Big Business & Creativity

[Emiscary]

So if you were an average gamer (young adult, middle class, relatively well educated), and I mentioned Activision/Blizzard/EA to you, I imagine you'd react about the same way you'd react if you stubbed your toe. IE: lots of anger, lots of frustration and a small measure of pain.

And the reason why isn't exactly a secret. So-called "AAA Gaming" revolves around high def graphics, aping actions movies- and nothing else. Seriously, I welcome people to challenge me on this. In a DECADE there hasn't been a single big budget game made that didn't come across as an overdressed movie with a few suggestion boxes tacked onto it.

Here's why: big business is not designed to innovate. Big business is designed to stay afloat. But creative enterprises? They depend on innovation to survive. In order for "Art" to be good, you need to keep pushing the envelope. Trying new things, challenging people's expectations, mixing up the formula. If you stop doing all those things y'know what you get? Stagnation, followed shortly thereafter by cliches.

Like I mentioned before, big business wants to stay afloat. The purpose of companies like EA is not to provide you with a quality game, it's to make sure their upper management have their own body weight in money (quite alot considering how fat executives tend to be) in the bank at all times. And seeing as how risk taking wouldn't be conducive to that aim, they don't try new things. Instead they parrot past successes over...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty

and over...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:EA_Sports_games

and over...

And any time they *do* try something new? It's always a result of them gobbling up someone else's ideas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_effect

And they never handle things properly...

http://chzvideogames.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/video-game-memes-papea-kills-off-developers.jpg

So what I'm saying is: yes, I welcome the upcoming death of bloated useless companies like this in the future, and the subsequent creation of more open and experimental companies who're actually invested in advancing the medium. As far as I'm concerned I stand to lose nothing. If big gaming companies cave in on themselves and the companies that pop up to replace them suck just as bad? Then I'm still at square 1, but at least then I got to watch the smug pricks who hate my guts go down in flames. And that's a win no matter who you are.

 

[Hazy992]

Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption your argument is invalid

 

[Emiscary]

Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption your argument is invalid

So a stripped down Elder Scrolls game with high def graphics and GTA with horses are the next big innovations in gaming? Holy damn, what's next? A stripped down Heroes of Might & Magic game with high def graphics?

(Wait, they already did that... fuck...)

 

[Vern5]

Snipped

Sometimes I take the information you put forward for granted. For example, I'm a cynical bastard who is always suspicious of the motives of people who produce and sell things for a living (I can never really be chums with those guys who work at 7/11 for this reason), so I expect this kind of activity from EA and other big name companies. Even my beloved Bethesda is like this, which is just a dark fact I have to accept.

However, and this is the surprising part, there are a lot of people who just buy the games these companies make without even considering what they are and who made them. These are usually people who don't care about the ins and outs of the gaming/development community and just want to sit down so they can be distracted for a few hours (*cough* console-owners *cough-cough*).

But here's what interests me about the inevitable death of EA. Does this mean that capitalism really does work but at a very slow pace? We're seeing a company dying because it lacks skill and innovation. We're also seeing the rise of smaller, smarter companies as their products become more desirable. I feel like this is one of those "The System works!" moments. Am I wrong?

 

[Emiscary]

Snipped

Sometimes I take the information you put forward for granted. For example, I'm a cynical bastard who is always suspicious of the motives of people who produce and sell things for a living (I can never really be chums with those guys who work at 7/11 for this reason), so I expect this kind of activity from EA and other big name companies. Even my beloved Bethesda is like this, which is just a dark fact I have to accept.

However, and this is the surprising part, there are a lot of people who just buy the games these companies make without even considering what they are and who made them. These are usually people who don't care about the ins and outs of the gaming/development community and just want to sit down so they can be distracted for a few hours (*cough* console-owners *cough-cough*).

But here's what interests me about the inevitable death of EA. Does this mean that capitalism really does work but at a very slow pace? We're seeing a company dying because it lacks skill and innovation. We're also seeing the rise of smaller, smarter companies as their products become more desirable. I feel like this is one of those "The System works!" moments. Am I wrong?

Shhh! Don't jynx it >.>

 

[Hazy992]

Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption your argument is invalid

So a stripped down Elder Scrolls game with high def graphics and GTA with horses are the next big innovations in gaming?

You said every big budget game of the last decade was nothing more than a movie. These prove they're not. And you can be a cynic and just call RDR 'GTA with horses' but it felt fresh to me and I'd never played anything like it.

 

[Vern5]

Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption your argument is invalid

So a stripped down Elder Scrolls game with high def graphics and GTA with horses are the next big innovations in gaming?

You said every big budget game of the last decade was nothing more than a movie. These prove they're not. And you can be a cynic and just call RDR 'GTA with horses' but it felt fresh to me and I'd never played anything like it.

Despite how good Skyrim and RDR were, they are far from the best or most innovative games available in the market right now. And you have to admit that both of them were quite cinematic in the way they are presented.

 

[Emiscary]

You said every big budget game of the last decade was nothing more than a movie. These prove they're not.

Really? So a cut & paste fantasy story wherein you play the chosen one fighting an evil dragon in order to save the land didn't strike you as familiar at all? The fact that there is no "official" story beyond the actual dragon killing? (IE: it's the only thing that'll ever come up again in the series, so it's the only thing that actually counts.)

And RDR? Really? You're telling me a sandboxy gritty western was "fresh"? John Wayne would like a word.

 

[Hazy992]

Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption your argument is invalid

So a stripped down Elder Scrolls game with high def graphics and GTA with horses are the next big innovations in gaming?

You said every big budget game of the last decade was nothing more than a movie. These prove they're not. And you can be a cynic and just call RDR 'GTA with horses' but it felt fresh to me and I'd never played anything like it.

Despite how good Skyrim and RDR were, they are far from the best or most innovative games available in the market right now. And you have to admit that both of them were quite cinematic in the way they are presented.

I didn't say they were the best or most innovative, just that they didn't seem cinematic. RDR just felt fresh to me cause I'd not played anything like it.

 

[Hazy992]

You said every big budget game of the last decade was nothing more than a movie. These prove they're not.

Really? So a cut & paste fantasy story wherein you play the chosen one fighting an evil dragon in order to save the land didn't strike you as familiar at all? The fact that there is no "official" story beyond the actual dragon killing? (IE: it's the only thing that'll ever come up again in the series, so it's the only thing that actually counts.)

And RDR? Really? You're telling me a sandboxy gritty western was "fresh"? John Wayne would like a word.

I said they didn't feel like movies because they didn't to me. RDR felt fresh to me because I hadnt played anything like it. If you're going to say a game isn't fresh in its medium because it was done first in another medium then you could do that for any game. 'Okami was just too stale cause it's based off Japanese mythology!'

 

[Emiscary]

I said they didn't feel like movies because they didn't to me. RDR felt fresh to me because I hadnt played anything like it. If you're going to say a game isn't fresh in its medium because it was done first in another medium then you could do that for any game. 'Okami was just too stale cause it's based off Japanese mythology!'

My argument was: Big game companies produce generic cinematic games that harp on past success and old ideas.

Your response was: Generic cinematic RPG sequel, and generic cinematic western sandbox. I win.

(Incidentally, anyone else remember RDR when it was called "GUN"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_%28video_game%29 )

 

[Bad Jim]

But here's what interests me about the inevitable death of EA. Does this mean that capitalism really does work but at a very slow pace?

To be honest I think they could have got away with raiding popular franchises forever. But they needed a supply of schmucks to walk into stores and buy those familiar names without reading reviews.

Then they screwed up by putting DRM on everything. Now your games are tied to online accounts anyway, you may as well save a trip to the shops and buy your games online. And since you'll be online, you'll want to read reviews, then look on forums where every fan of the original will proclaim it has been ruined forever. It's also a lot easier to get some indie game you've heard of online. I rarely found one I was looking for in a retail store.

 

[Hazy992]

I said they didn't feel like movies because they didn't to me. RDR felt fresh to me because I hadnt played anything like it. If you're going to say a game isn't fresh in its medium because it was done first in another medium then you could do that for any game. 'Okami was just too stale cause it's based off Japanese mythology!'

My argument was: Big game companies produce generic cinematic games that harp on past success and old ideas.

Your response was: Generic cinematic RPG sequel, and generic cinematic western sandbox. I win.

You discredited the fact that I found RDR fresh because John Wayne movies had done it first. That was the point I was making with Okami; that you should discredit that game as at all original because it's based on Japanese mythology.

When I brought up Skyrim and RDR I was referring to this bit specifically;

In a DECADE there hasn't been a single big budget game made that didn't come across as an overdressed movie with a few suggestion boxes tacked onto it.

Skyrim and RDR are not like this.

When most people talk about games being 'cinematic' they're talking about Call of Duty or Uncharted, linear games with big set pieces. RDR and Skyrim aren't like that so they're not cinematic based on that criteria.

What actually constitutes being cinematic to you? Any game that even borrows slightly from film? That seems too stringent.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Just forget about big budget games. If you get caught up in the massive hype campaigns and buy and play them instead of the better smaller budget games out there then you should own up to being the sort of person who rewards these people. But there is no need to try to bring them down.

But to me words like art and creativity are just words that can be used to hype up anything. Good, bad or indifferent.