Hmm. You raise a clear and logical point. However, it doesn't excuse them from doing it! I don't want a new CoD every year. I want new and better CoD, and each time I buy one it's with the hope that it is.Darknacht said:
Poll: What is holding gaming back, as an industry?
- Thread starter 8bitmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now, I voted the media who label us as future murderers because we like something with less violence and sex than your average daytime TV show. But I've noticed a weird hate to CoD. I don't like it as I prefer games with more story but it is actually 'pulling the industry forward'. Why? Because it introduces people to video games. I can guarantee that your first gaming experience is on a 'casual' game.
They will do what ever makes them money, with big companies like that that is what they are supposed to do, the are obligated to make profitable games not necessarily good games. As a consumer you are supposed to make logical choices that will encourage the practices you would like to see. If people don't want to buy the same game every year they need to stop buying the same game every year.Techno Squidgy said:
Other: The costs.
The costs to make a high-profile triple-A PS3 are exponentially larger compared to making a high-profile PS1 game back in the day.
Like Hollywood, studios can't make risks on large titles anymore. So they play it safe. You can't blame large corporations like EA for doing such. We're living in a capitalist economy, they do what they're supposed to do as a business.
The closest would be to blame the Community for their taste in games (why don't they all like experimental stuff rather than the big mainstream titles) but blaming taste is really pointless.
The industry being held back is inevitable. It occurs in all entertainment industries.
The costs to make a high-profile triple-A PS3 are exponentially larger compared to making a high-profile PS1 game back in the day.
Like Hollywood, studios can't make risks on large titles anymore. So they play it safe. You can't blame large corporations like EA for doing such. We're living in a capitalist economy, they do what they're supposed to do as a business.
The closest would be to blame the Community for their taste in games (why don't they all like experimental stuff rather than the big mainstream titles) but blaming taste is really pointless.
The industry being held back is inevitable. It occurs in all entertainment industries.
Why? Is there some rule that says it has to be held back by something.
Because last time I checked, it seemed to be striving. With each year of video games, I find I'm looking forward to more and more games.
If CoD was holding gaming back, it wouldn't have such a large fanbase. It just means you don't like the flavor of the day. So in essence, you're shit out of luck until the next big thing entices you. And then you're the one that's gonna be holding gaming back.
Community? I don't see how being a dick can somehow hold back an industry. The community is still buying the products and fueling the growth of the industry, otherwise they wouldn't be a gaming community. And the backlash at the ME3 ending is only a good thing in my eyes, so there's that.
Mobile gaming? That's really an option here? I'm not even sure how people actually think that holds back the medium. It's only grown larger because of mobile gaming.
Media? A non issue. Funnily enough, the gaming community can be louder than the media, as they've done on multiple occasions.
Gaming is stronger as an industry than it has ever been before. Not to mention we're right on the verge of the next generation.
Because last time I checked, it seemed to be striving. With each year of video games, I find I'm looking forward to more and more games.
If CoD was holding gaming back, it wouldn't have such a large fanbase. It just means you don't like the flavor of the day. So in essence, you're shit out of luck until the next big thing entices you. And then you're the one that's gonna be holding gaming back.
Community? I don't see how being a dick can somehow hold back an industry. The community is still buying the products and fueling the growth of the industry, otherwise they wouldn't be a gaming community. And the backlash at the ME3 ending is only a good thing in my eyes, so there's that.
Mobile gaming? That's really an option here? I'm not even sure how people actually think that holds back the medium. It's only grown larger because of mobile gaming.
Media? A non issue. Funnily enough, the gaming community can be louder than the media, as they've done on multiple occasions.
Gaming is stronger as an industry than it has ever been before. Not to mention we're right on the verge of the next generation.
People's opinions on gaming is the biggest thing holding us back.
Small little generalizations like "all gamers are scruffy neckbeard virgins that have no lives" and that "all fans are entitled little shits" and "all companies are criminal masterminds that steal your money because 'art'" things of that nature.....
People just don't understand why its the same as any other hobby ever.
Small little generalizations like "all gamers are scruffy neckbeard virgins that have no lives" and that "all fans are entitled little shits" and "all companies are criminal masterminds that steal your money because 'art'" things of that nature.....
People just don't understand why its the same as any other hobby ever.
For the first part, read the rest of my original post. But as it seems you can't do that, the tech used for consoles is always outdated by the time it is put on the market. If they make a more powerful console then we will get better graphics, improved physics, better ai, bigger game worlds etc.LilithSlave said:
For the second part, of course better tech won't 'create' better games. It will however lift alot of the restrictions that current developers are working with. Better tech would give them the chance to do things bigger and better. It doesn't mean that they will but the option is there.
I responded with Large Corporations, but it needs to be further defined.
The lack of back cataloging, which can only be solved by publishers actually
making batches of old games, or having them available for download on Steam or XBLA.
Allowing people to continue producing games for previous console generations
wouldn't really hurt.
E.G. Survival horror only really worked on the PS2 as far as I'm concerned,
there's been some good efforts since, but Amnesia is near enough just a
PS2 game on the PC (I know it's heresy, but I'm saying it anyway). It would
allow smaller companies to make an actual game (one with some marketing and
a physical release), rather than an indie downloadable game (which isn't a bad
thing, it just reduces the market).
I mean Deadly Premonition was not suited for this generation of consoles,
nor would it have worked as a PC indie download. However it would have been
perfect on the PS2, it's graphics and gameplay weren't much better than
latter day releases, but the story was well worth it.
Though to ignore all that nostalgic crap, just make the next generation all
download format. Every console have it's own XBLA or PSN or whatever (GOD I
WISH THAT STEAM-BOX WAS REAL!) and do away with discs altogether. Cuts down
publishing and distribution costs, so smaller companies can just get things
out there, rather than having to secure production on an outdated system
(my previous suggestion), or on a platform that is far too expensive for
them to do so (i.e. actual production for the current console generation).
It is a problem with Large Corporations not being willing (or possibly capable,
as I do not profess to know a thing about business, all ideals here) to change
their distribution model, which is a shame. I'm not saying that indie or small
venture studios is where all the innovation and real creativity comes from, but
it does appear to be. There is a place for big budget Triple A titles and a place
for the more niche games, but for the industry as a whole to progress there
needs to be some sort of middle ground, or a more level playing field.
I'll also note that both the consumer and the producers are at fault with the
constant progression of graphical output. It really does cost too much to make
something for the current generation of consoles, so there needs to be less
emphasis on that and more simply on well written, well designed, well executed
games regardless of how flashy and up to date the graphics are. Not to bring it
up, but ME3 would have been a damn sight better had the story been worked on more,
but the graphics left the same as ME2.
I mean I think Fallout New Vegas is a lot better than Fallout 3, just because
of the better writing. You can just feck off and do as you please, but the main
quests are really involving and the ending actually allows you a good few options,
rather than railroading you into something. Though Liberty Prime was a beast! That
and the expansions actually expand the story, rather than just giving you more
places to go kill things, without effecting the main game (clearing up mythos
like Ulysses and Joshua Graham was great). Yet the graphics were no better and the
whole game was hell of a lot more buggy, but still a better experience than just
pissing off your home Vault and then looking for Daddy (still love Fallout 3, but
objectively it's a little wank).
Uhm... Yeah! I think that's all I have to say. Probably not worth all the effort
and will get slated, but fuck it. I just want to see a release of Rule of Rose on
PSN or something (without an HD remastering, ala Silent Hill fuck-up-ery). I paid
£40 for Rule of Rose on ebay (it's not available in the UK, but it does have an
English PAL release, only available on European discs, go figure), still worth
every penny, but my PS2 will someday die and I want to be able to replay that
game until I die too. That and my full collection of Armored Core games released
on the PS2 (can never go wrong with fully customisable giant robots, there needs
to be more of these games now and forever).
The lack of back cataloging, which can only be solved by publishers actually
making batches of old games, or having them available for download on Steam or XBLA.
Allowing people to continue producing games for previous console generations
wouldn't really hurt.
E.G. Survival horror only really worked on the PS2 as far as I'm concerned,
there's been some good efforts since, but Amnesia is near enough just a
PS2 game on the PC (I know it's heresy, but I'm saying it anyway). It would
allow smaller companies to make an actual game (one with some marketing and
a physical release), rather than an indie downloadable game (which isn't a bad
thing, it just reduces the market).
I mean Deadly Premonition was not suited for this generation of consoles,
nor would it have worked as a PC indie download. However it would have been
perfect on the PS2, it's graphics and gameplay weren't much better than
latter day releases, but the story was well worth it.
Though to ignore all that nostalgic crap, just make the next generation all
download format. Every console have it's own XBLA or PSN or whatever (GOD I
WISH THAT STEAM-BOX WAS REAL!) and do away with discs altogether. Cuts down
publishing and distribution costs, so smaller companies can just get things
out there, rather than having to secure production on an outdated system
(my previous suggestion), or on a platform that is far too expensive for
them to do so (i.e. actual production for the current console generation).
It is a problem with Large Corporations not being willing (or possibly capable,
as I do not profess to know a thing about business, all ideals here) to change
their distribution model, which is a shame. I'm not saying that indie or small
venture studios is where all the innovation and real creativity comes from, but
it does appear to be. There is a place for big budget Triple A titles and a place
for the more niche games, but for the industry as a whole to progress there
needs to be some sort of middle ground, or a more level playing field.
I'll also note that both the consumer and the producers are at fault with the
constant progression of graphical output. It really does cost too much to make
something for the current generation of consoles, so there needs to be less
emphasis on that and more simply on well written, well designed, well executed
games regardless of how flashy and up to date the graphics are. Not to bring it
up, but ME3 would have been a damn sight better had the story been worked on more,
but the graphics left the same as ME2.
I mean I think Fallout New Vegas is a lot better than Fallout 3, just because
of the better writing. You can just feck off and do as you please, but the main
quests are really involving and the ending actually allows you a good few options,
rather than railroading you into something. Though Liberty Prime was a beast! That
and the expansions actually expand the story, rather than just giving you more
places to go kill things, without effecting the main game (clearing up mythos
like Ulysses and Joshua Graham was great). Yet the graphics were no better and the
whole game was hell of a lot more buggy, but still a better experience than just
pissing off your home Vault and then looking for Daddy (still love Fallout 3, but
objectively it's a little wank).
Uhm... Yeah! I think that's all I have to say. Probably not worth all the effort
and will get slated, but fuck it. I just want to see a release of Rule of Rose on
PSN or something (without an HD remastering, ala Silent Hill fuck-up-ery). I paid
£40 for Rule of Rose on ebay (it's not available in the UK, but it does have an
English PAL release, only available on European discs, go figure), still worth
every penny, but my PS2 will someday die and I want to be able to replay that
game until I die too. That and my full collection of Armored Core games released
on the PS2 (can never go wrong with fully customisable giant robots, there needs
to be more of these games now and forever).
Large companies who are too fixated on making money which slowly leads to an abundance of DLC of content which should have already been in the game to begin with
I've got another rant for the lack of innovation and new ideas but frankly I can't be arsed typing anymore. I may bring it up later...
I've got no problem with companies making money, if they didn't make it they wouldn't be able to produce as many games as they could. But the problem is that they often become too obsessed with making a profit and so they will try to add in DLC pretty much everywhere, to the extent where it can feel like they are deliberately cutting out parts of the game just so they can charge you to pay for more content which should have already been there to begin with. A more recent example would be Asura's Wrath (have not played Mass Effect 3 so you can leave your Prothean complaining at the door). This game is already kind of short, something I'm not complaining about because even short games can be pretty good like Vanquish or Portal, but here there is a definite stink of cut-content-DLC here which is really disappointing because it means they cutting up the length of a game that isn't that long to begin with. At the end of one of the games levels there is a huge monster that Asura can see over the distance, easily setting up for another fight. What he does then is grab his sword and charge headfirst into it. Afterwards there's a mysterious explosion you can't see the cause of which in the next level leaves Asura charred up. Playing through the game, you wouldn't expect it to leave you out of the loop like this. The game revels in showing you the most over the top fist fighting you'll see outside of Dragonball Z so why would it suddenly shy away and not show you how Asura killed this gigantic thing with just his head? Well if you want to know then Capcom will happily charge you 1.50 to find out in the Chapter 11.5 interlude! But this isn't even the worst of the DLC in this game. The ending of the game ends at quite a cliffhanger (and this is regardless you played the true episode or not). Some may say this was left as a sequel bait but actually this is DLC bait where Capcom in all their generosity are going to charge 5.49 for three more episodes which they call "the true conclusion to Asura's Wrath". That's right folks! You now have to pay more for DLC if you want to see the actual ending to a game! This is really unacceptable! The developers have deliberately cut out content in a game, let alone necessary content like the fucking ending and are then going to resell it to you as additional DLC! Truly outrageous!
This is an attitude that really has to stop. Developers shouldn't remove content from a game and then expect you to pay for it after you buy the game. Capcom have already taken it to a stage where you have to pay for the ending to the game but what if it doesn't stop there? What else are they going to remove and then sell back to you later on? The first level? Tutorials? The cutscenes? Where does it end? If this doesn't stop now, the over-reliance on DLC may get even worse and we'll start having to pay more in DLC that should already be in the game then we did in actually buying the game itself.
I'm not saying that all DLC's are bad. Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Batman: Arkham City, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5 all have good DLC for them because the DLC in question feels more like an expansion pack rather than cut content. The story that the game wants to tell has already been given out in the main game. Here, the DLC just serves as extra little side missions you can buy if you want to. If you choose not to and are already satisfied with the game as it is then you'll just miss out on the missions but nothing that is integral to the plot. It is once it starts feeling like you're paying for content that should already be in the game that DLC goes from "expansion pack" to "rip off".
NOTE:
The prices given for the Asura's Wrath DLC was given out in British pounds, the currency just wasn't listed because apparently it will show up as Japanese lettering. Go figure.
This is an attitude that really has to stop. Developers shouldn't remove content from a game and then expect you to pay for it after you buy the game. Capcom have already taken it to a stage where you have to pay for the ending to the game but what if it doesn't stop there? What else are they going to remove and then sell back to you later on? The first level? Tutorials? The cutscenes? Where does it end? If this doesn't stop now, the over-reliance on DLC may get even worse and we'll start having to pay more in DLC that should already be in the game then we did in actually buying the game itself.
I'm not saying that all DLC's are bad. Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Batman: Arkham City, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5 all have good DLC for them because the DLC in question feels more like an expansion pack rather than cut content. The story that the game wants to tell has already been given out in the main game. Here, the DLC just serves as extra little side missions you can buy if you want to. If you choose not to and are already satisfied with the game as it is then you'll just miss out on the missions but nothing that is integral to the plot. It is once it starts feeling like you're paying for content that should already be in the game that DLC goes from "expansion pack" to "rip off".
NOTE:
The prices given for the Asura's Wrath DLC was given out in British pounds, the currency just wasn't listed because apparently it will show up as Japanese lettering. Go figure.
I've got another rant for the lack of innovation and new ideas but frankly I can't be arsed typing anymore. I may bring it up later...
On the one hand, as tech advances, production costs go down. I bought an I7-2600K for 1/2 the price my buddy paid for a I7-970 and it is about as fast if not faster. For what my buddy did pay, there is a new 2211 architecture. RAM now costs next to nothing.krazykidd said:
But, HD games take twice as much time to make and cost nearly twice to make as did their non-HD counterparts.
As the tech improves and gets cheaper, driving production costs down, demand, thankfully, for even better looking games.
i am
from the shadows i lurk.
i thought up the idea of selling sports games year after year.
i make sure all protagonists have short brown hair.
i spawned controversy over violence and sex in games.
i make sure all games have at least one female whose role is nothing more than to look sexy.
i fund sequels of shitty games, then go online to organize boycotts that always fail.
i steal unique ideas then cluster them with the generic brown/ gray colors and tired themes.
from the shadows i lurk.
i thought up the idea of selling sports games year after year.
i make sure all protagonists have short brown hair.
i spawned controversy over violence and sex in games.
i make sure all games have at least one female whose role is nothing more than to look sexy.
i fund sequels of shitty games, then go online to organize boycotts that always fail.
i steal unique ideas then cluster them with the generic brown/ gray colors and tired themes.
Large budgets and focus on a production process streamlined for a large workforce to work in parallel. AAA games are basically made as sausages in a factory. Thats good for economic efficiency and makes large budget games possible, but it's not good for creativity.
I sometimes notice that 'Game director' and 'Game producer' is the same title. I think the gaming industry could do well by having someone in charge of artistic vision that doesn't need to bother too much with practical limitations.
As a side effect of the factory production method, games use pre-rolled engines that are limited in what they can do. The good old fashioned game programmer who designs and implements a game engine for a specific purpose seems almost gone now. If an existing engine can't do the job, the game will not be made.
Thats also why I think the least thing we need is more generations of hardware, because the limiting factor is in software design. Some people mentioned that better tech could mean better AI, but in fact our current tech is far ahead of what can effectively be used. Because designing AI that takes advantage of the tech is much more time consuming and expensive than developing the hardware.
I sometimes notice that 'Game director' and 'Game producer' is the same title. I think the gaming industry could do well by having someone in charge of artistic vision that doesn't need to bother too much with practical limitations.
As a side effect of the factory production method, games use pre-rolled engines that are limited in what they can do. The good old fashioned game programmer who designs and implements a game engine for a specific purpose seems almost gone now. If an existing engine can't do the job, the game will not be made.
I'd say the opposite is the case. As tech improves production cost goes up, because it takes more people to fill out the tech. When consumers buy a brand new gaming rig, they don't want games with a look and feel of last year, they want games that use the tech.Gorfias said:
Thats also why I think the least thing we need is more generations of hardware, because the limiting factor is in software design. Some people mentioned that better tech could mean better AI, but in fact our current tech is far ahead of what can effectively be used. Because designing AI that takes advantage of the tech is much more time consuming and expensive than developing the hardware.
On a business and artistic sense NOTHING is holding back the games industry. More people than ever are making indie games, while the AAA titles are making more money than they ever had. Even people who have been shot down by publishers are using Kickstarter to fund their games!
On a technological sense though, I think it has gotten to the point where our current gen is starting to slow down our development on graphics and AI and possible technological innovations. It's only really getting to be an issue now because this generation has gone on for more than long enough, and it's really starting to show.
None of your options are holding the industry back but pushing it foward.
On a technological sense though, I think it has gotten to the point where our current gen is starting to slow down our development on graphics and AI and possible technological innovations. It's only really getting to be an issue now because this generation has gone on for more than long enough, and it's really starting to show.
None of your options are holding the industry back but pushing it foward.
big companies, i guess... indie devs is where all the innovation lies these days... my opinion anyway
I'd say the community. As a specific example to point to, look at how the community is snuffing out innovation and risk-taking.
We piss and moan when we're handed the same bland, cliche format or story or ending, yet when the industry tries to give us something new we say "Holy shit what the fuck were you guys thinking you're ruining my game that you all made!"
We need to be more open to new ideas and not just say that we are.
We piss and moan when we're handed the same bland, cliche format or story or ending, yet when the industry tries to give us something new we say "Holy shit what the fuck were you guys thinking you're ruining my game that you all made!"
We need to be more open to new ideas and not just say that we are.
I think the industry is doing great, but I do think the focus on graphics over gameplay is hurting the industry a lot, and with the coming next generation, I'm really worried that the new power is going to be wasted at graphics instead of things like AI and gameplay.