Gaming dying etc etc

[hazabaza1]

Perhaps this is what dying feels like. You're slowly transcending into gamer heaven. Perhaps you're already dead, and you're Bruce Willis and I'm Haley Joel Osment and I'm the only one who can see your posts and oh holy shit I have scared myself a little please tell me I'm not talking to a ghost!

Who you talking to, man?
You crazy.

OT: Yeah, gaming isn't dying. Get over yourself. Go check out kickstarter or something if you're really insist on spouting this.

Captcha: yadda yadda yadda
Wow, very fitting.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

To answer to your question,what kills good franchises is that their development studios stop being independent and being bought by big publishers.
When a big publisher buys an independent developer studio,expect the game series this studio was making to at least change in the best scenario,or totally die in the worst case scenario.

Konami bought Hudson Soft at a time where they had 2 games in the making,preparing them to be 3DS launch titles,and one of them was a Bomberman game. From the moment Konami bought that studio,they forced it to stop the work in the games they where making,and start making a Facebook game. After 6 months when the Facebook game was finished,Konami fired all employees of Hudson Soft and practically killed the Bomberman franchise.

EA bought Bioware,and as a result we had Dragon Age 2 which was the worst game of the series,and the transformation of Mass Effect from an RPG to a cover based shooter. They bought Crysis and transformed its single player to a shallow linear game,and its multiplayer to be more like Call of Duty,and thus uninteresting. They bought Maxis and they turned Sim City to a shorter game with always online DRM that kills any interest players might had for the game. They bought DICE,and they turned Battlefield from a strategic based war simulator to a more arcade-y and game-y game that isn't realistic at all,and doesn't require strategy,in hopes of stealing fans from Call of Duty.

Microsoft bought Rare,and Perfect Dark turned from a revolutionary shooter franchise to an over-simplified mediocre piece of poo,and then they decided that Rare should only make Kinect games. Conker and Perfect Dark franchises died.



As you can see,when a developer studio gets bought by a publisher,it is almost 100% certain that the main focus and gameplay of a series will change,and most times this change ends up being negative.

On the other hand,independent studios show that as time passes their game series becomes better instead of worse.
Witcher 2 fixed lots of mistakes from Witcher 1,and most initial mistakes of Witcher 2 got fixed by patches,while developers acknowledged the problems of Witcher 2 and promised to fix them for Witcher 3.

Mojang is keep making changes to Minecraft that makes it a better game instead of worse.

Croteam made Serious Sam 3,a really good game for the series that stays true to the gameplay formula of the series while feeling fresh with all the new graphics,music and things that while making the formula feel fresher,doesn't completely change it,doesn't change the core elements of the gameplay the series is known for.

It seems that developers that keep themselves independent tend to produce better games than those who sale themselves to big publishers.


Now I'd really like to see something: Could someone write a list of all the game series that died in recent time,like the last 2-3 years ? It would be pretty interesting I think.

 

[RevRaptor]

Gaming is not dying its the innocence that?s dying. I think this has more to do with the age of the gaming industry than anything else. crap games have always existed but in the past we were younger and more forgiving. There were countless clones of popular games and most of them were shit but we didn't complain we just avoided them.

Games have not gotten worse its just our ability to ***** about them has gotten better

 

[krazykidd]

You are no longer in the target demographic. Kids these days eat up any shit people say is cool . Welcome to growing up and becoming wiser .

 

[Aslyn]

Gaming won't die as long as enough people buy the good games. As long as that happens, little saplings will always crop up and grow between the rotting timbers of the dead redwoods.

What worries me is that the non-'good games' are selling better and better. I saw the first half an hour of the new Lara Croft and... what the fuck even is that thing? A movie with a controller? Smash X and LT+RT to victory? Bah.

I may be getting too old for this noise, but I remember days when you had to think and strategise. When games were about conquering new and harder challenges. When games handed you tools and it was up to you to get through the level in a way that worked for you, often though trial and error.

If I want to watch someone go through prolonged sections of carefully crafted and prescripted action scenes with barely to any interactivity required then I might as well go to a cinema and not pay 60?. Give me my sodding games back.

The first hour is the tutorial.... so yeah, it is just smash and survive. I personally LOVE the new Tomb Raider.

I don't think games in general are getting crappier. I think the industry is just spreading out to new markets. Some games are getting confused about what they want to offer.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

"Gaming is becoming dead..."

And yet I am playing better games and getting more enjoyment out of them than at any other period.

If this is what dying feels like, then I say bring it on.

Big name games by large are generally better designed for quick entertainment, which makes them much more enjoyable. They are well crafted, with more defined controls and more aesthetic appeal due to higher graphics, not to mention layers of interconnectivity with the increasing emphasis on socializing.

They just aren't inherently memorable.

 

[Zhukov]

"Gaming is becoming dead..."

And yet I am playing better games and getting more enjoyment out of them than at any other period.

If this is what dying feels like, then I say bring it on.

Big name games by large are generally better designed for quick entertainment, which makes them much more enjoyable. They are well crafted, with more defined controls and more aesthetic appeal due to higher graphics, not to mention layers of interconnectivity with the increasing emphasis on socializing.

They just aren't inherently memorable.

Speak for yourself.

90% of my memorable gaming experiences come from games made after 2004.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Speak for yourself.

90% of my memorable gaming experiences come from games made after 2004.

Please list a few.

 

[Little Gray]

How is Hitman supposed to be more enjoyable if the colourful and varied locations and themes and sandbox nature are replaced by a linear path in a 'downtown Destroit' environment?

There really only ever was a single linear path in the hitman games if you were trying to go for pure stealth which is consistent with the latest hitman game.

I may be getting too old for this noise, but I remember days when you had to think and strategise. When games were about conquering new and harder challenges. When games handed you tools and it was up to you to get through the level in a way that worked for you, often though trial and error.

Excuse me while I fall over laughing and go back to playing Dark Souls.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Dead Space (oh, another one you brought up, but even 3 is actually nothing like Gears of War apart from involving guns and shooting aliens, despite what people on the internet ***** about)

At first I was going to agree with you about it not being like Gears, but actually, now that I think about it...

All of the parts where you're fighting humans would only need a decent cover-system to actually be Gears. Sure, the enemies don't have hideous, inhuman heads... but when you get to an area fighting humans, the set piece starts, the humans run out and get into cover, and expects you to do the same, so you can take turns popping up over the cover to shoot.

That sounds a lot like Gears, to me. That sounds like Gears' whole core gameplay concept.

The rest, when you're fighting through the ships and the corridors, that's nothing like Gears at all. But the plot and the scenes are also nothing like Dead Space. Why does the game have a love triangle? What was Norton's purpose being in the story at all, besides...

Spoiler

...a token and absurd betrayal, and to create a completely out-of-setting love triangle? I mean, Norton had absolutely no reason to bring Isaac along, except if he could predict how completely useless he was going to be at everything. And the idea that he'd have bought into Danik's offer of a ship isn't even plausible stupidity. The same Danik who wanted everyone to die just so they could be "reborn".

In truth, Dead Space feels more like Lost Planet than Gears, in total. But it certainly isn't much like Dead Space. The changes they made to "broaden the audience" are for the worse, in my opinion. I spent the whole game feeling like much more of a monster than any of the enemies I was fighting, they pose so little threat but they move so fast that the series' stand-out concepts, telekinesis and general dismemberment, fell to near insignificance, especially when body-shots to necromorphs now kill them perfectly well.

I'd just like to mention here that I did actually enjoy the game. But it was in the same way I might enjoy a Michael Bay movie, than the tense, atmospheric experience I was expecting.

TL/DR: While I think your statement that DS3 isn't like Gears is mostly accurate, I do think Dead Space 3 is much more homogenized than a true sequel to Dead Space 2 would've been.

And that brings me to the OT:

Homogenization is currently ruining AAA gaming. Everyone wants to make their properties a bit more like Call of Duty with the hopes that they might gain some popularity.

And the troubling thing is, when Call of Duty dies, everything which has followed in its footsteps will, too. And that is pretty much the whole AAA market. You can thank publishers like EA, for wanting to "broaden the audience" rather than letting developers make the games they envision without interference.

But, on the plus side, indie games are rising, in a big way. The new Torment game hit it's $900,000 goal on Kickstarter in only about seven hours, and their last project, Wasteland 2 vastly exceeded its Kickstarter goal. Advances like this are fantastic news for the industry, because when indie developers get backing like this, they're not under the thumb of developers to tell them to homogenize their games. And they don't have the concern, that modern publishers do, about investing idea into new and risky ideas. In fact, they're encouraged to do so, so as to stand out from the AAA market.

Just look at Amnesia. That was a big deal. It did something new and interesting, something that a big publisher like EA would simply be too afraid to do.

So, don't feel too down, OP. The AAA market may be stagnating, and slipping down a slippery slope to inevitable doom, but if you look outside the AAA market, especially at the indie scene, you'll find plenty of new, fresh, fun ideas.

 

[noreshadow]

The problems the industry faces are real, and as far as i can tell, without a radical change of course, insurmountable.

The cost of game development has increased exponentially over the last generation, and shows no sign of stopping.

there's no reward for artistic integrity, so no incentive to take risks. coupled with profoundly bad attempts at stopping piracy and resale. all this has caused a significant drop in consumer confidence.

none of these problems have effectively been addressed, but there still going to raise the stakes again. because...well...its that time again?

I really do see these next gen consoles not selling nearly as well as necessary to sustain the bloated budgets of AAA development. throw in indie games becoming major contenders with next to none of the overhead costs. on a platform more people have (mobile devices) and most of the real talent "which the industry refuses to even acknowledge" leaving to start their own indie projects.

if you stop and look at it, things are running almost parallel to the Fall of the Studio System. but with the added( and totally unnecessary) push for BIGGER AND BETTER technology.

this of course was a problem at the beginning of the last console war. and a lot of people claimed the same things.

heres a cracked article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15732_life-after-video-game-crash.html

The thing is, those problems were never addressed. they have just gotten even worse.

and now we're going to add another row to the the house of cards.
even if it doesn't collapse this time around, it will soon, its just not sustainable.somethings gotta give.





This has nothing to do with " games were beter back in my day! grumble grumble." its just the real economics of AAA game development coupled with peoples un-realistic expectations of gaming technological advancement.

 

[Vault101]

snip this.

oooooohhhhh.....how original *snore*

uhh anyway, most people suspect its the influence of publishers, you know "make mor like COD so it can sell more"

eather way I have too many good games to play right now

Please list a few.

I might be reading too much into this but what point are you trying to make here? that his experiences are somhow how lesser than somone who games "back in the day"

games I remember fondly

Bioshock
Portal 1 and 2
Red dead
dead space
infamous
and of coarse mass effect

So, don't feel too down, OP. The AAA market may be stagnating, and slipping down a slippery slope to inevitable doom, but if you look outside the AAA market, especially at the indie scene, you'll find plenty of new, fresh, fun ideas.

ugghhhhh

I know this is pureley personal prefernce but if I hear one person praise "indie" games over the aparently awful AAA market I may bash my head against my desk

I play for a certain kind of experience (also having got my new PC) and "retro throwback indie artsy wankfest" just doesnt do anything for me, this isnt going to help my argument but I can't get into games liek that, no matter how good or inovative they may be

oh sure Ive played journey and the unfinished swan and they were good...but in the end not my favorite games....just kind of "oh yeah...thats nice" *goes back to borldernads 2*

 

[Rachmaninov]

There really only ever was a single linear path in the hitman games if you were trying to go for pure stealth which is consistent with the latest hitman game.

Surely you've got to admit that the areas in Absolution are more "long and thin" than being open plan like Blood Money?

It doesn't matter whether you shoot or sneak, or a mixture of both, you'll end up walking the exact same path through the game, step for step.

Not to mention the fact that the game punishes you for doing anything other than stealth, with that really absurd score counter. Sure, Blood Money had the assessment at the end of the mission, but it didn't make any attempt to say that murdering absolutely everyone was you being bad at the game.

Personally, I thought Absolution should've been called Splinter Cell: Absolution instead of Hitman. Especially since the disguise mechanic, which had been so incredibly integral in Blood Money, barely makes an appearance here. Unless you're eating donuts, because then you're invisible.

 

[Vault101]

.
heres a cracked article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15732_life-after-video-game-crash.html

The thing is, those problems were never addressed. they have just gotten even worse.
.

uggghhh I hate it when david wong writes about games

and that article was written waaay back in 2007, it hasnt happned yet (but you never know...next gen)

I'm not going to deny there are problems, but rather then spell doom Id rather wait and see what happens

 

[Ishal]

snip

Kickstarter is also a great help.

Planescape: Tides of Numenera got full funding today. They broke the kickstarter record too. They reached over one million in half a day thanks to plugs by Chris Avellone and that other dude who was president of Black Isle.

Projects like this that probably wouldn't happen if the only way was through a publisher. Things look bad only if people stare in one direction.

 

[Little Gray]

Surely you've got to admit that the areas in Absolution are more "long and thin" than being open plan like Blood Money?

It doesn't matter whether you shoot or sneak, or a mixture of both, you'll end up walking the exact same path through the game, step for step.

Not to mention the fact that the game punishes you for doing anything other than stealth, with that really absurd score counter. Sure, Blood Money had the assessment at the end of the mission, but it didn't make any attempt to say that murdering absolutely everyone was you being bad at the game.

Personally, I thought Absolution should've been called Splinter Cell: Absolution instead of Hitman. Especially since the disguise mechanic, which had been so incredibly integral in Blood Money, barely makes an appearance here. Unless you're eating donuts, because then you're invisible.

The new disguise mechanic really annoyed me in Absolution. It got really annoying that half of the disguises were pretty much useless.

I dont think Absolutions levels were any less linear then Blood Moneys. You still had to go through the exact same hallways to do every mission. I do think they were often seemed smaller and more linear though because they were broken up into more segments. There were a lot of go through these five back alley/sewer like hallways with only one route before you get into the large open area where you can do whatever you want though.

 

[shrekfan246]

Speak for yourself.

90% of my memorable gaming experiences come from games made after 2004.

Please list a few.

Mass Effect
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Persona 4
The Witcher 2
Bioshock
The Walking Dead
Metal Gear Solid 3
Okami
Journey
Devil May Cry 3
Mirror's Edge
Fable
Dark Souls
Dishonored
Shadow of the Colossus
Assassin's Creed
Dead Space
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Darksiders
The Darkness II
Prototype
The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay/Assault on Dark Athena
BlazBlue: Continuum Shift
Sonic Generations
Alice: Madness Returns
No More Heroes
Killer7
Metal Gear Rising
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
World of Warcraft
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II
Kingdom Hearts II
Psychonauts
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Sins of a Solar Empire
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Portal
Asura's Wrath
LittleBigPlanet
Sleeping Dogs
Kirby's Return to Dreamland
Borderlands/2
Mark of the Ninja

I know you weren't asking me, but there you go. A few of the games I've found memorable since the year 2004. I left out a few that were in the same franchises.

 

[Ryan Minns]

I agree completely with the OP... with a few games but gaming as a whole not so much. Sure my favourite games are mostly old with a few new ones going in there but my agreement comes with my series. Silent Hill is dead for me, completely and utterly gone, it's like an entirely new genre now much like Resident Evil (Granted I loved RE4 and didn't hate on 5 too much despite the genre change) And Final Fantasy 13... Eh. Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 get a special mention but SC2 was at least quite enjoyable, just wasn't a fan of certain story additions/complete changes

Though I have loved the original Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, Ni no Kuni, Infamous, Red Dead Redemption and god even the new Atelier series amongst many others so I can't see much death happening. Though I do hope certain trends fuck the hell off.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

*snip*

*snip*

Misconstrued on my part perhaps, though just listing games themselves and not such memorable instances designed within would better serve to illustrate my point.

An answer yes, but lacking anything substantial.