Poll: Would you be ok with the Games Industry Crashing and not having AAA titles for 5-10 Years?

[Twilight_guy]

Fuck no. It would take a decade to restart games and another decade for them to get back where they are. I don't want the evolution of game design to stagnate for a fifth of more of my lifetime because some people see gaming as too repetitive. I don't give a rat's ass if you think that major AAA FPS games look the same, go buy some cracked out indie game and stop complaining then. Aside from that, if games crash, there go my career perspectives and that's not a good thing.

 

[TehCookie]

There are still plenty of games for me to try, and there is defiantly enough to last 5-10 years. If it reformed the industry into something better I'd be for it. People say the gaming is better and more popular than ever, but there have been way less interesting games than any previous gen. I know this generation isn't over, but it still doesn't seem like my current games library will compare to any of my classic ones.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Actually i'm counting on that.
In my opinion overhyped, overbloated products that costs millions to develop AND are supposed to provide more millions in exchange are killing the video gaming faster than piracy.

 

[Iori Branford]

My Aye has nothing to do with restoring originality or artistry or anything like that to games themselves. What I wouldn't give to make those our biggest problems.

If the recent anti-consumer campaigns ("FUCK USED SALES" and getting gamers to repeat it), money grabs (DLC every extra feature), user lock-in (EA games requiring the EA game service), and anal security mechanisms (always-online-even-for-singleplayer crap) are really all the difference between break-even or bust for the core game companies, it means the core game companies are over budget.

If I'm eyeing some games during hard times, do I get to pirate the pretty new 360 ones? No, I go with what's on GOG.com. It's time the core game companies learned the same courtesy: shelve the monster 3D engines, A-list actors, and TV spots and go for stylish simplicity on tried and true tech while leaving the hype to the fans, until such time as they can afford to bring back photorealistic celebs without having to or being strongly tempted to dick us over for another buck.

If the war and sports fans walk away? Eh. There's more than enough bored casual folk to make up.

 

[oktalist]

I already own more awesome games than I can possibly play in ten years, so yeah. If the industry continues in the way it is, I'll probably end up just playing the same four or five games in a rotation for the rest of my life, and like it.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Yeah that's a good idea lets put hundreds of thousands maybe millions of people out of work massively damage the world economy and essentially fuck shit up because you personally believe that the games we get now are just rehashed shit.

 

[LilithSlave]

What? That's like saying every AAA game should be the equivalent of a 1000-page novel or the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films played back to back in one sitting.

I don't like that comparison. Because that implies that to have 100 or more hours worth of gameplay, it has to be linear, and not just good. Minecraft is comparable to a 1000-page novel? Terraria is comparable to a 1000 page novel? Dwarf Fortress?

what's best for the gaming experience

Yes, and the best gaming experience means more and better content instead of graphics.

instead of artificially shortening or extending the title to make the number crunchers happy.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. I said that people should worry about adding as much gameplay as possible to a game, and therefor adding quality, instead of wasting time on graphics. I said nothing in my post that warrants being labeled "artificially extending", except your own insistent interpretation.

A game worth 100 or more, means also things like replayability, options, and the like. Giving the player fun things to do. The thing is, if people spent the money they're spending on graphics, on only gameplay, you'd have something that completely blows other games out of the water in terms of depth. Look at what little old indie Minecraft is doing. Instead of spending all of that graphical power we have today on ridiculous photorealism, it's being used to render a mass of pixelated blocks. And for that you have an overwhelming sense of freedom and options. The ability to interact with pretty much every object in the game. There's no way this game would be playable on a PlayStation or Nintendo 64, even though the graphics are remarkably similar to those systems. Because what they are using the graphical power of modern systems to do. Instead of update graphical realism, they have used the power for other areas. And for that, we have something better than a photorealistic cutscene game, we have a game with a unique charm in a sea full of samey games. A game with almost unlimited hours worth of play.

Then think about how much time it takes people to created these realistic CG creations. And how much better games would be if people spent that time working on gameplay. If people took away all those hours and money working on graphics, and didn't worry about the game looking better than a PlayStation game, and focused solely on gameplay, games would be amazing right now.

 

[GoaThief]

I don't like that comparison. Because that implies that to have 100 or more hours worth of gameplay, it has to be linear, and not just good.

I'm trying to work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or just plain mental.

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's exactly the kind of nonsense you're suggesting. Not every game is open world, nor do they have to be. Not every book has to be an epic. There's nothing wrong with 10-minute short films. When every remaining game is a Minecraft clone you will be arguing for another crash to break the trend. Speaking of which, not everyone is even a fan of minecraft - some don't even like it (shock, horror, blasphemy!).

Stop being so myopic. Would you give up your job and career just because some spoiled egocentric youngsters want some different types of computer games (a recreational luxury)? If you're in school would you leave tomorrow to work at a fast food counter for the rest of your days just so you can have more open world games that visually improve if you're suffering from cataracts? Actually, I expect some crazies on here would... hundreds of thousands (at least) permanently jobless in exchange for more Minecraft clones. Brilliant.

 

[RatRace123]

I'd like to say yes, but a lot of my favorite games are Triple A.
Yeah, I know that the big corporate stuff is evil, but dammit you can't deny that some games just wouldn't be the same without that ludicrous budget they had.

I do want the industry to change however. And not every AAA game released in the last 5-10 years has been gold.

 

[hermes]

No. I have no problem with AAA titles. I have a problem when those seems like the only options available.
Luckily, the field is evening out, and the community is starting to notice there is more than just guns and blades in the horizon. The Double Fine example filled me with hope...

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

No matter what their will be game's, both good and bad. Who make's them dose not bother me.

 

[Korten12]

Call of Duty is dying.

lol. What? No matter your opinion on the game... CoD is dying? That's a joke. MW3 had record sales, beating out all games that year (in sales, quality isn't something I am going to debate) and beat out previous games, Blops and Mw2 in sales.

So if that means it's dying, then BF3 is dead.

 

[J Tyran]

A crash would harm small and indie developers in the short term, even if (and that's a big if) it opened up more opportunities in the long term.

To give an example, I've made no secret of my personal dislike of many aspects of The Old Republic, but I'd hate to see it crash and burn, because that would scare investor money away from MMOs as a genre - money that might otherwise find its way to support MMOs I do like.

Personally I think the MMO market is undergoing its own version of the Atari era crash. Nearly all the big MMOs released in the last few years have under performed, many had to resort into changing into a F2P model. The market leader WoW is also losing millions of its subscribers.

Lack of innovation and endless cloning of WoW caused the problems for some games, others where flawed in other ways. WoW seems to have upset some of its players as well as some of its casual customers moving on to social networking games.

What the future will hold for MMOs I don't know but its obvious to anyone that cracks are beginning to show.

 

[LilithSlave]

10-minute short films.

Video games are not film. And a game in which it is possible to do everything there is possible to do in the game, in 10 minutes, is not a good game.

Stop being so myopic.

Stop being dramatic while making wild, irrelevant comparisons.

Remember how in all those piracy topics people talked of how games were supply and demand and paying the creator for their work, and all that? Sure, they can make games however they like. I can still suggest they make good games instead of games with realistic graphics. And a lot of us fans of video games have stopped buying most AAA titles and started buying more indie titles in the meantime because of that.

And you, stop being myopic about game design and making good games. And strawmanning people who disagree with you. Not to mention outright insulting them.

In multiple areas, whether some people like Minecraft or not, does have better gameplay design than a game such as Heavy Rain, in that...
1. The game is played and learned though gameplay and does not require constant explanation
2. The game does not rely on non-gameplay elements, such as cutscenes, to pad time
3. The game allows one to interact with as many objects in the environment as possible

The point in making a good game is to make a good interactive experience. While people have different tastes, generally, the way to achieve this, is making proper use of the interactive qualities of the genre. If you are unable to interact with most objects in the game, the possibilities of interaction are severely limited.

One of the things you can pretty objectively judge a game on is programming and gameplay depth. If you throw together a few FMVs, the game does not have depth and it is not a very multifaceted interactive experience. A good game, however, notes how multiple strings of things come together and affect the player. The more depth it has, the better. It's certainly possible to have more depth than Minecraft. But Minecraft does show a degree of complication to events. There are thousands of objects that are all possible to interact with, and all have ways that they interact with each other. Complexity. Something Dwarf Fortress, too, has more of than most AAA titles.

If you'll not what makes Chess such a good game that is still relevant today, it is that the game holds thousands of moves and strategies and possibilities. And this complexity leaves it a better game than tic tac toe.

And it is these various strategy games, whether Chess or some other cultural variety, that has lead to the genres of video game, the Real Time Strategy game, and the Tactical Role Playing game.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

Yes please. I'm actually hoping that the huge corporations eventually turn away from using games as a cash cow and let it go back to being a nerd hobby.

 

[deathbydeath]

no. just no. the crash in 1983 was due to atari having a monopoly over most of the market, their major corporate mismanagement, and two (literally) shit games. this was a sign that the video game market was not handled as well s it should have. this was a warning sign that handling video games the way would harm the industry, this is not true any more. Modern warfare 3 is the fastest-selling piece of media of all time. clearly we are doing something right. the industry is no longer governed by a monopoly, but we have a handful of major publishers, four home consoles, two dedicated handheld gaming platforms, and the app store. there is no need for this kind of ruination. this is stupid, selfish, and short-sighted. shut up.

 

[GoaThief]

And a game in which it is possible to do everything there is possible to do in the game, in 10 minutes, is not a good game.

Absolute nonsense; The Impossible Game [http://flukedude.com/theimpossiblegame/].

Your post made me laugh, so much hot air and bullshittery. No strawman arguments on my part, you've just been exposed over and over. Minecraft is better than Heavy Rain because there are no cut-scenes? Minecraft is worse than Heavy Rain because there is absolutely no narrative in the former. See, it's easy to stoop to your level but it's effectively pointless going back and forth arguing subjective opinions.

As you stated, people like different things, so why are you attempting to force your taste in games down everyone else's throats, making hundreds of thousands unemployed if you had your way? All because you're on a self-righteous crusade to stick it to the man and forcefully bring the "joy" of Minecraft to all gamers everywhere.

The bigger and healthier all aspects of the industry are, the better. People who want CoD can have it. People who want Skyrim can have it. People who want Minecraft can have it. People who want fucking Farmville (the poor, poor brainwashed fools) can have it. People can find the jobs and careers they want; whether it's innovating networking code for multiplayer games, creating concept art or writing a score - you want to take all that away... why exactly? Oh yeah, you're bored of certain games, think some people have too much money and don't like opinions when they disagree with your own. Let them all burn at the altar of Notch!

there is no need for this kind of ruination. this is stupid, selfish, and short-sighted. shut up.

Exactly.