smells a bit like someone proclaiming themselves an expert and dealing out their opinion to us plebs..
didn't ET fail largely because it was a shit grab-the-cash film tie in?
Yeah ET was buggy crap made by one man over few months and then rushed out for xmas, i think.
It screamed doom yet Atari was propably too blinded by the films success.
BTW i also think its stupid to manufacture millions of cartridges of a game that cost you pennies to make, i would have propably done few hundred thousand and then waited, if they sold out then made more. Look how conservative Blizz was with the amount of WoW boxes released and it didnt stop it from selling like hot cakes. Then again ET was junk and they hoped people will blindly buy it.
I agree with quite alot of the issues the guy covers. I've actually gone back to playing games from 1995-1999 (mainly 64-128 bit multiplayer stuff which still had alot single playing too).
After playing games like Ghost Recon / Prey / Fear / Quake 4 /AoE 3 / Fifa 2006 you can just smell the same old rusty game design tarted up a little bit.
I'm not really considering getting a next generation system, although in order of preference i'd prolly sway Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
somehow i think that what will save the industry will be those "quick" games , flash ones etc, like motherload, etc, they load pretty quick dont require instalation, etc...
Clerks and Blair Witch project didn't "take over", and they didn't compete with big Holywood movies in explosions and CG. but they did make good money.
I actually feel the bar is pretty low these days. Isn't that what this thread is about?
So, inevitably every game will get old and be discarded with disdain? Shoot, I'd better throw out my chess board.
Good gameplay is what keep people coming back. If you have this, every other concern is secondary.
I'm not sure what this guy is really trying to say. Sure, graphics-driven cliche games will get old. With that being said, I would still say that there have been some good innovations in gameplay recently.
Expense of the systems could be a concern, but I have no idea where this guy is getting his numbers. I bought a beautiful 30" HDTV for $600. A high end standard TV of similar size was $400. Although the 360 and PS3 are pricey, they are not out of line price-wise with older consoles, if you take inflation into account.
I have to agree with Ryno and I have said it many many times before. I want a game that plays well and looks good second. I can be very forgiving of a game that is fun to play but looks bad. On the other side of the coin, I am VERY unforgiving of a game that only has looks going for it.
The guys sounds bitter like a halo fan that just played Halo2 and was pissed it was Halo1 all over again.
I do think they rushed the "next gen" into the market because MS knew it would not turn a profit until MAYBE the second console. I think it hurt the industry pushing it this soon when clearly the games where not ready yet and for the most part still are not. I would only count Gears of War and MAYBE Quake4 as the only next gen console games that are worthy of the title. The rest could have been put out on the Xbox and looked just as good, or slightly worse, no one would have noticed a big differance.
I think Gears of War will inovate where Halo fans feel the grind. I think the 360 will have enough new game play and good graphics coming to it (later) that it will keep the market alive. But really they are bumbling thru the launch and it shows.
I have my favorite games I still go back to. Half-Life, Star Wars Legos, Quake, Moonbase Commander and pretty much the entire catalog of old Nintendo games. So I can't say I agree with the guy and that once novity wears off the games get shelved. I don't play them because they have new features to me, I play them because I enjoy them.
Yeah, this dude's take on the industry is really lacking foresight if you ask me.
The games industry is JUST now on the verge of reaching maturity. Right now its a grab fest of consolidation, games giants establishing themselves, just like what happened way back in the beginnings of film.
Now is when indie start-ups begin to make a real impact for the first time. If you think it's bad NOW for indies, look at the past, its never been better in fact. Back in the early 90s say, you didnt have stock Editors shipping with a game, letting anyone make a mod. Graphics processing was still a pretty esoteric discipline, as opposed to now where every web kiddie has intermediate Photoshop experience. The tools we're using to make games are growing at the speed of the computer industry, meaning every generation makes it possible to do more and at better quality. Just consider Zbrush. Who the hell could have imagined being able to make super high rez 3d as easily as we can now, even 5 years ago, all thanks to processing power and software innovation.
The guy stated rehashed game play, and ill agree with that, as it's been a cycle of one-up-manship to get to photo-realism. Now that we've just about reached that, the focus is shifting to physics, as he also stated. The big thing that he's missing, however, is this is development, this is the industry's fetal state. The real innovations and possibilities BEGIN when we hit that brick wall of "ok, well we can simulate a perfect reality, now what".
its just been so long since i have seen the bar really raised by non indy develpers. big companies just focus on minor graphical updates on played out game concepts. i dont consider better graphics and more content to equate to raising anything, its just another layer of polish if anything, for me personaly it has never affected the core gameplay aspects, the reason i play games.
hey SuperOstrich , i bet its been really quiet with no poop around, hahahaha
[ QUOTE ]
The real innovations and possibilities BEGIN when we hit that brick wall of "ok, well we can simulate a perfect reality, now what?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Make it fun. Realism looks nice, but it isn't fun. That's why it's a novelty that dies quickly once you've seen it. Katamari, The Sims, Zelda, etc...those aren't realistic games. But they're hours, days, years of fun.
The indie developers will bring this. They're not as tiny as you think. The larger companies aren't establishing themselves, they're reaching for profits from a market that wants faster processing. In the end, games aren't that big of a deal, but creativity keeps people excited. The real innovations are here, but people are often too busy looking at pretty lights and shiny objects, and hype. They're just games.
Gimmie fun. I see a future where no one can be labeled a gamer, because everyone will be. And the people who lock themselves in a room for all hours of a day, ignoring the real world around them, grinding away at the same repetitive task to gain rank in something that gives no reward, will be laughed at!
maybe it's just me, but dosen't it seem like there have been just tons of doomsday articles about gaming lately? and they all feel really sensationalist and uninformed to me.
and just so you know, I just found out the only thing separating uninformed and uniformed, is an "N". coincedence?? I think not.
I really hope that something like STEAM comes along and allowes small developers to make a large profit on creative games . You can see the potential on Xbox Live in the market place . Large publishers just don't get it that people are sick of shooter # 82734287 . I can see what the guy is saying the nostalgia is wearing off at least for me . Games like Spore and other creative ventures will keep the industry alive and kicking I just hope EA does well with it maybe it will allow more risk on none main stream ideas.
i dont think its doomed either, but i feel that their might be a big turning inside out soon, as hopefully ideas and expectaions that have been following a trend for quite a few years get turned on their head.
[ QUOTE ]
If you think it's bad NOW for indies, look at the past, its never been better in fact. Back in the early 90s say, you didnt have stock Editors shipping with a game, letting anyone make a mod. Graphics processing was still a pretty esoteric discipline, as opposed to now where every web kiddie has intermediate Photoshop experience. The tools we're using to make games are growing at the speed of the computer industry, meaning every generation makes it possible to do more and at better quality. Just consider Zbrush. Who the hell could have imagined being able to make super high rez 3d as easily as we can now, even 5 years ago, all thanks to processing power and software innovation.
[/ QUOTE ]
OSI (1983), Maxis (1987), Bullfrog (1987), Bitmap Brothers (1987), id (1990), Epic (1991)...
Yes these were terrible times...
[ QUOTE ]
And the people who lock themselves in a room for all hours of a day, ignoring the real world around them, grinding away at the same repetitive task to gain rank in something that gives no reward, will be laughed at!
[ QUOTE ]
Wasnt meaning to imply they were terrible then, what im saying is that its easier now.
I dont doubt there are companies of that caibre forming right now, but of course we wont know who they are until a few years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Back then it was possible for 3 people to make a full AAA game in 6 months from scratch.
I dont see how its easier now that AAA games take tens of people and years to make.
[ QUOTE ]
Although the 360 and PS3 are pricey, they are not out of line price-wise with older consoles, if you take inflation into account.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not if you take commodization into account. The VCS costs more than a PS3, sure, but compare PC prices from 1985 to today's prices. Back then an office PC cost well into the thousands, these days you can get one for 200 bucks. Electronics got cheaper across the board but these new consoles are reversing the trend which is why they are seen as overpriced.
i think they are pricey in relation to the excitment factor they produce (except for Nintendo IMO), they seam to provide little extra apart from more. last gen made games that werent possible befor possible (GTA, Halo for eg)next-gen doesnt seam to be providing genre busters yet, maybe time will tell.
nintendo is being quite wise as they are producing excitment about their console in very easily noticable way.
how easy is it to tell a laymen, what the difference beteewn nintendos last and next-gen consoles, and how hard is it to explain the difference (in play experience, rather than numbers) between MS and sonys
Replies
didn't ET fail largely because it was a shit grab-the-cash film tie in?
It screamed doom yet Atari was propably too blinded by the films success.
BTW i also think its stupid to manufacture millions of cartridges of a game that cost you pennies to make, i would have propably done few hundred thousand and then waited, if they sold out then made more. Look how conservative Blizz was with the amount of WoW boxes released and it didnt stop it from selling like hot cakes. Then again ET was junk and they hoped people will blindly buy it.
After playing games like Ghost Recon / Prey / Fear / Quake 4 /AoE 3 / Fifa 2006 you can just smell the same old rusty game design tarted up a little bit.
I'm not really considering getting a next generation system, although in order of preference i'd prolly sway Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
This is just part of the natural cycle. Industry giants will stumble and indie games will take up the slack.
[/ QUOTE ]
The bar is allready too high for indies to take over.
I actually feel the bar is pretty low these days. Isn't that what this thread is about?
Good gameplay is what keep people coming back. If you have this, every other concern is secondary.
I'm not sure what this guy is really trying to say. Sure, graphics-driven cliche games will get old. With that being said, I would still say that there have been some good innovations in gameplay recently.
Expense of the systems could be a concern, but I have no idea where this guy is getting his numbers. I bought a beautiful 30" HDTV for $600. A high end standard TV of similar size was $400. Although the 360 and PS3 are pricey, they are not out of line price-wise with older consoles, if you take inflation into account.
The guys sounds bitter like a halo fan that just played Halo2 and was pissed it was Halo1 all over again.
I do think they rushed the "next gen" into the market because MS knew it would not turn a profit until MAYBE the second console. I think it hurt the industry pushing it this soon when clearly the games where not ready yet and for the most part still are not. I would only count Gears of War and MAYBE Quake4 as the only next gen console games that are worthy of the title. The rest could have been put out on the Xbox and looked just as good, or slightly worse, no one would have noticed a big differance.
I think Gears of War will inovate where Halo fans feel the grind. I think the 360 will have enough new game play and good graphics coming to it (later) that it will keep the market alive. But really they are bumbling thru the launch and it shows.
I have my favorite games I still go back to. Half-Life, Star Wars Legos, Quake, Moonbase Commander and pretty much the entire catalog of old Nintendo games. So I can't say I agree with the guy and that once novity wears off the games get shelved. I don't play them because they have new features to me, I play them because I enjoy them.
The bar is allready too high for indies to take over.
[/ QUOTE ]
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!! this is the funniest thing i have heard in all of life. the bar is actually burried 400 miles under the earth's crust.
The games industry is JUST now on the verge of reaching maturity. Right now its a grab fest of consolidation, games giants establishing themselves, just like what happened way back in the beginnings of film.
Now is when indie start-ups begin to make a real impact for the first time. If you think it's bad NOW for indies, look at the past, its never been better in fact. Back in the early 90s say, you didnt have stock Editors shipping with a game, letting anyone make a mod. Graphics processing was still a pretty esoteric discipline, as opposed to now where every web kiddie has intermediate Photoshop experience. The tools we're using to make games are growing at the speed of the computer industry, meaning every generation makes it possible to do more and at better quality. Just consider Zbrush. Who the hell could have imagined being able to make super high rez 3d as easily as we can now, even 5 years ago, all thanks to processing power and software innovation.
The guy stated rehashed game play, and ill agree with that, as it's been a cycle of one-up-manship to get to photo-realism. Now that we've just about reached that, the focus is shifting to physics, as he also stated. The big thing that he's missing, however, is this is development, this is the industry's fetal state. The real innovations and possibilities BEGIN when we hit that brick wall of "ok, well we can simulate a perfect reality, now what".
thats my 2 cents on that...or 3...or 10...
[ QUOTE ]
The bar is allready too high for indies to take over.
[/ QUOTE ]
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!! this is the funniest thing i have heard in all of life. the bar is actually burried 400 miles under the earth's crust.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I think he actually meant the scope of games that players demand are too large for indies to take over, although that's debatable too.
hey SuperOstrich , i bet its been really quiet with no poop around, hahahaha
[ QUOTE ]
The real innovations and possibilities BEGIN when we hit that brick wall of "ok, well we can simulate a perfect reality, now what?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Make it fun. Realism looks nice, but it isn't fun. That's why it's a novelty that dies quickly once you've seen it. Katamari, The Sims, Zelda, etc...those aren't realistic games. But they're hours, days, years of fun.
The indie developers will bring this. They're not as tiny as you think. The larger companies aren't establishing themselves, they're reaching for profits from a market that wants faster processing. In the end, games aren't that big of a deal, but creativity keeps people excited. The real innovations are here, but people are often too busy looking at pretty lights and shiny objects, and hype. They're just games.
Gimmie fun. I see a future where no one can be labeled a gamer, because everyone will be. And the people who lock themselves in a room for all hours of a day, ignoring the real world around them, grinding away at the same repetitive task to gain rank in something that gives no reward, will be laughed at!
and just so you know, I just found out the only thing separating uninformed and uniformed, is an "N". coincedence?? I think not.
viva la renaisance
If we all close our eyes at the same time and start winging maybe we can create innovation and progress.
I`ll go to the toilet ... as long as it is around
we are all doomed all of the time, movies, music, games, chocolate and xmas.
If we all close our eyes at the same time and start winging maybe we can create innovation and progress.
I`ll go to the toilet ... as long as it is around
[/ QUOTE ]
making perfect sense as ever phil
If you think it's bad NOW for indies, look at the past, its never been better in fact. Back in the early 90s say, you didnt have stock Editors shipping with a game, letting anyone make a mod. Graphics processing was still a pretty esoteric discipline, as opposed to now where every web kiddie has intermediate Photoshop experience. The tools we're using to make games are growing at the speed of the computer industry, meaning every generation makes it possible to do more and at better quality. Just consider Zbrush. Who the hell could have imagined being able to make super high rez 3d as easily as we can now, even 5 years ago, all thanks to processing power and software innovation.
[/ QUOTE ]
OSI (1983), Maxis (1987), Bullfrog (1987), Bitmap Brothers (1987), id (1990), Epic (1991)...
Yes these were terrible times...
OSI (1983), Maxis (1987), Bullfrog (1987), Bitmap Brothers (1987), id (1990), Epic (1991)...
Yes these were terrible times...
[/ QUOTE ]
Wasnt meaning to imply they were terrible then, what im saying is that its easier now.
I dont doubt there are companies of that caibre forming right now, but of course we wont know who they are until a few years from now.
And the people who lock themselves in a room for all hours of a day, ignoring the real world around them, grinding away at the same repetitive task to gain rank in something that gives no reward, will be laughed at!
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
Wasnt meaning to imply they were terrible then, what im saying is that its easier now.
I dont doubt there are companies of that caibre forming right now, but of course we wont know who they are until a few years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Back then it was possible for 3 people to make a full AAA game in 6 months from scratch.
I dont see how its easier now that AAA games take tens of people and years to make.
Although the 360 and PS3 are pricey, they are not out of line price-wise with older consoles, if you take inflation into account.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not if you take commodization into account. The VCS costs more than a PS3, sure, but compare PC prices from 1985 to today's prices. Back then an office PC cost well into the thousands, these days you can get one for 200 bucks. Electronics got cheaper across the board but these new consoles are reversing the trend which is why they are seen as overpriced.
i think they are pricey in relation to the excitment factor they produce (except for Nintendo IMO), they seam to provide little extra apart from more. last gen made games that werent possible befor possible (GTA, Halo for eg)next-gen doesnt seam to be providing genre busters yet, maybe time will tell.
nintendo is being quite wise as they are producing excitment about their console in very easily noticable way.
how easy is it to tell a laymen, what the difference beteewn nintendos last and next-gen consoles, and how hard is it to explain the difference (in play experience, rather than numbers) between MS and sonys