When did Gaming begin to go wrong?

[Girlysprite]

Games developers always looked to make as much profit as possible. Of course, risks got bigger, developer time is longer, more people involved...But I don't think gaming got worse. The market has always been full of uninspired and badly made crap. And there's always a couple of jewels around.

Of course, games have to stop the trend of pulling more and more cash in development, and more people...there has to be a stop somewhere, but we still have to see where. Luckily, there are platforms where developers with less money/time can make games...I bet the handhelds are not as intense in these aspects as the big consoles.

 

[JamesW]

I'd like to believe it didnt, but there is a lingering fear that a major flaw was created in gaming, when do you think it happened? and how? If you think it ever did.

its been an issue lingering on my mind for some time, what are your views?

Depends. What do you think the flaw is?

 

[Lightbulb]

...apparently feel obliged to make every single game a technological marvel so that gamers will want to upgrade their video card for the second time in a year to play it. I think that the amount of economic (and especially) human resources required to make a gorgeous next-gen game means that certain outdated concepts as "gameplay", and "creativity", and "plot", and "characters" get assigned a lower priority than they probably should.

I know that making games has probably always been this way to a certain extent, but I don't think it used to be as bad as it is now.

The problem is not so that the devs make use of available technology: They would be insane to waste the opportunity to make their game look as good as possible. The problem is players who are OBSESSED with running games on MAX!!!!!1!!!one!!!pi!!!!

As for upgrading your GPU twice every year: I got a 6600GT in Q2 2005, the card was already half a year old by then. This card did me fine right up to STALKER (Q4 2006). Now i have a 8800GTS which runs Crysis at a reasonable rate. I upgraded to that in Q3 2007 thats 2 YEARS and a couple of months after my last upgrade.

The only reason to upgrade twice a year is if you MUST have the newest cards. The games don't demand it. You can run new games on older setups you just sacrifice the highest quality visuals.

This is fine for me because gameplay >>>>>> visuals, but i understand some people just love the eye candy...

 

[p1ne]

As for upgrading your GPU twice every year: I got a 6600GT in Q2 2005, the card was already half a year old by then. This card did me fine right up to STALKER (Q4 2006). Now i have a 8800GTS which runs Crysis at a reasonable rate. I upgraded to that in Q3 2007 thats 2 YEARS and a couple of months after my last upgrade.

The only reason to upgrade twice a year is if you MUST have the newest cards. The games don't demand it. You can run new games on older setups you just sacrifice the highest quality visuals.

This is fine for me because gameplay >>>>>> visuals, but i understand some people just love the eye candy...

Yeah, I was exaggerating somewhat - though there are people who really do that. Once every two years is plenty often enough for most people, and I just upgraded for the first time in five years. At this point games look so good I'm not sure if I'll care enough to upgrade within another five.

 

[raankh]

I think there _is_ an issue with modern gaming. I don't think it's an issue with games themselves, but with how games are sold. There's just too much money involved, too many investors, to wide profit margins, too many middlemen and certainly too many clustered enterprises surrounding gaming .... Gaming has become an industry of branding and franchising, much like everything else in our modern economy. There's no _value_ for artistic merit, but it might strengthen your brand. The innovative and artsy game is an investment, curtailing a _cost_, but the tits'n'ass sports shooter is money in the bank.

Essentially, I think it's the same problem as with the music and movie industry. The same lame refurbishments of one-hit wonders regurgitated through any number of media. There are independents and innovators, but the media bandwidth is clogged by money-grubbing bastards.

my ?0.2

 

[soladrin]

well like others have said, the only ones who see a flaw are the retro gamers, and i have to say, i sometimes have the same thing. I havent found any compelling games lately, but im not giving up yet

 

[raankh]

well like others have said, the only ones who see a flaw are the retro gamers,

Yeah, guilty as charged. Apart from my PC the most modern platform I have is a Playstation (psx).

 

[soladrin]

well, my biggest problem games lately, is that they are putting to little into single player, i often find games with a shoddy single player but great multiplayer (you know who you are >_>) i just think the devs should either do it right (and not some half completed crappy story line campaign) or not do it at all, because single player is what i always do before the multiplayer, and if the single player puts me down to much, i wont bother with the multi most of the time.

 

[Stella Q]

I think it only seems like games are getting worse because I'm getting older. I've gone back to look at reviews of games I used to play when I was younger, games that I've logged probably 100+ hours into, only to find that they were actually awful games. I half expected them all to have really high scores because I thought of how much fun I had with them.

These days I can hardly even play games if they possess even minor flaws, and I only finish ones that are damn near perfect. Flaws that I would have overlooked without a second thought 5 years ago now make games unplayable for me.

My only explanation is that I'm getting older.

 

[JamesW]

I think there _is_ an issue with modern gaming. I don't think it's an issue with games themselves, but with how games are sold. There's just too much money involved, too many investors, to wide profit margins, too many middlemen and certainly too many clustered enterprises surrounding gaming ....

I'm not going to deny the idea that there are too many middlemen or that games companies can become too bloated, but the money issue is one area that's not really the companies' fault. Audiences expect games to be more and more visually impressive with each new iteration of hardware - but creating more detailed textures, models and animation (and giant, free-roaming cities, etc) requires more manpower and development time. Which in turn requires more work.

If audiences are prepared to take a hit on graphics, sound and other such areas then costs can come down and games can become more experimental. But it's a big gamble, and realistically speaking the drop in development costs is probably going to be matched by a drop in sales, which means the margins remain pretty much the same.

The best chance the game industry has is with bedroom developers and people like Tim Schaefer, whose names are perceived to be big enough in themselves that there will be an automatic leve of interest generated by what they do.

That's what I reckon, anyway.

 

[mrblackett]

Games only seem to be failing in the eyes of the retro gamers. Personally, I've played lots of good games in the past year.

I've been playing since I was 5. I'm 28 now. You could argue that the enormous amount of money at stake has made publishers more conservative but things have never been better than they are now.

 

[Arbre]

I'd like to believe it didnt, but there is a lingering fear that a major flaw was created in gaming, when do you think it happened? and how? If you think it ever did.

its been an issue lingering on my mind for some time, what are your views?

If there's a flaw... I dunno. Classical reply: devlopment costs. But maybe it's only wrong on the surface, and will force people to slow down a bit, which will actually be good, until everyone can started devlopping AAA games again at much reduced costs.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'd like to believe it didnt, but there is a lingering fear that a major flaw was created in gaming, when do you think it happened? and how? If you think it ever did.

its been an issue lingering on my mind for some time, what are your views?

Personally 01-03 sometime in there games started to lose focus on polish and detail, started to become cramped in options,level design, and a bunch of other stuff. And for the most part its not veered from the course of graphics before design before dialog/story.

 

[Chilango2]

I think that the gaming industry is maturing in several ways, much as the movie industry did, its no longer a thing for brilliant artists in their basement, its a business as well as an art. This change always comes with various accusations that things are inferior, etc, and its a change that requires some adjustment on the part of gamers and the medium itself. I think, actually, that the maturing of the game industry has proceeded apace and we are beginning to see some of the fruits of innovative game design that nonetheless requires the technical development that the mature business model brought us. There will always, of course, be "popcorn games" much like popcorn movies, mass market products not meant to be among the greatest, but simply enjoyable on some level.

Insofar as gamers, I think we need to find a comfortable place between idealism and defeated cynicism. There is a place for business and profit in games, and making said profit does not immediately turn a game bad, a game is good or bad on its merits.

I for one, have been able to continue to find games I find enjoyable, some of them "giant studio" produced, some more independent, and so on.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I have yet to play a WW2 game where you invade/drop a bomb on Japan. Did we just forget that happened?

Medal of Honor: Rising Sun and Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault.

 

[MrKeroChan]

what wrong with game these days is the same thing that wrong with Hollywood movies...ie there is so much money on the table that EVERYTHING go through cost analysis...and gets watered down. Businessmen, with no connection to games/gaming other than the money to be made, get placed in charge by those footing the bill...and then procede to run a creative endeavour like a business that makes wiggets. Art doesn't work that way... when you produce movies & games with all the seemingly correct ingredients without vision and inspiration...you get white bread...

 

[Kronopticon]

what wrong with game these days is the same thing that wrong with Hollywood movies...ie there is so much money on the table that EVERYTHING go through cost analysis...and gets watered down. Businessmen, with no connection to games/gaming other than the money to be made, get placed in charge by those footing the bill...and then procede to run a creative endeavour like a business that makes wiggets. Art doesn't work that way... when you produce movies & games with all the seemingly correct ingredients without vision and inspiration...you get white bread...

well personally, i want purple bread, with giant red spots all over it, i dont care if it tastes bad, its a step towards something different. anyway, after seeing all the responses, i must say that most of you do think there is something wrong, be it little or large. and there is the others who are quite content, im glad you are content with gaming. But personally, i think things need to change, even if it isnt as efficient, e.g. how valve runs, they dont have the usual hierarchy, they have a "who-ever can get it done" policy, thats why they make good games.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

When did gaming go wrong? When Alexander the Great hacked Gordian Knot for a speedrun and everybody praised him instead of Digging him down.

-- Steve

 

[p1ne]

I think that the gaming industry is maturing in several ways, much as the movie industry did, its no longer a thing for brilliant artists in their basement, its a business as well as an art. This change always comes with various accusations that things are inferior, etc, and its a change that requires some adjustment on the part of gamers and the medium itself. I think, actually, that the maturing of the game industry has proceeded apace and we are beginning to see some of the fruits of innovative game design that nonetheless requires the technical development that the mature business model brought us. There will always, of course, be "popcorn games" much like popcorn movies, mass market products not meant to be among the greatest, but simply enjoyable on some level.

Insofar as gamers, I think we need to find a comfortable place between idealism and defeated cynicism. There is a place for business and profit in games, and making said profit does not immediately turn a game bad, a game is good or bad on its merits.

I for one, have been able to continue to find games I find enjoyable, some of them "giant studio" produced, some more independent, and so on.

Quoted for truth! There are some aspects I miss from the days of oldschool game design, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or appreciate new games.

The argument that us gamers who have been playing for ten or even twenty years now have simply gotten jaded and harder to impress has its merits as well.