E for Everyone, Except Me

[samsonguy920]

Lately I have been getting the impression that developers and publishers seem to think that everything has to be high end, which costs more for them with time and manpower put into the games. State of the art graphics are nice, but a strong number of people that you can pick out from both mainstream and niche audiences would be satisfied with graphics that a budget computer can run on, as long as the gameplay and story(if one applies) are both good. The self destructive pace that game companies seem to be going on as was alluded to by Archon in the article seems to be by effort that is being put forth needlessly. Yes, there is the paranoia that publishers put out higher end stuff to push gamers to buy bigger and better systems(such as Crytek), and that might be true to a point. But computers only last so long, so people are bound to want to upgrade anyway. Consoles are another ball of wax, but since those aren't my specialty, can leave that up to another person to address.
Sooner or later it is going to get to a point where sales will drop like a rock because people just can't justify a $50-$100 purchase of Total Modern Battlefield 16. But don't expect the publishers to take responsibility. That won't be a good time to be a developer, because you will soon become an unemployed one.
From what I have been hearing, and seeing reference to, E3 seems to be a lot of the same old thing in a new shiny package. I think I will be saving my money this coming year, playing games I already have, that I will be able to enjoy on the PC I have. At least with movies I will get some new surprises out of those, and won't have to pay $60 for the experience.

 

[Irridium]

snip

My guess is that the money would go into better graphics, voice acting, and orchestral soundtracks.

Shamus Young covered the graphics thing fairly well [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics].

Voice acting its more about celebrity voice actors. It costs too much and is rarely worth it. Plus voice acting seems to have impacted games at large by cutting out a lot of the "choice" aspect despite games saying they offer more and more choices.

And the orchestral soundtracks require an orchestra. Which can't be cheap and also isn't really worth it. After hearing them in basically every other game, they lose their punch.

Cut out those 3 things, and I'm sure you'd save a lot of money and could result in more fun games.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Plus you could imagine your character having the same voice as Patrick Stewart. Or Stephan Fry.

Whenever I feel the need to play old text based RPGs, I have both of them come around and read off the screen for me.

 

[Luke Cartner]

snip

My guess is that the money would go into better graphics, voice acting, and orchestral soundtracks.

Shamus Young covered the graphics thing fairly well [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics].

Voice acting its more about celebrity voice actors. It costs too much and is rarely worth it. Plus voice acting seems to have impacted games at large by cutting out a lot of the "choice" aspect despite games saying they offer more and more choices.

And the orchestral soundtracks require an orchestra. Which can't be cheap and also isn't really worth it. After hearing them in basically every other game, they lose their punch.

Cut out those 3 things, and I'm sure you'd save a lot of money and could result in more fun games.

So why are niche game developers not doing just that?

 

[Irridium]

snip

My guess is that the money would go into better graphics, voice acting, and orchestral soundtracks.

Shamus Young covered the graphics thing fairly well [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics].

Voice acting its more about celebrity voice actors. It costs too much and is rarely worth it. Plus voice acting seems to have impacted games at large by cutting out a lot of the "choice" aspect despite games saying they offer more and more choices.

And the orchestral soundtracks require an orchestra. Which can't be cheap and also isn't really worth it. After hearing them in basically every other game, they lose their punch.

Cut out those 3 things, and I'm sure you'd save a lot of money and could result in more fun games.

So why are niche game developers not doing just that?

Because for some reason everyone in the industry thinks they need those 3 things if they want to have a multi-million seller.

There are some who do fine enough on their own by not using those things, but they are few.

 

[The Random One]

This article is very true, but overall I consider indie games to be their own niche. Games like World of Goo, Braid, Aquaria and VVVVV might not compete with behemoths like MW2, but it's in the same way that an intimate French arthouse movie doesn't compete with a Michael Bay movie - it's not because it can't win, it's because they're not playing the same sport. I particularly see no problem with small indie games not looking as pretty as the huge AAA releases. Frankly, I think RE4 hit my personal point of realism; I perceive any game with better graphics than it as being on the exact same level. I watch in awe at how beautiful current gen games are but they fade quickly in face of the gameplay.

Both the games and movies industries are doomed to die quickly, since they've set themselves up with quotas they cannot hope to fulfill. They will both shatter into a thousand indies who will rebuild the industry from its tatters.

 

[The Schwarz]

Basically what you're saying is "I want to have my cake and eat it too".

You say you want big, blockbuster, multi-billion-dollar productions, targeted at your specific niche. And *many* of them, to boot. Oh, and they should also be innovative and original, of course.

That's like saying "I think Hollywood should make more Zombie Apocalypse movies, but not B movies; I want them to be real, fancy productions. And also, I think we need some *new* material in the Zombie Apocalypse genre". I mean, I would definitely be happy if that'll happen, but it's not realistic or feasible.

But that was my point: It's not realistic or feasible, even though I'd like it to happen. I even provided a mathematical explanation as to why it's not realistic or feasible. So I'm not sure if you are just agreeing with me, or criticizing me for foolishly not grasping the premise of my own article.

I guess I'm agreeing with your general notion but criticizing your attitude. Yes, it would be nice if there were giant productions for every niche, but I think your article has a rather pessimistic outlook on things, and I guess I'd rather take the optimistic route and say that it's nice that now we have both multi-billion-dollar 7th-gen games *and* original, innovative, niche-targeted indie games.

 

[Jenx]

Man, I know how the author feels. Actually I feel with me it's a bit worse. Why? Well he seems to be a lot older than me, so it's, I dunno, sort of expected that he would prefer those older games (ones he played during his younger years). I'm 22 for crying out loud, and I still think Baldur's Gate 2 is a better game than Oblivion, Mass Effect, World of Warcraft and Fallout 3 COMBINED.

 

[orangeapples]

I also agree with this sentiment.

growing up on NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, and a computer with DOS OS which required Floppy disks (that actually flopped around), this current gen really feels bland.

I think he pinnacle of gaming was the PS2/Gamcube (and yes I will throw in Xbox with much distain).

PS2 was the king, followed by Gamecube with Xbox far behind.

Why do I say that PS2 is the pinnacle of video games? PS2 did everything. PS2 had all sorts of random crazy characters and made games that defied human logic (ratchet, jak, Katamari, okami, Sly Cooper) it held true to the old JRPG line with final fantasy X and Dragon Quest VIII, which console brought DDR, Karaoke Revolution and Guitar Hero into the world? that right PS2 made music rhythm games popular in the west (PS1 in Japan, I know). Survival Horror? Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 4? What console brought us Shadow of the Colossus and Ico? the evolution of the beat-em-up: Devil May Cry. which console brought Disney and SquareEnix in the strangest awesome crossover ever? Which console made the games that practically define gaming today? God of War, Metal Gear Solid sequels.

So what did the Gamecube have? our memories. Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong(a), Fzero, the sequel to Super Smash Bros (Nintendo's Ultimate Showdown). While PS2 created the new, we got to see our childhood memories evolve and grow with us in the Gamecube. It made the old new again.

So what did the Xbox have? 2 games that define gaming today (Halo and Halo 2) and 1 game that I think is just awesome (Kung Fu Chaos). And why was Halo awesome? Because it was the new Goldeneye 64. That's it.

after these games, the gaming community wasn't the same. I hear kids complain about how Zelda games don't have voice acting therefore Zelda games suck. No, Link never spoke. That is part of the game's charm. And yes, sometimes voice acting is powerful I for one think Kingdom Hearts series was spot on with their voices, and Prince of Persia (SoT trilogy) is just perfect. Does voice acting make a game great? No, because Shadow of the Colossus had no (understandable) voice acting and that is still an awesome game.

but it is too bad the gaming industry is too afraid to make unique games again.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm done now.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's something that's not just happening with games though, but with every form of disposable media. In fact, Micro$oft, Nintendo and Sony are even trying to speed up the disposability of its software.
Some could argue that Mewtwo was as bad as it is so that you'd ache for Mewthree, especially after they stop supporting Mewone. That's what gets them the money. Buy it, play it a bit, buy the next.

But wait...Matthew Smith wrote one of the greatest selling games of all time in his bedroom. With a awful soundtrack, one colour sprites and repetive moves: along with the stupidest DRM of all time.

Surely E3 is for all those junkies that squee at Natal and all the other one-trick ponys that the industry throws at us. Kongregate, Popcap and other companies still develop for us, but we don't pay them enough attention. (Ok, apart from Bejewelled)

Why aren't we seeking out these indie developers that make great titles that we used to love?

Oh yeah, we're too busy hating on the ADD games.

If you enjoyed Magic, Archon; why not look for S.P.A.N.C, or INWO or Chez Geek or Civilization the board game or Munchkin or Fluxx or Chrononauts or Settlers of Catan? Either computerised or vanilla board/card games.

The games are still there, it's just the companies need us to play their huge budget games as well, pyramid scheme economics ftl.

 

[Levethian]

I agree re Bethesda (and in general) - Hopefully the DaggerXL project will bear world-simulating fruit.

 

[Rob Zacny]

I'm not sure how you can say Matrix Games' price points are lower. They might be slightly lower, on average, than they were during the Talonsoft / SSI days, but they are far more expensive than most other PC games. This might seem like nit-picking, but I think it's very much to the point of your article.

People comparison shop, and the internet has made it easier than ever. Matrix Games has given up on the broader PC marketplace to focus exclusively on a small audience of affluent die-hards who will think nothing of forking over $70 for another hex-based treatment of El Alamein or the Vicksburg campaign. And they almost never drop the price, no matter how old the game. Last I checked, Korsun Pocket was still going for $50, and that game came out in 2003.

When I picked up Steel Panthers or Close Combat 2 back in the day, they didn't cost me more than any other game. Now, if I'm going to splurge on a wargame, it's going to cost me as much a Day 1 console release. Even if said wargame is a few years old. How can a niche ever expect to win new converts when its publishers create such a high opportunity cost?

So don't look at Matrix Games. Look at Paradox Interactive, instead. They are making hardcore strategy games like Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron, pricing them competitively, AND they're also doing the same with classic-style wargames like Rise of Prussia or Achtung Panzer. Achtung Panzer has really good graphics, kick-ass action, and it was $20 new.

One final comment: if you care about these great niche genres, and if one of their big problems is that they do not sell many copies, shouldn't you be doing more to champion them? For years PC Gamer had Bill Trotter spreading the gospel about wargames, and CGM had Tom Chick, Bruce Geryk, and Troy Goodfellow among a lot of other great writers going to bat for sims, strategy, and wargames. You write about your sense of alienation from the modern gaming industry, but you're in a far better position than most to help broaden the audience for the type of classic gaming we both love.

 

[elikal]

Great article. It was an enlightenment for me, I must say. However, if this is true, and at the moment I see no reason to doubt it, then we are indeed doomed. We the old school gamers will likely never ever get again what we loved and what we want, because the root is the evil of Capitalism itself.

As it is for so many other things, I might add.

 

[oxiclean]

Great article. It was an enlightenment for me, I must say. However, if this is true, and at the moment I see no reason to doubt it, then we are indeed doomed. We the old school gamers will likely never ever get again what we loved and what we want, because the root is the evil of Capitalism itself.

As it is for so many other things, I might add.

that "evil" capitalism is the reason there is a video game industry in the first place. why was the video game market reaching new heights in america and japan, advancing out of control, while soviet Russia had virtually no video game market. in a command economy (such as communism), there is no reason for an entertainment industry because it detracts from the time spent progressing the government agenda. even if they did commission for video games to be developed, you could be sure they wouldn't go beyond simplistic propaganda.



the problems outlined in the article are not the fault of capitalism. is there a problem with wanting to stay in business? no matter what economic model is followed, you cannot stay afloat without money. would you want a company spend $25 million developing a game for people who enjoy taxidermy, making it kickass? of course, since taxidermy isn't exactly popular, it only makes about $200,000 and forces the studio into bankruptcy. you cannot expect an industry to survive if you advocate it behaving in a way that destroys it. what if all the big-name rock bands began spending money developing multiple polka albums to appeal to fans of that? sure, you'd make a small minority happy, but you would be making much less money. continuing in that trend, you would be unable to stay afloat.



I'm just wondering, how would the situation be any different in another economic model?

 

[kazriko]

A thought provoking article. Here's a reply I did on my own site though.

I had to think more about the economics that the E for everyone except me article. What is he suggesting that we do? His complaint is that the market can't support AAA titles outside of a few genres, but it seems that the real reason he's complaining is that AAA games in genres that he doesn't like make games in genres that he does like look worse by comparison. Given this, what does he suggest be done about it? You're not going to change the economics of the situation and make realistic strategy games a better investment for developers unless you recruit 3-5 million more realistic strategy game players.

Thus, it becomes a bit like those who complain that those other people have a million dollars and I don't. You can do one of two things. You can either work hard, and improve the situation for everyone. Your genre's games will improve, but so will the AAA games. They'll still be infinitely better graphically than your genre, but at least yours will be getting better as well. This is the path that we're on now with gaming. If you look at niche genres now, they're tons better than those same niche genres were years ago, it's just that everything else has gotten better faster than those niches.

The only other way would be to do what Communists and Socialists do to economic systems. Take from the AAA developers and give to the Niche developers. You hobble the AAA games so that they can't develop games with better graphics than the niche games. This would have two effects. Gaming graphics would increase at a much slower rate for everyone. Not only would the AAA shooters and such still be at a Doom 1 level, but Strategy games would be stuck at the same timeframe as well, with low end 320x240 MCGA graphics. Everyone suffers.

I know which way I would choose. While Disgaea and the Atelier series have nothing on Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted, they're still much better than the older RPG games that I was playing. We're still in a Book publishing style medium, it's just that a handful of books can afford much better paper, much better ink, and such that cost so much more to setup. Just because someone else has rich graphics doesn't mean that they're hurting the graphics that you're experiencing. In fact, the trailblazing that they are doing will lead to better graphics for all games, just not quite as good of graphics...

 

[kazriko]

Maybe we should return to N64-PS2 graphics, maybe with some modern game design applied to SNES style games ;D

This would be a great idea.

God of War 1 and 2 shows us that impressive graphics can be squeezed out of PS2 era tech. And with todays hardware, coupled with PS2 graphics, that opens up a lot more for developers to experiment with. And with the money you save with the graphics, the games cost less to produce.

You would save even more money if you took PS2 era Graphics and put them on modern tech.

Modern tech allows for increased abstraction and usage of third party libraries, allowing you to leverage the work of others to decrease the development time of your product. Producing God of War 2 graphics on a PS3 would be far cheaper than producing identical God of War 2 graphics on a PS2. The larger the distance between your chosen hardware and the target graphics style of your game, the cheaper it will be to produce. You can get away with so much more laziness on modern hardware. The problem, of course, is that if you're anything but the best looking game on a platform the critics will pelt you for it.

What we need to adjust are user's and critic's expectations, including those of the author of this article. Not every game needs the most up to date graphical look and feel, and those who play in niches shouldn't expect the most up to date graphical look and feel. Be happy that a game you like is being produced, even if it has PSP level graphics on your shiny new PS3.

Improving the hardware is a great thing to do and will decrease the cost of games in the long run, if only we could keep the bloody media from expecting everything to look oh-so-sparkly because it's running on new hardware.

Imagine this. If they made a PS4 tomorrow that had a newer graphics chip, but everything else remained the same... would it increase or decrease the effort spent on making 3d games for the system? Increase or decrease the effort spent making games run at 1080p at 60fps? As long as you don't raise people's expectations of graphical fidelity, it would decrease the effort because you don't need to spend nearly the amount of time cutting things down to make it run fast in 3d or at 1080p... The only thing forcing budgets to increase for new games is the unrealistic expectation that people have for all games to look the absolute best you can squeeze out of the system.

 

[Irridium]

Maybe we should return to N64-PS2 graphics, maybe with some modern game design applied to SNES style games ;D

This would be a great idea.

God of War 1 and 2 shows us that impressive graphics can be squeezed out of PS2 era tech. And with todays hardware, coupled with PS2 graphics, that opens up a lot more for developers to experiment with. And with the money you save with the graphics, the games cost less to produce.

You would save even more money if you took PS2 era Graphics and put them on modern tech.

Modern tech allows for increased abstraction and usage of third party libraries, allowing you to leverage the work of others to decrease the development time of your product. Producing God of War 2 graphics on a PS3 would be far cheaper than producing identical God of War 2 graphics on a PS2. The larger the distance between your chosen hardware and the target graphics style of your game, the cheaper it will be to produce. You can get away with so much more laziness on modern hardware. The problem, of course, is that if you're anything but the best looking game on a platform the critics will pelt you for it.

What we need to adjust are user's and critic's expectations, including those of the author of this article. Not every game needs the most up to date graphical look and feel, and those who play in niches shouldn't expect the most up to date graphical look and feel. Be happy that a game you like is being produced, even if it has PSP level graphics on your shiny new PS3.

Improving the hardware is a great thing to do and will decrease the cost of games in the long run, if only we could keep the bloody media from expecting everything to look oh-so-sparkly because it's running on new hardware.

Imagine this. If they made a PS4 tomorrow that had a newer graphics chip, but everything else remained the same... would it increase or decrease the effort spent on making 3d games for the system? Increase or decrease the effort spent making games run at 1080p at 60fps? As long as you don't raise people's expectations of graphical fidelity, it would decrease the effort because you don't need to spend nearly the amount of time cutting things down to make it run fast in 3d or at 1080p... The only thing forcing budgets to increase for new games is the unrealistic expectation that people have for all games to look the absolute best you can squeeze out of the system.

It could actually benefit PC gaming as well. In fact it could benefit it massively.

Lets say the developers choose to focus on what average specs are today and develop for those specs for 5-10 years.

In that time they'll learn about the hardware, make better use of it, make games quicker for it, and the games will be cheaper. Plus as time goes on the hardware will get cheaper and cheaper, meaning more people can buy said hardware and buy/play your game.

So in the end you spend less, make better games, and sell more copies. Everyone wins.

 

[My1stLuvJak]

Wow, fantastic article!

It has me a little worried about the future of gaming, though...the moment I stop being able to buy games like Demon's Souls is the moment that my passion for games starts to dry up.

Luckily for me, I'm still young and naive. I'm just as excited about some of Nintendo's latest and greatest as I ever was; Metroid: Other M looks superb, and Paper Mario 3DS has me all kinds of excited.

However, I think I get what you're saying. There's a lot less for me to get excited about this year than any year previous, even with all of the technological innovation. I've had the sinking feeling for a while, now, that videogames are moving in a direction that I'm not entirely on board with - I argued, vehemently, that New Super Mario Bros Wii is a flawless game, overlooking the fact that a 'superguide' had been added, and the background art, at times, looks even simpler than Super Mario World...I thought that was due to having 4 players possibly on-screen simultaneously, but I could be very wrong.

I love Nintendo's innovation, but I don't like how some of my favourite games are being made 'easier', like Megaman 10. What's the point of a platform game when all the holes are covered up!? The level design had me worried that, in making the game more accessible, Capcom lost out on a lot of chances to make their game even more interesting, missing out on using the weapons as effectively as they did in Megaman 9.

Anyways. I'm all for casual games, but keep them the hell away from my Megaman and Metroid!!! I've gotta say, to close, that indie games hold more sway over me than a lot of the biggest releases out there...I think that, even if the day comes when sub-genres are lost forever, innovative games will live on through indie game networks, like Steam, PSN, XBox Live, and, to some extent, Wiiware.

I'll always have my virtual console, at least.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I know 100% how you feel...I feel very much the same way.

I still love video games, but the era in which I used to love /most/ video games as opposed to one or two every now and then is long since passed.

Nowadays it feels like videogames are marketed mostly to 13 year olds with ADD and frat boys who want to frag their friends. I get boobs and explosions shoved in my face more often than is healthy when playing RPG's and strategy titles.

 

[RelexCryo]

"I still cherish the dream that MMOGs could be simulations like Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, and not massively multiplayer amusement parks like World of Warcraft"

I am with you on this one Archon- I want to truly roleplay, not just overcome challenges in a perpetual upgrade treadmill.