Quality wars: We've lost.

[lodo_bear]

Quality wars are always a losing battle. If you want anything worth anything in this world, you must be willing to fight tooth and nail for it.

A relevant poem (author unknown):

When you want a thing bad enough
To go out and fight for it,
To work day and night for it,
To give up your peace and your sleep and your time for it;
If only the desire of it makes your aim strong enough never to tire of it;
If life seems all empty and useless without it,
And all that you dream and you scheme is about it;
If gladly you'll sweat for it,
Fret for it,
Plan for it,
Pray with all your strength for it;
If you'll simply go after the thing that you want with all your capacity,
Strength and sagacity;
Faith, hope, and confidence, stern pertinacity;
If neither poverty nor cold nor famish nor gaunt
Nor sickness or pain to body or brain can turn you away
From the aim that you want;
If dogged and grim, you besiege and beset it...
You'll get it!

If you want anything good, you have to sacrifice for it. Look long and hard, wait forever, pay through the nose, petition and plead, and if all else fails, make it yourself.

 

[Twad]

Low quality stuff only suceeds because we, as consumers, support their low-quality products with our money.

Some develloppers wont think twice when they see they can just make something old appear new and pretty on the surface but with no more change than that, then sell it as something great and innovative.

And so far, overhyping poor (yet pretty) products seems to be very effective to convince people to buy them.

 

[TacticalShoe]

Video games are just another tick mark on the big list of things that have become entirely commercialized.

I remember back in the early 90's people wouldn't dare play video games with me because they would rather go outside and play and, to be honest, I would have much rather gone out to play as well. Fast-forward to right now and I'm seeing my 8 year old cousin just sitting inside playing Zelda on his Wii all day. What it comes down to is that our culture has changed dramatically and that video games have become the norm.

 

[benylor]

While some in this thread have used the "It's a business, they'll do whatever makes money" argument, gaming is an artform. There will always, always be some developers doing it for the sake of art - just look at Portal, that doesn't meet the criteria for massive commercial success and lotsa money at all, but VALVe have the artistic integrity to do something like this. Look at Dragon Age - unashamedly hard game to get into, slow-paced, but a wonderful, wonderful game, typical of Bioware; of course, you can feel EA holding the strings with the way that DLC is being handled (badly), but the fact still remains that this is a high-quality, high-effort, enthusiast's game.

The problem isn't that quality games won't exist any more - the problem is that people who are talented are being diverted to producing shovelware who could be spending their time making real works of genius - who knows how many Portals, InFamouses, Bioshocks and UT2004s were not made because Guitar Hero 209 was made in its place?

In fact, UT2004 is a very important point - UT3 is clearly an attempt to follow the Gears of War market, which means there is still no game at all that has followed UT2004. Which is why, to my knowledge, UT2004 has a bigger online community than UT3.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Yeah we are the minority. Just like Film enthusiasts who spend time reading reviews and reflecting upon the cinematography and direction are minority to those who just wanna see shit blow up...

Yet good films are still being made, And while games become a more mainstream media like film and books and the like. Good games will still be made.

The quality wars are not over, The quality wars never even began.

I disagree. Comparing making films to making games is like comparing a cockroach's movement speed to that of an elephant.

When you make a game you have to have animators, the game engine, a publisher, (at least some kind of) a writer, much time and quite a lot of money. Movies, on the other hand, can be shot in less than a week (Phone Booth was shot in 10 days), don't have to look better all the time to receive better ratings nor care about the newest technological advancements and can be made with a minimal budget (cough cough Blair Witch cough Project).

I don't know how much this is on topic, but I read in a gaming magazine today that some bloke from Infinity Ward (dunno who) said that games are now officially as big a medium as movies, books and other that kinda stuff beacuase of you-know-what's success. The fact that MW2 made more money in the first 24 hours than anything else before it does tell something about its popularity, but it doesn't make gaming "everybody's entertainment". The main reasons for its tremendous profit were raised prices, massive marketing and hype and that it was one of the most anticipated games ever. Not that it is loved by everyone, regardless of age, gender or race.

 

[Hiphophippo]

I discovered a couple years ago that the real innovation and fun was in indie PC games. Been pretty pleased since then.

 

[Goombanator]

To an extent- We created this problem. We demanded more and more, for less and less- We whined about paying for content, we boycotted sequels that came out too fast, We posted complaints about multi millon dollar games taking only 6 hours to complete. We all got too bitchy and too critical and started to think we mattered too much, then the industry as a whole looked at the casual market, that buy any old shit- and looked back at us and said "Fuck this noise" and abandoned us. In time they might realise the souless nature of it all and come back to us- Or perhaps we will have to "make do" with only 5 or 6 truley triple A titles each year.
They are still producing goodness, Biowares still churning out amazing stuff, Bioshock 2 is out soon, MW2 was already mentioned. But as far as the situation is now? We have only ourselves to blame.

 

[jimtheviking]

This is why gaming innovation and invention has slowed down alot lately, and why shovelware is generally more profitable than quality games (Modern Warfare 2 and Halo are expections to this rule - they aren't shovelware, and have enthusiast gamer fans).

Here's where I stopped reading your argument as a rational look at the state of Video Gaming and more as a "Why aren't they making more awesome games like CoD6:MW2OMGWTFBBQ?"

Allow me to explain.

MW2 is the perfect, shining, paragon-like example of Shovelware. It is what all other Shovelware hopes to aspire to. "How could you say such a thing?" I hear you cry. "After all, was it not one of the most anticipated and successful launches in video gaming history?"

Well, allow me to retort.

Yes, it was one of the most anticipated and successful launches in video gaming history. Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic. For the company who made it.

For the people who dropped $60 for it? A fairly poor return on investment.

How do I figure? Well, think of it like this: Minimum Wage in Ontario, where I'm located, is $10/hour. MW2 gives you, on average, 6 hours of single-player game time. This means that, if you work a minimum wage job, you got 1 hour of enjoyment for every hour you worked to buy the game. Not a great investment. Adjust it to fit the minimum wage in your area and, unless you're getting more than $10 an hour, it's a shitty way to go.

It also suffers from FPS-itis, in that there's not a whole hell of a lot of replayability inherent in the game.

"But Jim!" you shout, "The multiplayer is awesome, and that's why I bought it!"

So you spent $60 - that's at least 6 hours of minimum wage work - to play Counterstrike with a graphical update and a few gameplay tweaks? Not a good financial call on your behalf, I'd think. At least, I certainly wouldn't make it.

"You douche! You probably haven't even played MW2!"

In fact, I have. I enjoyed it, but it ended way too quickly. And insofar as the online play goes, I was unimpressed. So I loaded up Red Orchestra and played the shit out of that. Why? Because it cost me $15 dollars when I bought it all those years ago and I get a decent amount of enjoyment from it. And, for $15, buying a game that had no offline-play component or story mode made sense. Had they tacked on a 6-hour story mode and charged me, say, $60, I'd have been tempted but probably wouldn't have bought it. Why? Because even with the fact that it's an awesome WWII simulator, I'd have been offended that the developer was trying to sell me a game at a 1:1 "boring drudgery" to "non-drudgery enjoyment" ratio, regardless of the online multiplayer aspect.

"How the hell do you get away with calling MW2 'Shovelware'?"

Like such: Shovelware is designed to net the company as much cash as possible with as little serious investment as possible. What changed, really, from CoD4:MW to CoD6:MW2, apart from the graphics? A couple of new weapons and some different mechanics, yes, and it was pretty cool being able to have an AC-130 or Pavelow flying top cover for you...But then again, they already did that at the end of CoD4, so not so much innovation there.


So, in conclusion, suck it up. 'Hardcore' and 'Enthusiast' gamers are just as guilty of supporting the culture of shovelware in modern gaming as 'Casuals.' The 'Next Game in The Make Us A Ton of Money Series' that we (and I associate myself very loosely with 'Enthusiast' gamers) buy is no more or less shovelware than the 'Cutesy Bubble-Popping Game' that a casual gamer in Des Moines buys.

 

[TPiddy]

This is why we need to support DLC and Digital Distribution. That is the biggest way that gaming companies can save money right now. If a GOOD game is available through digital distribution or has good DLC, get it.

DLC will save the good games and the good game studios.

 

[TPiddy]

MW2 is the perfect, shining, paragon-like example of Shovelware. It is what all other Shovelware hopes to aspire to. "How could you say such a thing?" I hear you cry. "After all, was it not one of the most anticipated and successful launches in video gaming history?"

Well, allow me to retort.

Yes, it was one of the most anticipated and successful launches in video gaming history. Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic. For the company who made it.

For the people who dropped $60 for it? A fairly poor return on investment.

How do I figure? Well, think of it like this: Minimum Wage in Ontario, where I'm located, is $10/hour. MW2 gives you, on average, 6 hours of single-player game time. This means that, if you work a minimum wage job, you got 1 hour of enjoyment for every hour you worked to buy the game. Not a great investment. Adjust it to fit the minimum wage in your area and, unless you're getting more than $10 an hour, it's a shitty way to go.

It also suffers from FPS-itis, in that there's not a whole hell of a lot of replayability inherent in the game.

"But Jim!" you shout, "The multiplayer is awesome, and that's why I bought it!"

So you spent $60 - that's at least 6 hours of minimum wage work - to play Counterstrike with a graphical update and a few gameplay tweaks? Not a good financial call on your behalf, I'd think. At least, I certainly wouldn't make it.

"You douche! You probably haven't even played MW2!"

In fact, I have. I enjoyed it, but it ended way too quickly. And insofar as the online play goes, I was unimpressed. So I loaded up Red Orchestra and played the shit out of that. Why? Because it cost me $15 dollars when I bought it all those years ago and I get a decent amount of enjoyment from it. And, for $15, buying a game that had no offline-play component or story mode made sense. Had they tacked on a 6-hour story mode and charged me, say, $60, I'd have been tempted but probably wouldn't have bought it. Why? Because even with the fact that it's an awesome WWII simulator, I'd have been offended that the developer was trying to sell me a game at a 1:1 "boring drudgery" to "non-drudgery enjoyment" ratio, regardless of the online multiplayer aspect.

"How the hell do you get away with calling MW2 'Shovelware'?"

Like such: Shovelware is designed to net the company as much cash as possible with as little serious investment as possible. What changed, really, from CoD4:MW to CoD6:MW2, apart from the graphics? A couple of new weapons and some different mechanics, yes, and it was pretty cool being able to have an AC-130 or Pavelow flying top cover for you...But then again, they already did that at the end of CoD4, so not so much innovation there.


So, in conclusion, suck it up. 'Hardcore' and 'Enthusiast' gamers are just as guilty of supporting the culture of shovelware in modern gaming as 'Casuals.' The 'Next Game in The Make Us A Ton of Money Series' that we (and I associate myself very loosely with 'Enthusiast' gamers) buy is no more or less shovelware than the 'Cutesy Bubble-Popping Game' that a casual gamer in Des Moines buys.

Amen brother.... a sequel that offers pretty much nothing new to the series and yet people ate it up in droves. I won't say I'm completely above that as I did grab Gears of War 2, but at least it had several new single-player and multi-player features and I felt it made for a worthy investment and I was right.

Halo 3:ODST on the other hand, I thought was only worthy of a rental to go through the single player campaign, which I did, and I was happy with that as well. Gamers need to vote with their wallets and when the steaming pile of repackaged shit that is MW-2 is the 'top selling opening week game of all time', that says a lot about gamers in general.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I have to heavily agree with the statement that indie devs are the future of the hardcore market. I say this because increasingly when I want to play a game that's different; by different I mean something that is pure quality in what it tries to accomplish; I find myself turning to the indie section of Steam. Two of the best games I've played this year were World of Goo and Machinarium, and I think that really speaks volumes about how bloated and uncontrollable the large development companies have become.

If you don't know what World of Goo or Machinarium are I highly suggest you google search them now

 

[The DSM]

Gaming, I have feel has started its decent, I feel the 00s( or about 08 onwards) will be the years that cracks started to appear in gaming.

 

[Pingieking]

To an extent- We created this problem. We demanded more and more, for less and less- We whined about paying for content, we boycotted sequels that came out too fast, We posted complaints about multi millon dollar games taking only 6 hours to complete. We all got too bitchy and too critical and started to think we mattered too much, then the industry as a whole looked at the casual market, that buy any old shit- and looked back at us and said "Fuck this noise" and abandoned us. In time they might realise the souless nature of it all and come back to us- Or perhaps we will have to "make do" with only 5 or 6 truley triple A titles each year.

I don't think this is actually a problem. The market is simply maturing, and generally when entertainment markets mature it tends to mutate into something very different from its beginnings. Also, all the whining and boycotting you mentioned are signs of a healthy market. Rational consumers are suppose to demand more and more for less and less, and it's up to the corporations to meet the consumer's demands or turn to another consumer. In this case, the other consumer turns out to be more of a sheep than a rational consumer.

*snip*

That was very well thought out and, as distressing as it may be for me, I can't find solid reasons to counter your points. Well, perhaps the point that Activision would have created a much better shovelware out of MW2 if they didn't create the IW.net system. It was a large investment that brought in low, possibly negative, returns.

 

[Chris0132]

As I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer I'm not overly fussed.

As long as there are PCs there will be PC games, and as long as there are PC games there will be indie studios making weird stuff, and as long as there are indie studios making weird stuff, we'll get new ideas.

Not that I like most indie stuff mind you, I usually like big budget games more, indie stuff usually lacks polish, but sometimes it has interesting elements which offset that.

Basically I don't think we're seeing fewer innovative games, I think we're merely seeing more games and most of them are fifa and gran turismo and guitar band dance mania or whatever. But the more of those you get the more profitable gaming becomes, and the more people there are in the industry, and the more companies you get, and the more companies you get the more different games you get, there is a finite amount of repetitive crap you can create.

It's also worth noting that repetitive crap used to be novel, which is why it gets made so much, DDR was really amazing once upon a time, so everyone made a version of it, sometimes with their own peripherals. Things become popular due to novelty and remain so until something new comes along, so you're always getting new stuff.

Also do be aware that we all probably have similar gaming timeframes, as in we all started a decade and a half ago more or less, and it is entirely possible we're simply getting bored of something we've done for so long. Objectively speaking the games I play now are infinitely more impressive than ones I played when I was younger, they have more content better graphics and refined controls and mechanics, and yet I rarely play them for more than a week or so. Ultimately I think it's simply that I'm older and don't find it as much fun as I used to, not anything wrong with the gaming market itself. I get most of my fun now by developing for games, playing with the editors and making maps and models and things.

I still Say Games are an art not a buisness.

Expression is art and retail is business, games can be made for expression and sold retail, so the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[squid5580]

To an extent- We created this problem. We demanded more and more, for less and less- We whined about paying for content, we boycotted sequels that came out too fast, We posted complaints about multi millon dollar games taking only 6 hours to complete. We all got too bitchy and too critical and started to think we mattered too much, then the industry as a whole looked at the casual market, that buy any old shit- and looked back at us and said "Fuck this noise" and abandoned us. In time they might realise the souless nature of it all and come back to us- Or perhaps we will have to "make do" with only 5 or 6 truley triple A titles each year.
They are still producing goodness, Biowares still churning out amazing stuff, Bioshock 2 is out soon, MW2 was already mentioned. But as far as the situation is now? We have only ourselves to blame.

Thank you. I have been trying to say that for a while. It just always comes out wrong.

 

[TacticalShoe]

Yeah we are the minority. Just like Film enthusiasts who spend time reading reviews and reflecting upon the cinematography and direction are minority to those who just wanna see shit blow up...

Yet good films are still being made, And while games become a more mainstream media like film and books and the like. Good games will still be made.

The quality wars are not over, The quality wars never even began.

I disagree. Comparing making films to making games is like comparing a cockroach's movement speed to that of an elephant.

When you make a game you have to have animators, the game engine, a publisher, (at least some kind of) a writer, much time and quite a lot of money. Movies, on the other hand, can be shot in less than a week (Phone Booth was shot in 10 days), don't have to look better all the time to receive better ratings nor care about the newest technological advancements and can be made with a minimal budget (cough cough Blair Witch cough Project).

I don't particularly agree with this statement. Movies take a Hell of a lot of effort to make even if they're short and simple.

And in regards to your statement about movies not always having to look better all the time to be considered good, games can be the same way. If you don't think about games in the sense of big name video games and think about them in the sense of Flash games or even Arcade games, games with poor animation can also rise to popularity in today's world. I bought a game a while back called Earth Defense Force 2017 and while the game is not graphically superior to any other game I own, the gameplay makes the game fun and interesting to play.

 

[Mr. GameBrain]

Don't forget most markets move about like yoyos. Mobile phones for example are doing horribly overall, but smartphones are selling great and will become the saviour of the market in a few years.

Not a great example; the iPhone is shaping many of the features of the smartphone market. This happens to be a Bad Thing; it's full of design flaws [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.155147]. I'm hoping that more people adopt other mobile OSes, such as Symbian, Android or Maemo, but marketing dictates that almost everybody knows what an iPhone is, while few people know what Android or Maemo are, and not many associate their Nokia smartphones with the Symbian operating system that they run, even though it's the most popular smartphone operating system in the world.

The ostensible dominance of the iPhone is not a good thing for smartphone users like myself; it could almost be described akin to the "casual vs. hardcore" argument we're having here.

Doesn't that explain my point about market yoyos

Lets face it we need the cycles of shovelware and mediocrity because it keeps the big companies in business, and allows them to take risks in the long-run.
Producing a videogame is getting more and more costly as people demand more, and technology imporves.

Look at the wii. Capcom launched Zak and Wiki, a really fun and unique game.
It didn't sell very well, and only managed to pick up its sales over time.

Whereas the PS2 and Gamecube ports sold well, (excluding Okami), and they cost alot less to make.
Heck the new resident evil game on the wii is a re-hash of the old one.

But at least Capcom are trying to not alienate their customers, as (quite riskily) they are still releasing Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom. Its a wise decision as if the next Nintendo console is a real gaming machine, casuals are going to leave, or they are going to want better games.
If it isn't, then casuals will likely leave anyway...

The Wii's sales are dropping now, the iPhone is eventually going to get stale with the Popular crowd, but that when the real innovation is going start.

This cycle continues, and will likely continue till the end of civilisation, (as we know it! XD)