Are Developers shooting Themselves in the foot? (design wise)
polycounter lvl 15
Are game companies making games too easy now a days?
remember how hard and fun games used to be?
is it the corporate side seeping into games and killing it, trying to make them more accessible?
I don't know maybe it's just me, but man i loved Super ghouls and ghost, and games like megaman, ninja gaiden, or The World's Hardest Game, hell even marion.
[sorry but i'm using this as my example, but it goes beyond this game]
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/tiger-dust-ghost-recon/726175
the developers are basically playing for the players!
[sorry if i offend anyone]
just a thought.
remember how hard and fun games used to be?
is it the corporate side seeping into games and killing it, trying to make them more accessible?
I don't know maybe it's just me, but man i loved Super ghouls and ghost, and games like megaman, ninja gaiden, or The World's Hardest Game, hell even marion.
[sorry but i'm using this as my example, but it goes beyond this game]
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/tiger-dust-ghost-recon/726175
the developers are basically playing for the players!
[sorry if i offend anyone]
just a thought.
Replies
I HATE games that all they do to make a game harder is add more health and damage to bad guys, and level scale enemies.
That ghost recon example (and also that newish rainbow six trailer) where you can see enemies through walls all the time is pretty stupid. Im not sure its done to try to make the game easier or more accessible though. I think it has more to do with large developers tunnel vision in design causing reuse of the same design path with a few changes at the end of the path, instead of trying something new or different higher up in the design path which could result in a much more enjoyable and fresh game.
Making games more accessible is a good thing but that should not involve making a game easier or giving the player cheats like constant wall hacks, it should just involve streamlining systems and controls.
Difficulty affects the flow of the game, which (depending on the game) may be the most important element. You may be looking for a challenge and desire to improve yourself and overcome adversity, but you never want to feel as if the game is deliberately defeating you, with tools and AI precision impossible for humans.
If its giving it up to me then why do i bother....Wheres my challenge! I don't really play games like i use to now as they've become easier and quicker to finish
F$^%# Guides and Hint systems too
Harder games = Challenge =ACTUAL use of Brain² + Sleep = Win
Unless you want it easy with a VERY good story then go ahead but if your asking someone to disable there block function so you can use Ryu's infinite special attack on them to win the match then LOL
[ame="
To me its as much deliberate design and not having things there for the sake of it.
Its one of the things i dislike so much about Skyrim... choice for the sake of choice seems empty to me. (I could rant on about how each spell in WoW PVP would play off against each other and how this meant each ability was important, cooldowns mattered and choices had weight... but it'd take a while.)
Unfortunately, they aren't able to design different games for those different demographics...since games cost a shit ton of money to make...so they try to make them as flexible as they can. Changing how much damage you can take is really the only option they have.
Games are entertainment, if there too hard they are no longer fun or entertaining for most people.
Close, but no, I think.
Generally, if players don't play through parts of the game repeatedly, they won't buy the sequel. It's commercially alright to make a game with a useless single player as long as they enjoy the MP maps over and over again. Think of how useless counter strike (original) would have been if it was a single player game that didn't repeat any levels.
Which brings me onto my point. I think many people blur together difficulty and replayability. Something like the original Deus Ex, even on Easy, was enough to trick people into buying Invisible war. Not because of whether they could get through or not, but because they wanted to get through again, but in a different way.
Contrast that to something like Half Life 2 Episode 2 on expert. Can be fairly difficult, fast zombies doing rediculous damage, and those bloody poison headcrabs. BUT, once it's done, players put it down (then want the next one). There's a whole adventure narrative thing also, but I'm not writing an essay today.
The ideal solution would be akin to Demon's Souls. Punishing but not unfair, with freedom to choose playing style.
Demon souls is another seperate thing though, it caters entirely to the crowd that wants a hard experience, it's never going to be played by the masses, but the fact that it did sport the difficulty it does, everyone who did want that kind of a game would've heard about it.
So it all depends on what crowd developers want to reach, and most often they want to reach them all.
I'm all for a generally tougher but more interesting experience, akin to 1999 mode in infinite, it's that one thing I missed from the transition of systemshock to bioshock, But systemshock would not have been able to reach the same crowd as bioshock did, nor would they have been able to handle its "difficulty" before putting it down and forgetting about it.
Mechanical difficulty
Strategy/Cognitive.
Punishment for mistakes
I'd honestly say that a game like CoD (even on consoles) is a pretty demanding game mechnically... Sudoku is pretty popular and unless people are playing simple puzzles then i'd say that can be quite taxing?
I had a nice chat with silverman about alienation/difficulty and things the other night, could be worth extending it. Dont just dismiss the subject without truelly considering what its made up of, it seems a bit short sighted.
In short though, i saw a short video talking about darksouls and death, relating it to games like MW3/Mirrors edge and counting the amount of times they would die... I know I died quite a few times in both MW2/mirrors edge and its not i'd consider them particularly hard games. I also died a few times in dead space, however im pretty sure I died less playing deadspace than I did playing modernwarfare purely because of the pacing and deliberate nature of it - Deadspace on hard with its surgical nature and pacing compared to aimbot AI and adjusted damage.
I digress and my writing isn't clear... needs proper thought put into it haha.
No I'm pretty sure games in general are a lot easier, even as someone who's got a lot of experience playing old ones, after playing lots of new games, then going back to old ones I feel like I've gotten rusty and end up dieing a lot.
Best example I could think of is old Megaman games on the NES. Went back to play them and could barely make it through maybe 1 level on a playthrough before getting frustrated. Back in the day I could beat almost all of the levels in the same time period.
Though some games being easier isn't exactly a bad thing. Some games try to focus more on narrative than gameplay, while others are a lot more gameplay and a lot less of other things. Honestly I'm sort of feeling like "old school hard" is starting to become a trend that companies are starting to use as a selling point. Not necesarrily as an entire challenging game. But there are some that are starting to add more game modes that cater towards the older gamer crowd.
They're all great games.
Then we have the hard games. Games that challenge you and spit in your face. Those I've had reaaaaaaally fun with because if you manage to overcome the challenges and rock it you feel like a king and that you deserved it. Nothing is handed to you and everything is fought for.
Dark Souls has given me more gaming enjoyment and scream out loud moments than any game in the last 5-10 years. BF3 multiplayer is equally hard. I get whooped so hard and that's why it is fun. I can die 6 times in a row then have a golden moment of clarity where i whip 4 guys in a row and feel like a boss.
So i guess what I mean to say is, challenges make the rewards more meaningful and designers shouldn't be afraid of challenging the masses. Or at least give an option for it. Like bioshock infinite is doing (although I'm not sure what to expect from that one).
Anyway! Off to play some BF3 mp and yell at my screen!
As for me. Yes, i'd agree that games are easier.
When I think difficult games I think R-type, Xenon, Wonderboy3 dragons trap, Ghouls and Ghosts, etc. Games that when I die, run out of lives or continues. Thats it, start over.... The thing is with these example, I've never completed them but I still go back and play them. Hate them but still love them at the same time.
A challenging game for me would be anything thats difficult but allows you to load a save or spawns you at a checkpoint. So any tough spots in the game are easily repeated until you can get passed them. Or you can leave that part of the game till later and go off and do something else. So any modern games with open worlds or that allow the players to chose what they do next. e.g Skyrim, GTA series, etc
These days when people buy a game, they want to be able to see the full game, start to finish. So developers can't make it so difficult that players get stuck. And they have to try and cater to all ages (depending on ratings).
Games are easier because people dont want to get stuck anymore. This is why I play alot of indie platformers. I like getting stuck, in a way. When I want something easier I play skyrim and wander about.
I'm a content tourist.
I want to see the environments and the story the game has to offer. I don't want to replay the same fight over and over because I lost too much health and blah blah. That's not fun for me anymore.
in short its not about how hard the game is, its about how much time the player has to play games.
but, the big devs only do what they find sells, so I don't think they're 'shooting themselves in the foot' if they find easier games sell more.
Something else to consider, those old games often weren't that long, if you do them without mistake from start to finish.. it seems often insane difficulty/repeating levels over and over was used as a way to artificually lengthen the playtime. I guess that's fine as a kid with masses of free time, but nowadays if I see that I flinch away. Example: I loved megaman 2 to bits, but I would never play it these days without using quicksave..
i know what you mean tho i loved those games because it's repetition that makes the fun, look at Super Meat Boy.
Ultimately, look what SKYRIM did, it caters to it's own. And thru catering to it's fans it spreads pretty fast thru word of mouth BECAUSE IT'S A BADASS GAME.
so, why cater to everyone? did you guys see what they did to GRAW!? that's sad man i loved that game!
EDIT:
do you guys remember CONTRA! especially contra 3! JESUS! i had warts and calluses playing that shit!
EDIT 2:
this!
Yet instead of intelligent design, we still get on harder mode, where enemies hit hard, take more and you deal less.
At least in Halo 1, enemies would avoid your grenades on the harder modes as opposed to easier modes where they just stood still.
vs HL2, where i killed a bunch of combine with really obvious and easy to dodge nades tons of times, and they seem to Randomly throw there own grenades, instead of useing them to get you our of certain spots.
One of the reasons I want to try and break things down into their components of play is because you can work out how the game ticks. If you were to apply oldschool rules (like stinger said) of continues/lives to a game like Call of duty... well, have fun getting through that game on anything above normal with your sanity intact.
Also, if you consider the amount of inputs required now compared to the simplicity of control in old games (like megaman x) then im pretty sure a non-gamer should find a game like Halo harder to grasp as theres over double the amount of things to do with your hands, as well as analog aim. Hell, i've played games for years and I still remember playing Timesplitters for the first time after being so used to the Dreamcast 1 analog stick... that was tricky to get used to.
Some bulletpoint like things because i can't quite flesh them out as ideas;
Intuitive / Smart controls DOESNT = Easy/Dumbed down (Batman AA)
If you want to make something hard then structure it from the ground up, any death or error is the fault of player. This wouldn't work in Call of duty, when youre edging forwards only to get peppered with grenades, this one of the reasons things like regening health/checkpoints work within that setting.
If you can make something mechanically fun to play (dustforce, batman AA, devil may cry...) then to me the story should be context NOT content.
EDIT;
Like you say... this isn't intelligent design. Aside the exploration (which really is impressive) I really dont understand what people see in Skyrim. When games like Severance have been around for years with such fleshed out and deliberate fighting systems how can you not evolve these ideas? Its like an incestuous relationship.
This made me laugh, it's like saying "i hate eating caviar, so every time i buy it i'm wasting money"
I'm pretty much the opposite of Ged and Rooster. My times precious to me and i can't be bothered wasting it being pandered by some easy mode game. If i'm not having fun i'm wasting my time and a large part of that is the challenge.
I think at the end of the day it's more about good and bad game design. Look at something like guitar hero, dustforce or SMB. They're all hard but there's no penalty for death and time lost by failing is minor because the levels are short (or how in SMB the hardest part of the level generally exists in the first 50%) to balance it out. What makes them even more adored in my mind is all responsibility for failing is put on the player. The controls are tight and rules are clear so at the end of the day its your fault for failing not the games.
On the other hand you'd have something like WoW, where difficulty is nothing more than a construct of your character and you can come up against insurmountable odds through chance alone and then to top it off be penalised quite heavy by the death.
Whelp they're my thoughts on it anyhows >.>
@Paznos - "Fun" is so subjective you cant really use that as any kind of metric, some people like skat, who are we to really say that they don't get enjoyment out of it.
I think Egoraptor put it nicely in his castlevania 1 & 2 video when he talks about a high quality meal vs junk food, hell... im sure there are film and book analogies too. If you're remotely artistically inclined im sure you can appreciate and find time spent watching something like Drive to be far more rewarding than Transformers 2.
Perhaps rewarding / enlightening is also incredibly pretentious? I guess i'd just rather understand things that I enjoy as opposed to partaking in gratuitous eyeporn and not delving into it. Fuck yeah, inuendo.
But really, if your time is so limited doesn't that make it all the more precious? Why not spend it on something quality (subjective hurdurrrr)
I've grown up playing in ladders so playing against any AI/scripted encounter is usually a joke and it's easy for everyone to assume others find the same things equally challenging since we all have a habit of externalizing our own personal experiences.
I never really understood just how bad the average person was at games until I watched my sister and dad play them. In the most recent examples my sister struggled massively to get through deadspace, crushing the controller in frustration at some points, on easy. My dad was on the brink of nerd raging at the first boss in Deus Ex: HR on the easiest setting.
My point here is that "easy" is a seriously relative concept and I don't understand why making games more accessible to the average person could possibly be a bad thing. The core of the problem here isn't even that games are too easy, it's that difficulty in most games just doesn't scale very well.
gamers can fall into the same 2 things also.
thats why i felt bosses detracted from deus ex, it forces you into combat, even if your character is based stealth and persuading people to do what you want.
they should have had a option for a really challenging stealth mission in place of bosses, like maybe setting a trap up in advanced of meeting the boss, with out being detected.
That was another issue, he had tried to play the game stealth but kept getting detected and getting frustrated and pissed off about it so eventually he just gave up the silent approach and began shooting everybody and everything that moved.
His difficulty grasping the stealth mechanics totally baffled me because he'd played through all the splinter cell games and half the MGS series so it's not like stealthing was something new to him.
IDK man.
The thing is, as i've been trying to argue in someway, is that I dont think games are getting easier. You say that your father and sister struggled with these games... why did they struggle? were they not roleplaying? were they impatient?
I enjoy watching my dad play games, he found it hard to hack in Deus Ex, and when i initially watched him attempt it I too found it quite confusing (As i hadn't watched the tutorial) the amount of information coupled with a strict timelimit/luck based detection isnt really ideal design.
My dad really enjoyed playing a pixel perfect game like Abes odysysysy, a game with such brilliantly sound design that a blind man can complete it.
Hey you know the saying one mans trash is another man treasure. To you its caviar, a refined beautiful experience, to me its a disgusting pile of slimy eggs. I get that some people like it difficult, I just dont and never have, I enjoy feeling awesome, nearly every enemy just falls in awe of my kick ass skills.
playing the same part of the game over and over I will eventually feel rubbish at which point I feel the developer has failed to deliver an experience I can enjoy. Unfortunately Stuntman ignition, Darksiders, Metal gear solid and God of war 2 all fall into this category for me and I am an experience gamer, so just imagine how casual gamers must feel!
I feel there should be more difficulty curves in games, so that the player is rewarded by sections of the game being rediculously fun and easy. that way you keep motivation up even when the game is hard.
though could just be me in SP games i rather of a challenge i need to work at overcoming than having it too easy.
and even in MP games i rather be challenged and even lose to a very good player than easily beat a ton of non-experienced players.
Doesn't this become a fantasy within a fantasy though? I can empathise with it as i put a decent amount of time into playing a destroyer in Torchlight... it was just fun to PLAY so i played it. Its a hollow experience though, its pretty much akin to masterbation, whether or not thats bad or not i dont know.
Having an intuitive difficulty curve is something that should be done with design and not in a FOLOLW THIS ARROW patronizing way. Try not to lump all casual gamers together though, you could also think that if someone has the drive to get into something then a little bit of difficulty isnt going to stop them. Some people thrive on adversity, to me its a better trait to have than wanting to have things pandered to your needs. (not that good design is in anyway bad)
This is mostly speculation but I think since it is a first person game, he found it difficult to be aware of his surroundings and had a habit of not tracking or even remembering the paths of people behind him that he'd already effectively stealthed past, so the roamers would come full circle and detect him. He pretty much treated his minimap as if it didn't exist.
With the first boss he spent the whole time trying to run away. When the boss gets in melee range he grabs you buy the throat then preps you up to shoot you in the face. My dad experienced this and the conclusion he drew was "can't get close to this guy" and took it to the extreme. Between running from a slow-moving target who was also shooting him, and running from the grenades he was throwing, he was literally running the whole time and eventually he'd get shot in the back enough to die.
The thing about that boss though is that his gun "spins down" and theres a period where he just stops and you can attack him or move without being attacked. Something he didn't pick up on or never paid attention to in game.
I think you may be right that games aren't necessarily getting easier, developers are just giving players more cues as to what they're supposed to be doing (like the gun spinning down) and the reason people find it difficult is because they either don't pick up on them, don't understand them, or don't like them. Most of my dads problems probably would have been aleviated if he'd just learned to use the cover system but for whatever reason, he always forgot about it.
It may also just SEEM like games are getting easier because we've basically been training players for generations how they're supposed to be played (mainstream games at least.)
My sister on the other hand, almost ALL of her problems are execution related. Unlike my dad, I honestly cannot give her any advice short of "do it better" Her accuracy is in the single digits with most weapons and her reactions are slow. Probably the pinnacle of her frustrations was the sequence in Dead Space where you have to kill a certain number of asteroids coming at the ship with a turret within 2 minutes. After probably almost an hour of trying to do it herself I ended up doing it for her.
My dad hated hacking too but it's because of the time limit. Both my dad and sister panic whenever they have to work under a timer, it makes it almost impossible for them to learn anything or try to figure out how its supposed to work. To be honest though I tend to think this is normal for people. I can't remember where I saw it but there was a graphic a while ago pretty much to the effect of "The #1 killer in video games is panic" and timers are a great way of inducing that effect.
Take the quest/objective markers for example, which I find to be a really "hacky method" of helping people navigate. Assassins Creed Brotherhood had possibly one of the worst examples of this. I recall one mission in which you were supposed to break into a castle and save Caterina Sforza. It was essentially a sneaking mission, but did not anything like it since all you had to do was to follow a path made of flags. Not only did this ruin the whole feel of the mission but completely destroyed my immersion. It felt like the game was taking exploration away from me and in some ways it felt very patronising.
On the other hand, we've got games made by Valve, in which they help people navigate via strong use of colour, lighting, sound and other effects. Beginning of HL2, where you are being chased by the Combine is still one of the best examples of great level design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdvo6y0XF1c&feature=fvwrel#t=0m24s
Sure, when you break it down this bit extremely linear. But the difference is that when you're actually playing the game, it doesn't really feel like you're following a premade path, but consciously making your own.
Now speaking of the actual challenge, personally I cannot have fun in a game if I know that my failure will have no consequences. Knowing that I can screw up multiple times and still win makes me feel less engaged and eventually lose my interest completely. Sure, I love when I win, but I want to kick ass because I'm doing well, not because the enemies are lining up to get hit.
Unfortunately, plenty of games follow the latter scenario. Right now, it might be working, but I believe that as new gamers start getting more experienced with games and experiment them they will realize that their success had been staged. For this reason, I don't think that many of the games made during this console generation will be worth replaying. Failing and overcoming a challenge plays a huge role in making a game fun for me and frankly, the ones I remember and like the most were the games in which I failed a lot.
I know that some people say that they don't have the time to lose and repeat a chunk of the game. However, making a game challenging doesn't necessarily mean you have to deal with repetition. All I'm hoping for is a legitimate feel of challenge and success; the feeling of standing close to an edge and barely surviving.
The game isn't any more challenging, it's just less forgiving which is a bad thing in my opinion because it discourages people from experimenting and trying new things and instead tunnels them into predictable behavior that keeps them playing the same way until that way no longer works. And in most cases these days, when something doesn't work rather than try anything new at all people go straight to youtube to look up a walkthrough because they know any creative thinking on their part might cost them another half hour of time.
I'd disagree with this. As far as i'm concerned games are meant to be fun, so by what other measure could you use? Any other quantitative data isn't going to accurately illustrate the experience.
Perhaps the original question should be closer to "does maximising your audience, water down the experience?"
I mean maybe its idealistic and naive of me to think that people would naturally gravitate to games they'd enjoy. I doubt someone looking for an easy experience would pick up demon souls or vice versa. but ch'know profit is a pretty good motivator and games will be largely targeted to the majority and we'll end up with a bunch of stupid pop up shit telling us what to do (to make reference to sequealitis).
I get whatcha mean Ged and I've gotta agree (somewhat), instances like this would feel like failed game design to me. I read this the other day and it delves into the idea of challenge and penalty a little bit.
http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2011/07/dark-past-part-4-useful-post-or-randy.html
TL:DR it focuses on stealth gameplay and how a 'zero penalty' solution should exist for the player (Atleast one that's paying attention).
Personally i loved god of war 2, except it had me raging at the Achilles? and the hammer dude fights FFffffuuu and i had to leave it for a little while lol. Maybe in retrospect the 'zero penalty' solution existed in my repotoire and i just wasn't using it hence the difficulty, who knows.
well that just looks like a shitty game.
While personally I don't mind losing progress and in some cases it can make me feel more satisifed after I actually beat a game, there are many ways to make games more challenging without forcing the players to repeat large sections of the game. I think the original Halo:CE actually got this right. It combined both the regenerating health mechanic and health pack system. If you did screw up at some point and lost a signiicant number of health, you could still continue onwards and you could still finish the level. However, since you had to rely only on your regenerating shields, you could take significantly less damgage and had to play the game more carefully.
This was combined with checkpoints that were placed right before each battle. If you died, or lost too much health you could easily restart the last minute or two of gameplay. I do think that losing conditions are necessary; if you can never lose the game then the stakes get lower. However, it's all about ballance. Losing an hour of progress sucks and it takes lots of will power to play through that again. Losing 1-5 minutes of gameplay is something I find acceptable and in fact encouraging. It really depends on the game though. There are games in which I didn't mind getting killed off and having to start again because it enhanced the experience.
In any case, Halo:CE on Legendary was one of my favourite gaming experiences and I'm saying that as someone who's not even a fan of the series. It was all thanks to the challenge and constantly feeling like I was an step away from both failure and victory.
@Paznos
My point was that something could be fun for only one person, using that to measure the quality of games isn't really going to get you anywhere. You can start looking at how theyre designed instead and whether or not they achieve their goals... etc etc. (pretty much what ive been ranting about)
Dungeon defenders was "fun" but immensly shallow and really fucking dull after a while. It felt like a colour by numbers case of games design whereby they had a list of all the novelty shit that people like from popular facebook/mmo games and chucked it all together.
Take Bioshock for example, it supposed to be the spiritual successor to System Shock 2. Both are awesome games, but Bioshock doesn't have half the complexity and depth of System Shock 2.
Thief Deadly Shadows is another example. All 3 are awesome games, but Deadly Shadows just seems so different compared to the other two.
That's why i sill prefer PC over console, for gaming. The PC games still atleast try to retain some depth in their gameplay. Go play an ANNO game and see why they would never work on a console.
with some design-choices it ports perfectly
Sometimes...if the difficulty is just right, but my personal tolerance is around 3 tries and thats it, obviously people are all different but thats what Im like. So most of the time I do not feel accomplishment for beating a really hard section of a game because it has just caused me too much anguish, its gone right past that line in my head where a challenging game goes and gone on to this is total bollocks! Sometimes I am hesitant to even play the game ever again at this point. Im being overdramatic but this is the thought process I have if I think about it.
@jackwhat I dont feel it is a hollow experience to not have very much of a challenge, if the controls are fun and the gameplay exciting then its 30mins to an 1hour of pure gaming fun eg bulletstorm on easy I loved! Playing the same little section of a level 5 times over and not completing it even though Ive spent an hour trying, well I would consider that a very hollow experience!
I go to games to escape reality, I dont want to suffer or be challenged too much I get that enough in everyday life so whatever time I have to play games needs to be full of pure awesome.
Jackwhat, what I meant about difficulty curves is this: if skyrim for example made it so that as I got close to leveling up I found that I was innefective against big bad guys who are 1 level higher than me and then I level up and now I can totally beat the crap out of those same guys. That way I am challenged and then rewarded and it all happens pretty quick. Too often I play games that are all grinding challenge after challenge and no big reward(mmos and fps games do this a lot).
when companies make their games more accessible they eventually become less complex. What i remember about games were applications that used to make my head work and start thinking about strategy, about techniques. So when we loose that we loose the 'soul' if you will.
But, inevitably when companies do decide to make them more "accessible" the Artists pay, more often than not some of these games don't do well, like i suspect the new GRAW will end up doing. Layoffs are rampant and it's not because the art is lacking.
we as artist are becoming increasingly BETTER!
Shouldn't we as artist and as (not me but some) employees, shouldn't we demand more out of the design?
EDIT:
and also, what i ask for, is intelligent design just like we're getting more and more intelligent about creating characters and levels. Not gameplay that is so hard it's annoying but something....like... portal let's say, it'll drive you crazy till it CLICKS! then it makes you smile and continue!
if i sound ignorant pls stop me.
I think I know what you mean and this is why I enjoyed portal and bulletstorm and rage, cause they try some new things, not a complete new genre just some clever tinkering with old formulas. Unfortunately tinkering with formulas that work is a risk.
In a way devs are using very intelligent design, deliver something familiar, something comfortable and fun for the user and refine it slowly but surely with every iteration through art, sound, ai etc. If we as artists didnt become better the market might have stagnated even more than some think it has now.
i think it's the pursue of profit that drives this industry now. Look at what happened to 'Home front' trying to copy the formula, instead of doing something all on their own.