Is gaming dead?

[Robot Number V]

Short Answer: No. Definitely changing but dying? No. Dead? FUCK no.

Long Answer: The Walking Dead Game, Journey, The Orange Box, Portal 2, Bioshock, Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect 1,2, and 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, Dishonored, Assassin's Creed 1 and (or) 2, Uncharted 2 &3, Infamous 2, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty 4, Civilization 5, Spec Ops: The Line, Halo 3, Arkham City, Bastion, Limbo, Thomas Was Alone, Dead Space, Super Mario Galaxy, Little Big Planet 1&2, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 & New Vegas, God of War III, Dark Souls, The Unfinished Swan, FTL, Far Cry 3, and many, many, many more. So...no.

DISCLAIMER: I don't actually like every game on that list, I just tried to cover the entire spectrum of preference. No, I'm sure as fuck not telling you which ones I like and which I don't. I can see where this thread is going, and my involvement ends here. If you see a game on there you disagree with, just assume that I hated it just as much as you do.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Didn't the original Splinter Cell have some arbitrary alarm limit on missions ? Never actually played it though, only the sequels.
The worst thing Thief 1 had was some levels that focused too much on making you fight zombies. (Although I havn't gone through it recently, it is possible I forgot something.)

Still, different stealth styles for different people, and I have had fun with the Splinter Cell games I have played. Even Conviction, you just have to squint at the screen and pretend you're a sneakier Jack Bauer instead of Fisher with all his subtlety removed.

(I sense this comment may come back on me if the Thief reboot sucks.)
On an unrelated note: OH GOD THE AVATAR'S BACK ! So much for sleeping tonight.

Yup, the first two Splinter Cell's had a three alarms limit before giving you a game over screen. I can agree with your different stealth styles for different people comment, I like both Thief and Splinter Cell (up until Conviction anyway) in about equal measure, but they are two very different types of stealth games. One's about manipulating your surroundings and exploration, the other is focused on gadgeteering and neutralization of guards.

Is gaming dead or dying? Obviously not. The fact that all of us are discussing games means it isn't. What we might be seeing is that some of us are not finding as many games catering to our tastes anymore. It is only natural that not all of us (if any of us) will remain gamers forever and move on to other hobbies. Personally, I am thinking 2013 might just be a great year for games, but I totally accept that not everyone will share my idea of what good games are.

 

[Playful Pony]

Absolutely not.

I would seem like the power to make and control games are slipping between the major publishers collective fingers. With digital distribution, Kickstarter and the ease of spreading information (with services such as Facebook) anyone with talent and a good idea can get a game going! All the Kickstarter projects I have backed so far have ended up going miles beyond it's original goal, which indicates to me that gaming is far from dead. Even niche titles aquire sizable followings and are capable of drawing loads of support.

Meanwhile the major publishers and developers are still doing "their thing", some with more success than others. Games wont just die, it's far too big an industry for that, too many gamers are hungrily waiting for the next great experience.

 

[kailus13]

I had more fun with it. The end.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one's attacked me for declaring Splinter Cell to be superior to Thief.

I find them too different to compare. Different aesthetic, different mood, different mechanics, etc etc. To me it would be like comparing either series to Metal Gear Solid.

 

[Rblade]

If you are thinking to yourself "Man, those games were the best I've ever played." always deduct a bunch of nostalgia points from the score you are giving it in your head. And if you were in the 12-16 range at the time that deduction becomes more severe. Seriously, you are simply not remembering all the terrible sludge that came out in the 90's and I'm pretty sure this era will also just be remembered for it's bioshocks, minecrafts, portals and total wars. And let us not forget WoW, love it or hate it, it's impact is undeniable.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Opinions construed as facts?

Great ¬_¬



I played Walking Dead, so no, gaming isn't dying.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

So long as you have access to the games that you do or, did enjoy then gaming can never truly die. This are far different now than they were in the early 2000's but it's not all bad and things are generally open enough for you to pursue your nostalgic titles of choice so long as you know where to look or, have the required things (ie: Steam, GOG or, an independent game's retailer in your town)

 

[sethisjimmy]

Never has an image before been so exactly appropriate.

But yeah, I think you just might have a case of extreme nostalgia goggles, that don't allow you to see the huge amount of unique, creative, quality games that are succeeding today.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

Hahaha, you sir, just made my day.

P.S.:Thats so spot on, you drew this just now, admit it.

 

[Zipa]

Ask Bobby Kotick, I am sure he would think not since he just got a $64 million pay packet. There are plenty of excellent games out there just often people need to take the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia off first so they can see and enjoy them.

Plus the absolutely massive success of games on Kickstarter like Star Citizen and project infinity to name a couple seems to say not as people are clearly willing to throw money at good games.

 

[savageoblivi0n]

I have an idea...if you like the games of yesteryear so much better, find a group of retro gamers to hang out with and have a blast. Those of us who feel that gaming continues to improve won't have to read "gaming is dying" thread #932603077, and you won't have to sit here and argue against everyone's counterpoints to your opinions (yes opinions, not facts)

oh and also, speaking as someone whose first gaming system was a Commodore 64, and who's been a gamer ever since, a lot of that "creativity" and "originality" in past generation's gaming, which you hold in such esteem, while it did create some awesome titles, it also created about 300 metric tons of unfettered shit. There's a reason a lot of entertainment falls into derivative lines, because a lot of the time creativity and randomness strictly for the sake of "being different" can lead to disaster.

 

[latiasracer]

Yep, it quite clearly is dead.


Which is why everyone here still plays games, And Developers continue to make them.


Gaming is definitely dead, Without a doubt.


Seriously though, It's not dead in the slightest. It's better than ever before, there are countless titles (Well, 4) coming out this year alone that i am incredibly excited for.

 

[Arkynomicon]

It's not dead. It's just at an all time decadent high because it's full with scene people and sensationalist rubbish. Not to mention that pretentious people feel the need to wasting their time defending their hobby as an art from old people who don't get it.

I love playing video games but I certainly don't want to get labeled as a gamer because the culture is kinda childish and obsessive.

 

[bjj hero]

To summarise: oldgames>new games

Im over 30 now and have been gaming all my life. I love old games and have a soft spot for lords of midnight, buckrodgers, moonstone, shining force, phantasy star, target renegade, barbarian, highlander...

But a lot of this is nostalgia. If any of them were released now by anything other than a small indie developer they would bomb. I can play them and remember the good times but someone new to the title would be seriously disappointed having played a more poliched version, Things have moved on.

Interface, visuals, tutorials are so much better now. Dune II battle for Arakis was awesome as it was new and inovative. Id argue that most mediocre strategy games release recently would probably be better games (if you remove the nostalgia) as things have evolved.

There have been some awesome recent titles; Borderlands, Spec ops: the line, X-com, Dishonoured, Mass effect, Batman Arkham whichever. In previous decades there have been good titles too but you time filters out the dross. There have always been bad and mediocre games, you just hang on to the great ones.

Yes companies are closing and merging but this has always happened and will continue to do so but its not a reflection of the quality of games available.

Ill take your point, Ive not played an exciting starwars game since battlefront II/KOTOR but there are other places to look.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No. Me personally, there are less and less titles that i have interest in. But overall, there will always be people that want to game. Kids born today will be gamers of the future. An while tech changes and distribution changes, there will always be a market for it.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Yes. Gaming is dead. Definitely. It is metaphorically and literally a rotting, stinking corpse, probably under your or someone you know's floorboards because the funeral expenses were unjustifiable.

Next question.

 

[RomanceIsDead]

Playing Dota 2 and loving it. It feels good to have just discovered a game that can safely fit within my top 20 all time games. I choose the path of creation. I hold games like WoW, pokemon, Metroid Prime, and Gears of War on a pedestel but I intend to become a game designer and make games that live up to that kind of developmental passion and scope of world and economy.

 

[shrekfan246]

Pokemon Red/Blue < Pokemon Black/White.

Wowowowowow....
Ok, opinions and everything, but if I was going to argue the case of something better than Red/Blue that was released later it would be Ruby and Sapphire. Black and White struck me as the worst pokemon games to date really.
A couple of interesting concepts, but designed around what I can describe as nothing more than gimmicks that really make me hate the game.
As an example, that city that is a circle. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Its a pain to navigate, poorly laid out, the perspective is slightly confusing, all to say "We can do circles". And the bridge. That freaking massive bridge that in Red/Blue would have had some battles on it, some interesting things to do, some team Plasma plot or something [Or more likely been a large cave filled with Zubats that, whilst annoying, was fun to explore], but instead its a large, empty bridge that exists to say "We can do pseudo 3D, and curvy walking paths". So much that could have been interesting, could have been fun, could have made me like the game... but no. And another fire fighting starter but lets not go there...
Really, I want to like it, but I honestly can't. It does some things right but... God, the things it gets wrong just piss me off to no end, and are a big part of IMO one of the most important parts in a Pokemon game - the world you explore.
And that I'd say hit its peak in Ruby/Sapphire with not only a good looking world with varied environments that were well designed and interesting, but also with a variety of different things to explore with - like diving as well as surfing - and a couple of fun minigames that made it a joy to play.

I agree with you, but from a technical and mechanical standpoint there's really no denying that Black/White are better than Red/Blue.

Granted, I'd say the actual peak was HeartGold/SoulSilver, because they took the awesome world of Gen II and combined it with the much better graphics/gameplay later used in Gen V. Gen III was really good, but the combat is still far more sensible after the DS games.

To get a little back on-topic again: A few months back I tried playing Sonic Adventure 2 again after it launched for the PC, because I played the hell out of it when I was younger and had really fond memories of it.

Except for the Sonic/Shadow levels (which make up a grand total of 1/3 of the game - Less if you count the Chao Garden), I absolutely hated it.

I've tried multiple times to get into the "classic" WRPGs like Baldur's Gate or Morrowind, and every single time I either get so frustrated with the obscenely obtuse UI and unintuitive controls/combat or just bored out of my skull half an hour in. It took me three separate attempts to actually finish Liberty Island in Deus Ex. Diablo II isn't nearly as fun as Diablo III. The first Starcraft has rather abysmal unit pathfinding, and combined with the strict limit on how many infantry units you can select at once makes it pretty difficult to effectively micro even after hotkeying 'squads'.

I always see a lot of people conflating complexity with depth, but that's not how it works. "Modern" games might not be as complex as they were fifteen years ago, but there's a lot more depth behind them once you look past the sight-seeing-tour games like Call of Duty -- Depth beyond just skill trees or insane amounts of inventory micromanagement.

 

[Talshere]

snip

I think part of the problem is that we have been stuck in this current generation for to long. Its by miles the longest generation on record and with the controls all remaining the same and hardware not developing where are we to go? When we went from 2D to 2.5D to 3D there are fundamentally more aspects to explore because you can add more real world depth because things are possible in 3D that simply cant be done in 2.5D. This lead in a large part to the opening up of new genres.

The lack of new hardware and also engines also stagnates creativity because you get stuck with the same people working in the same engine all of the time, thus its easy to become complacent. When you look towards how steam and to a lesser extent XBLA have allowed new games to flourish it undercuts the stagnation of AAA. Games like Slender (which admittedly is DRM free), Amnesia and even Limbo have shown us how horror games can be done with new age hardware, something that has died since the PS1 silent hills really. The acclimation of games like Journey and the Walking dead are also now leading us back into more story driven play. The new Dragon Age has been given back to the original writer and developer because the action delivered in DA2 caused it to flop massively against its predecessor. We have also seen the rise of Kickstarter with Adventure games and space sims being put mack on the map by Double Fine, Star Citizen and Wasteland 2 which have become so big they effectively have AAA budgets (Star Citizen has nearly hit 10 million http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/). We also have revivals of other dead genras comeing out like the spiritual successor to Dungeon keeper 2, Wor of the Overworld.

While all this may seem like just rehashing old games it has in most cases taken control away from publishers that refuse to try new things which will in ture, hopefully, drive new innervation. Gaming development is all about succession of ideas, iteration on the past, so this anti pub revival of older forgotten and brushed aside titles is 1) good for innovation as the new devs have 10+ years of successes and mistakes to innervate on. It also 2) shows AAA devs that these genres are worth developing for. Recently the rights for Homeworld were auctioned off by Relic. A kicksterter group raised enough money to (over 100k) to buy the rights so they could have #3 developed. They didnt win but because of that it is almost certain we will now get a new Homeworld, where otherwise the series would have just continued into obscurity.


Is AAA gaming stagnet. Yes, very much so. They still produce some nice games but they are very samey. This peak around the time of Army of 2. But new released very much in the indie/crowd funded world are exploring new ways of making games and telling stories. The money some of this games are racking in will, imo, start to bring us new games in old places from AAA devs.

 

[EzraPound]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but you don't really assert why the games from pre-2001 are actually better. It's safe to say there is a degree of homogenisation in the current AAA market, but that doesn't mean there are brilliant examples of the form therein. Plus, you ignore everything that is not in the AAA market atm. I know they don't get as much publicity, but there are plenty of weird and interesting games being produced for PC especially.

I think games now are kind of like movies in the 50s. All the big studios trying to out-do each other with massive productions that need to make massive returns to make a profit. Instead of the nuclear family they pander mainly to white, hetero men. When this system of making movies collapsed under its own weight, there followed a period where Hollywood started to fund smaller projects with more risk but which needed a smaller return to succeed and which tried to pander to as-yet-ignored demographics. This period birthed a lot of talent that is still revered today, like Scorcese, Coppola, Spielberg etc.

I'm just hoping we get our own 'Hollywood Renaissance'.

I actually did--I commented that things were better in the nineties because of a rare combination of financial accessibility and corporate finesse, and because the robust state of the economy and the constant graphical upheavals engendered far more risk-taking than at present.

And yeah, I'm actually guilty of not paying enough attention to indie game. Maybe when I do, I'll be more optimistic; however, I'm still convinced this is an awkward, transitional point in gaming's history.

snip

I think part of the problem is that we have been stuck in this current generation for to long. Its by miles the longest generation on record and with the controls all remaining the same and hardware not developing where are we to go? When we went from 2D to 2.5D to 3D there are fundamentally more aspects to explore because you can add more real world depth because things are possible in 3D that simply cant be done in 2.5D. This lead in a large part to the opening up of new genres.

And yet, the graphics upgrade offered by this generation did little to foster innovation... with each generational shift, the changes offered by graphical improvements seem to become more subtle.