Serious art. What does that mean, anyways? What, are we all supposed to play every day the same dream for eternity or something? Not everyone likes serious art, and people like you need to accept that.asacatman said:
Poll: What is holding gaming back, as an industry?
- Thread starter 8bitmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
this works.
i don't think anything is holding it back. it's massively successful. there are games profiting more than some of the most successful movies nowadays. where do people get the idea that gaming isn't as widespread as they want it to be? it's incredibly mainstream.
p.s. what's with the damn "spam control" shit, every time i go to post something? they got ads in there... wonder how much Escapist makes off that crap.
I would say the community right before I'd say corporations. The reason being that the corporations such as EA etc just give the community what the community wants or would be willing to pay. The community will complain and complain about how companies are ruining gaming with DLC by breaking up the game and selling it to you later for $10. Well here's a business practice lesson for you...they don't offer products you won't buy. If there is no profit in it they won't offer it. Companies are all about making money and if you don't give them money for something they offer they will change their offer until you'll buy it. If people don't like DLC why do they buy it. When you complain about how a company is ruining gaming by doing something just remember that there is a large enough consumer base funding that that keeps them going and a good chance is you are partly the problem especially if you ever said something like, " well Id don't like DLC but I guess I'll buy it this ONE time surely it won't matter." Yeah but it adds up because there are thousands of others saying the same thing.
It's definitely the community. Just look at the thread.
"Oh consoles are the problem" or "A game I don't like is holding everything back."
Corporations cause their fair share of problems too when left unchecked and pulling a greedy maneuver but the gamer community has an incredible amount of concentrated hate and immaturity. Especially compared to the bigger industries we strive to be as relevant as, like the movie industry.
"Oh consoles are the problem" or "A game I don't like is holding everything back."
Corporations cause their fair share of problems too when left unchecked and pulling a greedy maneuver but the gamer community has an incredible amount of concentrated hate and immaturity. Especially compared to the bigger industries we strive to be as relevant as, like the movie industry.
Replayablity is holding gaming back. That is the one large thing that gaming has over any othe form of entertainment but it's hardly ever used effectively.
I voted large corporations (like EA. Activision).
Because they are the ones who push for the CoD games. They know what sells for the highest money, for the lowest amount of invested money. They are a business that only has one goal, earn as much fucking money as its can for the lowest amount possible.
And while I understand thats the nature of business, and they have every right to earn money, but when that aspect of their nature becomes their number one driving point, miles and miles from any other goal, then thats when it becomes a problem; thats when they are no longer want to take "big" risks, cut back on new ideas, tone down untested changes, and keep everything on a straight and narrow of "this is what works, so make it more like this game that sells more, and up the graphs by 20%".
That is what is "holding games" back.
ME3 could have spent another 2-3 months in shop to make a better ending. But because the game was already getting "too expensive" they didn't want to sink another million or two into the development. It was, "You have reached your max budget, you are not allowed another penny. Either everybody is working for free, or you ship the game by X date."
When games are about marginalizing risk above creativity, then creativity suffers. But often as games are about creativity, sometimes they also need to know and learn their developers too; let them dream, but keep them in check; but there is no need to tie 20 anchors to them.
Because they are the ones who push for the CoD games. They know what sells for the highest money, for the lowest amount of invested money. They are a business that only has one goal, earn as much fucking money as its can for the lowest amount possible.
And while I understand thats the nature of business, and they have every right to earn money, but when that aspect of their nature becomes their number one driving point, miles and miles from any other goal, then thats when it becomes a problem; thats when they are no longer want to take "big" risks, cut back on new ideas, tone down untested changes, and keep everything on a straight and narrow of "this is what works, so make it more like this game that sells more, and up the graphs by 20%".
That is what is "holding games" back.
ME3 could have spent another 2-3 months in shop to make a better ending. But because the game was already getting "too expensive" they didn't want to sink another million or two into the development. It was, "You have reached your max budget, you are not allowed another penny. Either everybody is working for free, or you ship the game by X date."
When games are about marginalizing risk above creativity, then creativity suffers. But often as games are about creativity, sometimes they also need to know and learn their developers too; let them dream, but keep them in check; but there is no need to tie 20 anchors to them.
Devs, Reviewers and gullable gamers who pass off trends as unbrakable rules or features in game design. As it realy puts tight contraints on what they can make and sell.
Take 2D games its only taken over 15 years for them to become trendy again so that AAA/ AA devs and pubs are starting to make games for them
Take 2D games its only taken over 15 years for them to become trendy again so that AAA/ AA devs and pubs are starting to make games for them
Do you honestly think any major publisher will come out with that though they will just use it as an excuse to charge us more for less because they know people will buy it if they come up with those excuses.black_knight1337 said:
Well yeah, obviously not everyone likes serious art. I'm not saying we should play exclusively serious stuff. I'm saying that *no one* in gaming buys 'serious art'. I probably shouldn't have used that term anyway, what I really mean is games about things other than violence, and games that aren't designed purely for entertainment, but to say something about the world, or the past, or the human condition, whatever, just they have some sort of purpose.Racecarlock said:
It's not really just the community's fault, because that sort of thing is quite hard to design. But I think it is mainly on us to show developers that there is a profit in making a smaller budget game that have a purpose other than entertainment. It would be great if there were more things like Limbo, braid, journey, although they are all pretty short, and they come at a rate of about once per year, which isn't really enough for my tastes.
P.S every day the same dream isn't 'medium budget' it's an indie game. There are plenty of indie games that are serious and want to make a point. But they are limited by not having much money being spent on them and having small developement teams.
As an INDUSTRY?
Nothing. Business is booming. Publishers are getting more of that market control they always wanted, customers are gobbling it all up. Apart from slaughtering consumers' rights on the altar of greed, why change what works?
Games are just about as commercialized and "streamlined" as they can get. Most mainstream titles are full of stock graphical tech, with stock gameplay, stock premises and stock characters. An overwhelming majority of these titles are nothing more than sequels, prequels spinoffs or reboots.
The best selling video game of all time is a third-derivative $60 map pack of its predecessor.
If you're looking for what's holding gaming back as a creative medium; it's the Publishers and the mainstream fanbase who support them. Stagnation breeds stagnation, and when stagnation is so incredibly profitable you can bet you won't see anything risky or creative until you go to the indie market (which is gaining momentum, mercifully).
Nothing. Business is booming. Publishers are getting more of that market control they always wanted, customers are gobbling it all up. Apart from slaughtering consumers' rights on the altar of greed, why change what works?
Games are just about as commercialized and "streamlined" as they can get. Most mainstream titles are full of stock graphical tech, with stock gameplay, stock premises and stock characters. An overwhelming majority of these titles are nothing more than sequels, prequels spinoffs or reboots.
The best selling video game of all time is a third-derivative $60 map pack of its predecessor.
If you're looking for what's holding gaming back as a creative medium; it's the Publishers and the mainstream fanbase who support them. Stagnation breeds stagnation, and when stagnation is so incredibly profitable you can bet you won't see anything risky or creative until you go to the indie market (which is gaining momentum, mercifully).
Okay... I don't get this at all.Lunar Templar said:
The onlt problems Call of Duty (The main series, not the spinoffs), Halo, and Battlefield bring to the table is countless imitators that fail to see what made those games great in the first place.
Battlefield 3's the best online large-scale multiplayer FPS.
Halo is the worlds best console-friendly LAN party.
And Call of Duty broke the genre out of a rut and refreshed the experience (Before letting the spinoffs fall into a new one).
As a creative medium, people like to blame the publishers... but honestly, without the publishers, there would be no funding for the creative outlet in the first place. I've played far too many High-quality games that shake up the industry - most of them being lambasted.
Could you make up your fucking mind? You lambast the lack of innovation, then criticize the three most (initially) innovative games in an entire genre.
There's a balance games have to strike between innovation and refinement. New IPs try innovation, while established ones attempt to refine their mechanics to better suit the core experience. Other games use a "Safe" core experience, and tack on "gimmicks" to see if an innovative feature could take off and stand on its own or not.
I'm never at a loss for finding good games. You just have to know where to look. Also, only looking between the "Indie" and "AAA" games is a shortcoming on your part: Check out the "Graveyard" of games that wanted to be "AAA" titles, failed, and look for gold there - If its worth encouraging, spread the word around about it. It may get vindicated.
the imitators are part of the problem to be sure, but cheap knock offs have always been a problem. no, i see them as creatively bankrupt. same game crapped out yearly with the bulk of 'improvement' (depending on who you talk to) going to the MP, improvements that could have just been some for of DLC and not a full $60 rip off, actually, i have the same problem with sports titles to.Scow2 said:
seems to me, at this point 'high quality' just means 'high end graphics', and pretty sure i made my self rather clear on my thoughts on that. also, the indi market says hi
that would be the operative word right there, 'initially', now, they're just part of the problem far as i can see. also
find it funny, you jumped me for taking a shot at FPS's but nothing about Bethesda cept i'm seeing a lot more 'safe' with out the gimmicks. though i would a tribute a LOT of my problems with games now days with 'online' functionality, cause the balance you speak of, we HAD, LAST generation. 'online' was great addition, for games built around multi-player, to be sure (TV's are heavy after, and those Xbox weren't much lighter) but its become a crutch, to many games have 'online multi-player' as part of then advertising blurb, games where it has no place in
well i am at a loss for finding good games, or maybe I'm to picky, ether way i refuse to alter my standards cause the games i like 'aren't cool' in the mainstream eye, though i don't see them working out of this 'phaze' they're in any time soon.
IMO gaming seems to be stuck in a similar situation to the early 1900s movie industry where there is little creativity going around and a few mega corporations control most of the market. Video Gaming needs a new golden age to break out of the cycle of sequels and series. I think that independent games that aspire to be more than just an hour long such as Amnesia or Hawken are the best thing for the industry.
Most of the industry is stuck in a rut but the community isn't really demanding they get out of it either.
Having a bunch of critics in the pocket of the developers doesn't help either.
Most of the industry is stuck in a rut but the community isn't really demanding they get out of it either.
Having a bunch of critics in the pocket of the developers doesn't help either.
There's a reason the Call of Duty games aren't listed in the main series, and are spin-offs instead. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a great game.Lunar Templar said:
As far as the spinoffs probably being better off as a DLC... the problem here is that "under the hood", each CoD game's made on a re-built and tweaked engine (And people failing to notice that infamously caused one game artist to break down crying "They don't know... they just don't know), and while there are overwhelming similarities between the games (They all control the same, etc), they do have enough mechanical re-workings and rebalances to justify them as being seperate games (Albeit not at the price tag they're offered). And, unlike Valve's Half-Life Series, the people behind Call of Duty know how to finish a trilogy in a timely manner.
I've seen the Indie market. Want to know what the old term for Steam's indie bundles were? Shovelware. Yes, there are some good games in there, but for every Bastion, we also get second-rate garbage like 'Splosion Man. If it weren't for Publishers, we wouldn't have games like Bulletstorm. Also - Every game is someone's life-work. As an aspiring artist myself, I can appreciate high-end graphics when it augments good art direction in a game. We've seen what good artists can do with primitive graphics - it's even more amazing what they can do with top-end graphics. Also, every game is someone's artistic vision, even the "Mediocre" ones - and while there are some publishers that screw over their studios (THQ screwing over Iron Lore's development of Soulstorm, LucasArts screwing over Obsidian's development of KotoR 2, and then all of EA's atrocities - though I think they did a good job with Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath of yesteryear.)
Rage, Hunted: The Demon Forge, Bionic Commando, Dark Void, and hundreds of other "middle-range" games (Not quite AAA titles, but not indie shovelware either) are all possible because Publishers are willing to risk capital on games.
Those series have left the "innovation" phase, and are in the "refinement" phase - there are far more games out there that continue to innovate.that would be the operative word right there, 'initially', now, they're just part of the problem far as i can see. also
What? The only thing I've really seen a problem with is a lack of split-screen on Console FPS games. Also - a lot of people like playing with real, other people. Minecraft would be terrible without the ability for someone else to explore and share your creations.
well i am at a loss for finding good games, or maybe I'm to picky, ether way i refuse to alter my standards cause the games i like 'aren't cool' in the mainstream eye, though i don't see them working out of this 'phaze' they're in any time soon.[/quote][/quote]Well, I guess you'll be forever depressed, because there will NEVER be any "Perfect" games, because the people making the games aren't perfect, and don't have perfect vision. The fun is in finding the adequate games that have features you enjoy and would like to see more of.
Nothing really holding the industry back to my mind. It's growing and fast - sales numbers are up. The number of platforms for gaming is growing just as fast (tablets, mobile app markets).
Even something like the ME3 furore or the recent success of Kick Starter projects show that the number of people involved is growing. None of these would have been as big a deal 5 years ago to my mind.
Even something like the ME3 furore or the recent success of Kick Starter projects show that the number of people involved is growing. None of these would have been as big a deal 5 years ago to my mind.
I'd say the biggest problem is the large corporations like EA/Activision seeking to sell games to the widest audience possible. Back in the day you had way more smaller companies appealing to more numerous small niches so creativity was through the roof.
That said I think PC gaming is "coming back" due to the success of indie devs working through services like Steam and GOG.
Mainstream games though have definitely gone downhill big time and I doubt anything will change in that regard.
That said I think PC gaming is "coming back" due to the success of indie devs working through services like Steam and GOG.
Mainstream games though have definitely gone downhill big time and I doubt anything will change in that regard.