Is a higher standard a myth?

[Limbsy1]

I have recently posted in a very thought provoking thread about Movie Bob and was given two very well thought out replies. These sent me into deep introspection about where movies, video games, and really a much wider scope than I am exploring, are going.(Awkward sentence much?)

So my question is this: When did we lower our standards and/or why is it so difficult to convince people that holding things to higher standards is ok?

Forgive my awkward phrasing but I feel that most of the videos on this site try to promote a raise in the bar and are met with some pretty heavy resistance. I understand its not everyone but it has become increasingly apparent that it is the majority view.

I am so totally open to anyone's ideas concerning this.

 

[artanis_neravar]

The biggest issues with raising the bar is that that means prices will raise to, and people don't like paying for stuff that comes from other people hard work

 

[x-machina]

People are content with their mediocre mainstream crap

 

[Trolldor]

Standards are lower the wider the audience becomes.
It's how mass media works. The vast majority of a population is exceptionally unexceptional.

 

[SwimmingRock]

The biggest issues with raising the bar is that that means prices will raise to, and people don't like paying for stuff that comes from other people hard work

This is interesting, because you're presumably referring to production quality. However, my first thought in regards to "raising the bar" concerns quality of storytelling and characterization, which wouldn't actually cost more.

It seems to me that most people don't want serious stories or realistic characterization, because they consider games and movies purely escapism. They don't want to think about it too hard or genuinely feel anything negative, so stories and characters are bland and generic by design. I think it's a market issue. Yes, there are people who appreciate good story, but we're such a tiny minority that companies would rather just make something like WoW: mindless 'fun' that makes lots of money*.

In short, the bar was lowered when the simpletons gained access to enough money to waste on previously intelligent pursuits. The Twilight phenomenon, if you will.

*Yes, I know WoW is losing subscribers lately. Not sure what a different effective analogy would be.

EDIT:

Standards are lower the wider the audience becomes.
It's how mass media works. The vast majority of a population is exceptionally unexceptional.

This is what I was trying to get across, but much more efficiently stated.

 

[artanis_neravar]

The biggest issues with raising the bar is that that means prices will raise to, and people don't like paying for stuff that comes from other people hard work

This is interesting, because you're presumably referring to production quality. However, my first thought in regards to "raising the bar" concerns quality of storytelling and characterization, which wouldn't actually cost more.

It seems to me that most people don't want serious stories or realistic characterization, because they consider games and movies purely escapism. They don't want to think about it too hard or genuinely feel anything negative, so stories and characters are bland and generic by design. I think it's a market issue. Yes, there are people who appreciate good story, but we're such a tiny minority that companies would rather just make something like WoW: mindless 'fun' that makes lots of money*.

In short, the bar was lowered when the simpletons gained access to enough money to waste on previously intelligent pursuits. The Twilight phenomenon, if you will.

*Yes, I know WoW is losing subscribers lately. Not sure what a different effective analogy would be.

EDIT:

Standards are lower the wider the audience becomes.
It's how mass media works. The vast majority of a population is exceptionally unexceptional.

This is what I was trying to get across, but much more efficiently stated.

Oh well in that case I have no idea, I prefer story 100% that's why I love books so much

 

[ElectroJosh]

This is a good discussion point because games have progressed exponentially as technology allowed and, often, this brought about greater quality games. However we have reached, not a plateau, but a point when the technology has not impacted gameplay beyond small gimmics. The games are prettier but not revolutionary.

When I was younger games were always held back by hardware capabilities but this is not really the case anymore - at the same the have become massive business and are now designed to take less risks and appeal to a wider audience. All it means is that gaming has caught up with other forms of entertainment

Most forms of entertainment do this.

As a side note; when going to the theatre (live theatre) was a popular past-time people began altering famous Shakespearean tragedies to have happy endings because the audiences prefered to have a feel-good experience. This sort of thing happens all the time. Some people like to experience new things and are more entertained by the out-of-the-ordinary while others simply like their entertainment to be comfortable (which means predictability; the couple you want to get together end up together, the person who acts like the hero saves the day - that sort of thing).

Gaming is now big business and has to cater to a lot of those fans. The difference is that gaming has its own set of cliches that comfort the fans (often genre specific) but they are there nonetheless.

 

[Trolldor]

The biggest issues with raising the bar is that that means prices will raise to, and people don't like paying for stuff that comes from other people hard work

This is interesting, because you're presumably referring to production quality. However, my first thought in regards to "raising the bar" concerns quality of storytelling and characterization, which wouldn't actually cost more.

It seems to me that most people don't want serious stories or realistic characterization, because they consider games and movies purely escapism. They don't want to think about it too hard or genuinely feel anything negative, so stories and characters are bland and generic by design. I think it's a market issue. Yes, there are people who appreciate good story, but we're such a tiny minority that companies would rather just make something like WoW: mindless 'fun' that makes lots of money*.

In short, the bar was lowered when the simpletons gained access to enough money to waste on previously intelligent pursuits. The Twilight phenomenon, if you will.

*Yes, I know WoW is losing subscribers lately. Not sure what a different effective analogy would be.

EDIT:

Standards are lower the wider the audience becomes.
It's how mass media works. The vast majority of a population is exceptionally unexceptional.

This is what I was trying to get across, but much more efficiently stated.

You could not be more wrong.

We are saying very different things.

You're denegrating them with terms like 'simpleton'.
They're not 'simple'. They're normal.
A mass medium is simple because it has to accomodate so many varying personalities, philosophies, ethnicities.
Intelligences.
Levels of education and understanding.

The more people you are targeting the less able you are to explore more complex issues, because you alienate more of your audience.

DA2 wasn't intellectually stunted because it was targeting a less-than-intelligent audience, it was intellectually stunted because it was targeting such a wide audience.

 

[SwimmingRock]

Snipped wall of text

We are saying very different things.

-more snippage-

Fair enough. You don't see it as a negative whereas I certainly do. I'll remove that bit from my previous post, if you'd prefer.

 

[Limbsy1]

Good replies everyone this is awesome

Well I one of the things I thought about were that if someone can make something good with limited resources I cant imagine what could be done given more resources.
I realize that sometimes great things are born from this lack of material like storytelling and characterization and innovation.
Not a perfect example but off the top of my head I think of Inception. Im not saying this was the end all be all of good movies but it was a GOOD movie that DID appeal to a wide audience. So it is possible but it baffles me what people will sacrifice quality wise and still pay for it.

Edit: Is escapism better than immersion?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

This is interesting, because you're presumably referring to production quality. However, my first thought in regards to "raising the bar" concerns quality of storytelling and characterization, which wouldn't actually cost more.

It seems to me that most people don't want serious stories or realistic characterization, because they consider games and movies purely escapism. They don't want to think about it too hard or genuinely feel anything negative, so stories and characters are bland and generic by design. I think it's a market issue. Yes, there are people who appreciate good story, but we're such a tiny minority that companies would rather just make something like WoW: mindless 'fun' that makes lots of money*.

In short, the bar was lowered when the simpletons gained access to enough money to waste on previously intelligent pursuits. The Twilight phenomenon, if you will.

I'd like to say that I disagree, on account of how many story discussions I've seen on game fora.

However...I play WoW. I've seen how some fans can get. And, if not necessarily the most numerous, those fans are generally the loudest. So yeah.

*Yes, I know WoW is losing subscribers lately. Not sure what a different effective analogy would be.

Actually, WoW is a perfectly good analogy. It may be losing subscribers, but it's still going strong (saturated color palette, blatant pop-culture references, and all).

Edit: Is escapism better than immersion?

Hard to say. I'd argue that they're both about equally important.

 

[TiefBlau]

Simplest answer: Because making video games are hard.

No, there are very, very few ideas that start out as mediocre.

Most game designers want to make an amazing experience. And why the hell not? Do you not believe that they take pride in their work?

But it's not always up to them. They have to hire artists, code monkeys, and writers to help, they have deadlines to meet, their funding is often beyond their control, and most importantly, they have publishers (investors) to please. By the end of all that, it's not really their original vision, now is it? It's their original vision as brought to reality by the development team and as selectively moderated by the publishers, who want to ensure the highest profit available, and chances are, neither task has kept that original idea very much intact.

 

[TiefBlau]

Edit: Is escapism better than immersion?

In other words, is making you feel like you're in a different place better than making you feel like you're in a different place? Can't really say for sure.

 

[Limbsy1]

@TiefBlau
Well games being one aspect of things I get that original vision gets corrupted. But why do we as a community accept that? Why cant the standard be excellence? or at least not bad?
I get that it always boils down to money and that the "community" has trouble collaborating against things. I know its idealistic but why cant we have our cake and eat it? Why cant quality be rewarded monetarily.
I dont want to come across as a guy who quantifies "good" with "makes money" but I want to stop rewarding bad with making money and start allowing things that are well done to be rewarded more often so there is an incentive to make something good other than pet projectness.

 

[Toar]

One can only raise the bar so high until there has to be a new pentacle. I don't know if you've noticed, but good games are getting harder to come across now-a-days. Only Triple-A companies are capable of pulling off a really top-notch game. Gone are the days of garage-made-games and now into the era of the mainstream companies eating each other to survive(Mergers).

 

[Stako]

Because those who deliver the things that we consider on lower standarts aim to impress the mass, not the individuals. Not every one has, nor can have, high standards, so the few that remain must search and evolve in a way they find satisfying for themselves, or in groups - for the sake of the group. Such are the times, one must survive, and to do that - one must deliver with a little to a lot; we all are consumers, sadly, even thought some of us refuse to admit it - they themselves buy and consume every day. And utnill a very high number of those consumers don't stop doing this and stand up, asking for better and more - nothing will change.

The truth I've come to believe, but not approve of or except.

 

[Shihan2]

I guess I must be one of the few people here who's a realist. While the practice of making new, innovative and awesome games is what we expect, it's just not going to happen with every singe release. In fact most games now have surprisingly poor quality. The big name releases like Halo, CoD, ME and a lot of MMO's have established fan bases that guarantee it to sell, and create DLC for a few months after the release. To make another point, a lot of ideas are cliche now. You can't have an FPS that's non cover based that's condemned as a knock off of Halo or Doom, and the "realistic" shooters are all said to be following in CoD's wake. Actual gameplay innovation isn't going to be very common anymore, and a lot of people don't care for the story of a game unless a team New York Times best sellers write it. So, to answer your question, I wouldn't say our standards for games have gone down, but up. We simply demand more different stuff from an industry that is running out of ground to tread. Oh, and it would also help if people didn't jump on to whatever Yahtzee says, even if he is right before the hyperbole.

 

[Loop Stricken]

People are content with their mediocre mainstream crap

Personally I'd rather subscribe to the view that generally, people are mediocre.