Quantity Over Quality?

[defcon 1]

It appears that allot of video games are going downhill because they appear to be ripping off of every other game with the exception of very few. Why is the video game market doing this?

I think it's a matter of time restrains. It seems like there are so many complex and high-tech games coming out in such a short amount of time, yet now a days everyone has to push their release date two or three times. I just think games are being rushed and developers are being pressured for the sake of profit. There's a large audience and the industry has grown, therefore games are being rushed out simply so they'll have as many as their competitors and not keep so many people waiting. I believe there are a lot of potentially great ideas out, but developers just can't risk it.

Do you guys believe good games are being held back in a way? What do you think the problem is? How do the good game companies like Valve do so well?

 

[babyblues]

Hm.. That's a good question actually.

OP, you've got the right idea, everyone seems to just be going down roads that have been paved and trodden by dozens of others before them. Why? Well, I think because it'll guarantee success, numbers/money wise at least. If something has proven successful, I suppose they think that they'll make more money doing that than taking risks. Perhaps most developers are afraid of being the trailblazer. Video games cost a hell of alot more money to make than they did before(when there were more "unique" games), so taking a risk can cost you millions, or make you billions. I think they'd rather go for the "sure thing", and rip off the trailblazers. Time restraints are most certainly a factor as well, for the reasons the OP has outlined.

I don't think good games are being held back by anyone but the game companies. Companies such as Valve took risks, and let innovation into their games. So far, it has rewarded them. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Credge]

I don't think Valve has taken any risks with their games. 99% of the games they have made have been time tested, at least at the core of the game.

TF2 has had 10+ years of history from Quake, UT, and HL. CS had already been insanely popular before Valve took over. The same goes with DoD, Red Orchestra, Garry's Mod, Etc. The only real original thing they've done is make Half-Life. The rest of it was pretty safe.

 

[stompy]

Yes, there are time restraints, that is a factor. Publishers push for the games to come out faster, more pressure on the devs, and more pressure=more stress=lower quality of work.

But, on the other hand, I think that babyblues' comment, on the risk of making a 'trailblazer' is the more important issue when it comes to lack of quality of gaming, time can be made for games, but if they game idea, premise, or practically everything, have been done before, and done better, then the game will just be another clone.

- A procrastinator

 

[babyblues]

I don't think Valve has taken any risks with their games. 99% of the games they have made have been time tested, at least at the core of the game.

TF2 has had 10+ years of history from Quake, UT, and HL. CS had already been insanely popular before Valve took over. The same goes with DoD, Red Orchestra, Garry's Mod, Etc. The only real original thing they've done is make Half-Life. The rest of it was pretty safe.

Ahh. I don't have alot of knowledge on Valve. I've played TF and know what HL is, but admittedly I know little about their history. I just assumed they were something special since they were mentioned. I take that bit back, then..

 

[Credge]

Ahh. I don't have alot of knowledge on Valve. I've played TF and know what HL is, but admittedly I know little about their history. I just assumed they were something special since they were mentioned. I take that bit back, then..

Well, they are something special as the games they pump out are generally very high quality (except for this one HL mod I remember playing... something about you flying around with disks decapitating people). Despite them playing it safe, they constantly churn out quality products and also take their time with it.

The risks they do take, though, are often smaller ones. For example, the direction in graphics they took for TF2. Although it's a smaller risk, it's most definitely one that made a huge difference in the game.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

My brother is a 3D designer and animator for a local game developer and he will tell you point blank that original game designs are being held back because there are too many developers and publishers that cannot afford to take a risk on doing something original and having it tank. There have been a couple of Australian game developers who have gone belly-up recently and Auran, who co-developed Fury were on the ropes but seemed to have hung in. The powers that be would rather go for something safe (or the variation on something safe) than take a punt.
I was having a rant to my bro about the prevalence of in-game advertising and how commercialisation was a blight on the industry and he ended up correcting me saying it was a good thing or some devs would never get the funding to make the game in the first place. Apparently funding for games is really, really tough to get.

 

[babyblues]

Credge: Okay, I think I understand what you're saying now.

Another thing to consider when discussing game quality is game length. Any given adventure or RPG title(as an example) reached around 25+ hours, easily. Nowadays, with the awesome graphics and such, there is very little room for actual game on one disc. And I think that devs shy away from more than one disc because it might be intimidating to your casual gaming audience. And, since games are more mainstream now, everyone targets the casual gamers, or so it seems. EDIT: Someone said this already but perhaps blu-ray will change that.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I think the reason why many games are short is because length is not something they think will effect sales greatly. Honestly I'm glad they do this. I would much rather pay an 8 hour game with a good camera then a 30 hour game that makes me want to kill a village (through annoyance). I think that many people would have games this way.

If the Devs didn't have as much stress put on them from the publishes to have the game(s) out faster then they might have more time to add length to the game.

 

[babyblues]

Very true. Length doesn't equal a good game, but I can't help but feel ripped off when I buy a game that doesn't even last a day. I mean, why not save money and rent it? There's no reason to buy single player games anymore since they're so short. Multiplayer games like Rock Band, Gears of War, and other various popular XBL games seem to be the only ones worth keeping.

BioShock, for instance.. There was a TON they could have added and built upon, or added the depth they emphasized during development. So I guess some games could do with more length, but certainly not all.

 

[stevesan]

If you could answer this question, you could be a very rich man. And every CTO/CEO in the nation would like to talk to you - games industry and otherwise.

I'm working on a report for a business class to investigate this very question. All those things you bring up are major factors: Games are expensive, people are risk adverse, which conflicts with work satisfaction, etc. etc. Why do some companies, like Valve and Blizzard, appear to do better than most? One employee I interviewed, who will remain nameless and company-less, probably gave the only non-bullshit answer: The people.

It all comes down to the people in the company. You need smart, disciplined, and passionate people. You need to be smart to do stuff well. You need to be disciplined to manage well, so you don't over-promise and burn out your employees. And you need passion to give that extra 10% when the game really needs it. And it's _extremely_ difficult to find people like that, especially when game industry wages are relatively low.

Blizzard is probably the best example of all three. Valve, although their founding is somewhat unique, is also probably full of great people as welll.

So if you want to start a company that will make great games, make sure you hire the best. And if it means paying them more, then you're probably better off betting on quality over quantity. Two awesome designers will blow away 5 mediocre designers.

 

[Credge]

I would also like to add that companies like Valve and Blizzard make high-quality products that are few and far between. While I'm not a huge fan of WoW, it's success comes from an understanding of the market they were going after: Casual Gamers. They've also done a great job at converting those casual gamers into more hard-core MMO players.

For example, Blizzard took an extra year to polish and finish D2. Think game companies would still do that today?

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

Length isn't THE most important thing, however, really good games can be spoilt by being to short, just as they can by having other flaws.

By all means make a good game, but if it's all over before you can scratch your arse it's hardly worth it.

 

[IanDangerously]

Whilst I think that many games developers are rushing out releases which take an old formula and re-use it is partially because of the numerous games on the market being released all the time, I also think there are other factors to their planning.

Firstly, there are some games in which a non-gaming brand is the unique selling point of the game, and therefore a company can rush very similar games for the franchise every year because the majority of the demographic they aim at are not what are specifically called "Gamers". By this I am referring to certain THQ Games franchises (World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultimate Fighting Championship), and EA Games franchises (FIFA, NFL, NBA etc). As an owner of every "WWF/E SmackDown" game that THQ have ever developed, I think quantity over quality applies in the sports field because they basically they release a game every year but the whole game changes once every seven years or so ... with a small change implemented in each new version. Same applies to the Fifa and Pro Evolution titles. With these games, however, the exhibiton gameplay is long because every match is different and fun, and this more than makes up for some truly repetitive career modes.

On the other hand, however, there are games which spend ages in development and are created properly, releasing a brand new game each time rather than rehashing other games. This normally leads to long, well-developed storylines and intriguing, fresh concepts. Not every game needs to be long though, to be well thought-out and rivetingly refreshing - take Portal as an example. There are, however, also games which should end earlier because they tail off totally in terms of excitement and suspense towards the end of the game (Condemned, Tomb Raider Legend, etc).

I think quantity and quality are both important, however, quality is the most important factor and hence, developers of FPS and RPG games should spend as much time as possible trying to create a high-quality game with innovation. Game companies should stop rushing their way through titles to get them out in competition with, or before, its competitors - if a game is good enough, I think it will sell very well anyway, regardless of competition.

 

[neems]

To a certain extent, I think games are following the trends established in the movie market as regards quality versus quantity. Why make Die Hard 4? Because Die Hard 1, 2 and 3 did well. Why make Halo 3? Because of Halo and Halo 2. The same thing only bigger, better (?) and flashier tends to sell. Other companies look at this success and want in. Thus, Hilo is born.

Now Hilo is probably inferior to Halo. But it also probably cost less to make, and enough people are looking for a new FPS fix to give it a shot. You might even get a sequel or two out of it before it's time to stop digging.

We'll probably see ever increasing numbers of formulaic blockbusters and hit sequels - but some of these will be good games. And you'll also get the occasional burst of creativity, the gaming equivalent of "Being John Malkovich", as well as independent games and the modding scene.


As far as Valve are concerned, they're a bit of a unique case. Valve took a couple of ENORMOUS risks, and it wasn't about game design. First they decided to sever ties with their publisher and do their own thing. Then they decided to branch out in to Digital Downloads (maybe this was just one decision; maybe Steam was part of the plan from the beginning, I don't know). Of course now Steam is probably the biggest online game distribution platform going, and Valve have the freedom (and cash) to do things however they see fit. If a game needs to be held back, they hold it back. They'll even start over from scratch if need be. And yes, I am a bit of a Valve fanboy.

 

[shadow skill]

Steam was not a risk, the Pirates already proved that if you provided the service there would be a market for it.