm with you. There are more games in 1998 that I enjoy to play than there are in, say, 2012. But that's due to the type of gamer I am.

I'm a HUGE retro gamer. For instance, of the last 20 games I've bought, only 1 is from this generation (DOA5+ on the Vita). The rest have been for consoles like PS1, PS2, Gamecube, Dreamcast and Sega Saturn.

Honestly, I prefer games from the 90's and early 2000's to current generation games. But I stress that's just a preference. Just because I like older titles, doesn't make it a matter of fact these games are somehow better.

I'll wager there are plenty of people on this forum who'd rather play current gen titles than Ocarina of Time, Half Life, Grim Fandango, or any of the other games from 1998 you care to mention.

You also have to take into consideration that not all games become hits or classics straight away. Grim Fandango got rave reviews, but nobody bought it. Panzer Dragoon Saga for the Saturn is one of the most revered games of its generation, and now fetches for a ridiculous price, yet at the time the game was gravely underrated and next to no-one bought.

Maybe, give it 15 years from now, we'll be moaning how games by then aren't as amazing or innovative as titles like Okami, Dark Souls, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Heavy, etc (nearly all of these are titles I don't personally like).

 

[KeyMaster45]

*snip*

Yes, gaming is dead. It's so dead that it has begun to fester. In fact it is so dead that everyone you are speaking to on this forum right now are simply psychic echos of posters past; none of us are real.(it's actually the year 2075) John Cleese will now reinforce exactly how dead gaming is via the proxy of a parrot.


By the way, I'd suggest you see a doctor about the whole talking to us fictional people dude; can't possibly be healthy.