Is the next generation looking to be a return to form?

[Gamer_152]

Wait, surely if more companies are turning to Kickstarter to get their stuff funded that's a sign that the publishers aren't picking up these risky projects. I certainly don't think we're seeing publishers taking a big interest in point-and-click adventure games or niche genres to any great degree. The big name publishers are showing an ever-increasing interest in iterative franchises and blockbuster titles as AAA games are requiring more and more money to be developed, while the more niche stuff is being catered to by Kickstarter, indie companies, and a small number of unconventional situations.

What's more this thing with Nintendo wanting to get the support of the "core" market or saying they want to win them over isn't anything new, this has been the case all along, whether they can actually deliver on it is another prospect, and I don't believe they can, the reason they had to turn to the casual market in the first place is that they could just not get the support from their more traditional market that they needed.

More obscure games are less risky now, but they're still too risky for the AAA publishers and it's not like we're about to see the industry just jump back in time about a decade.

 

[dimensional]

Things will remain as they are i.e in a constant state of flow sometimes you see a return of old stuff in a new shine because thats what people want things tend to go in circles just circles moving forward, something that looks generic and worn out can be bought back later and seem new and fresh because time has passed and things have changed. Some things last longer than others but everything changes eventually and companies have to adapt to this or die.

 

[TrevHead]

We aren't seeing a total return to the good old days, but there are certainly alot more mid tier games recently, which is often where much of the best gaming experiences come from imo. (IE Hawken and Strike Suit Zero)

However two things do worry me, Microsoft's plans for Windows 8 and beyond. Also the EU's ruling on digital used games sales which allows the likes of Gamestop to wriggle their way into PC gaming

 

[Bad Jim]

What I wonder though is how a game like Witcher 2, which pushed computers to their limit and still can't really run right with ubersampling, could be made for around 10 million bucks with its size and scope? I guess being your own publisher (right?) and the exclusively PC platform of the time. Dunno.

While it's more expensive to make better looking worlds, it's also more expensive to stretch increasingly dated systems to their limit. An AAA dev team might make a model, only to scrap it and tell the modeller to make one with less/more polygons. They rearrange scenery to make it look as good as possible within their limitations. They chop up large levels into small ones to save RAM. CD Projekt can make the assets to a better-than-console standard and not worry about it, because a decent PC is much better than current consoles and doesn't need obsessive optimisation to beat the consoles on graphics.

More obscure games are less risky now, but they're still too risky for the AAA publishers and it's not like we're about to see the industry just jump back in time about a decade.

Niche genres are not too risky. If you have $100 million, investing it $2 million at a time will average out all the risk.

I think they've pushed for big budgets because that's how to get on the shelves in retail stores. Retail stores want to carry games that will sell to a decent number of people, that is, mass market games. Competition will force publishers to spend a lot of money on such games.

Digital stores on the other hand will accept any game that's not a ripoff. If a game only sells a thousand copies, the digital stores that carry it are still better off than if they hadn't. Mass market games are still viable, but niche genres are also viable.

I'd say the big publishers have no reason to shy away from niche genres any more.

 

[veloper]

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

My responses to several posters are in the spoiler to avoid massive post size.

Spoiler

KS shouldn't be used as a metric until the first batch of commercially "non-viable" games is released. Yes, there's a large contingent of oldschool gamers, and Linux/OSX users who want games on their platform of choice.

The thing is, we don't know how much these games will sell after they're published. Everyone whose really into the stuff they're funding is the "hardcore" fanbase, any additional sales will have to come from the more casual players, so only after we see those people's buying habits will we know if these games are truly viable.

Oh, semi shameless but somewhat related plug: The Hero-U kickstarter, by the wonderful people that brought us Quest For Glory went live today to absolutely no media coverage. For the love of all that is good, start funding!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption

What made me bring up the games being kickstarted was the whole deal when Obsidian mentioned that bunk deal where a publisher wanted to publish their game but still continue to get crowd funding all the same. This implied to me that publishers have noticed kickstarter, feel they need to get in on it or are threatened by it. If that's the case they must be watching what types of games are continuing to break records.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "form" is, due to all the different tastes and options available. I agree that mid-range games are getting a lot better, due to the fact that they have a fair amount of freedom in the creativity department and dont have a huge corporation breathing down their neck every 5 minutes saying "well, Call of Duty made money from this".

But, as I said, it depends on your defintion of "form". One mans Modern Warfare 3 is another mans Shadow of the collosus. One mans Kinect is another mans 2 button NES controller.

The "form" I was referring to, now that I've read across everyone's replies, is that middle ground. Something more "substantial" than the short and sweet indie game and not quite the quarter million dollar uber-game that must homogenize some in order to avoid bankruptcy. The PS2 era had such a vast collection, with so many games resting in that sweet spot that became classics. The rising budgets has something to do with this, I'm sure. It's not just graphics, but the expectation of more realistic AI, 5.1-7.1 surround sound, and the other "minimums" that are a point of entry.

aahhh Op I love your name and avatar. I should get a Dark Souls avatar, currently playing a sorcery focused high INT character who uses the enchanted falchion, and magic varieties of all 3 rapiers (plus lightning spear for magic resistant enemies)

Anyways, on topic, it would seem that the graphics explosion is calming down, and games are finally focusing on being games again. And I like that. Like that a lot.

X-com, Dishonored, and the indie game scene are showing, in ways, that gameplay matters. And that is good for everyone.

Why thank you! That is much appreciated. Trying to Upgrade all the weapons for the trophies was a major addiction for awhile, back during Demon's as well : )

On topic, that was precisely my point. Dishonored was a major statement about this very idea. I'm hoping Nintendo has the right idea about the 360+ level of processing, is it won't cause developers to overhaul their tried and true systems of 7 years now. The fear is that it could get "dreamcasted", when interest wanes after a pair of systems with much more powerful architectures arrive. But if systems really live or die on their library, I don't foresee a really strong launch lineup ready for the PS4 or Nextbox, though the PS3 did recover somewhat from a similar situation.

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

I don't know, I didn't play Xcom back in the day, but I did play Jagged Alliance, which I imagine is in the same vein? Fallout 1&2 kind of applied the formula to the RPG genre with AP for movement and such. I admit it wasn't a huge thing but it seems it was inspiring.

 

[Lugbzurg]

First, a correction. Nintendo didn't lose the "hardcore" market with the Wii; they lost it with the Gamecube.

Eternal Darkness. StarFox Adventures. StarFox Assault. Metroid Prime. Metroid Prime 2. Super Smash Bros. Melee. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. F-Zero GX.

What the heck are you talking about!? They were even more hardcore then than when they were in the Nintendo 64 era with Conker's Bad Fur Day and Majora's Mask!

Also, the mature 3rd-party multiplatform games were on the GameCube as well as the PlayStation 2 and X-Box.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, just no. In fact I've never been so disillusioned with gaming, or indeed anything, in all my life.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

First, a correction. Nintendo didn't lose the "hardcore" market with the Wii; they lost it with the Gamecube.

Eternal Darkness. StarFox Adventures. StarFox Assault. Metroid Prime. Metroid Prime 2. Super Smash Bros. Melee. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. F-Zero GX.

What the heck are you talking about!? They were even more hardcore then than when they were in the Nintendo 64 era with Conker's Bad Fur Day and Majora's Mask!

Also, the mature 3rd-party multiplatform games were on the GameCube as well as the PlayStation 2 and X-Box.

Here are the sales figures.

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If you only want PC games then why the hell do you care about the next generation of consoles? If PC is having a bit of resurgence in terms of getting games like the Obsidian kickstarter it's because the current consoles are played out and don't seem so spangly and exciting.

Introduction of new console hardware always comes with a huge marketing campaign and money hats so that all the gamers and developers spend time and money on dumb but flashy stuff that they couldn't have cared less about a year ago. Tie that in with the inevitable increase in game budgets and production values that are needed to get the most out of the more powerful hardware making publishers play even more in terms of not having any challenging gameplay and content.

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that a new console generation could mean a boost in smart thoughtful games. Already the new spangly excitement beam of mental retardation is having it's effect if you believe this.

Here are the sales figures.

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

What is this supposed to mean? Everyone had a PS2 even if they only used it to play DVDs and Karaoke games.

 

[veloper]

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

I don't know, I didn't play Xcom back in the day, but I did play Jagged Alliance, which I imagine is in the same vein? Fallout 1&2 kind of applied the formula to the RPG genre with AP for movement and such. I admit it wasn't a huge thing but it seems it was inspiring. [/spoiler]

Fallout Tactics counts as a similar squad-based tactical game (though not as good). Fallout 1 & 2 not really I think, as your tactical control there is limited to a single character only.

Basicly it's:

1. Jagged Alliance 2 (and to a lesser extent the original).
2. UFO:EU = XCOM (it's sequels / spinoffs didn't succeed as well).

a really big gap

3. Fallout Tactics (it's a mediocre game really)
4. SRPGs that are good enough but aren't the same thing(genre) anymore, games like Tactics Ogre and Knights of the Chalice.

 

[Angie7F]

I dont think we are returning. if anything the resident evil keeps going further and further away from the roots... Such a pity.

 

[soes757]

XCOM has been a top seller on steam for weeks now.

Its mainstream now. In fact, it etched out dishonored on sales. The only thing that beat it was borderlands.

Keep in mind XCOM had no advertisements what so ever. It was still a top seller.

There's an XCOM advertisement on this page and it still even says pre-order so its been there for a while.

Back on topic, I don't think we're going to go back, it doesn't work that way. We might get some of the old mechanics back, and some remakes of old games, but as long as people have new ideas the industry will move forward.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Snip

Come on, cut me some slack here. I never "only wanted PC games", I love my PC but I will always be interested in what experiences the consoles have to bring, as I will be excited about what all of gaming brings as a whole. The major examples I listed (Xcom, Dishonored, and Bayonetta 2) are at home on the consoles too.

Obsidian's last games (South Park, Dungeon Siege 3, New Vegas, and Alpha Protocol) are to or did come out on PC and console alike. Eternity is an exception, but if it turns out to be a wild success who's to say it won't see a port in the future on XBLA or the future console's equivalent? Or even on tablet like Baldur's Gate is seeing? Even if that never happens, it's release on PC could all the same be a statement about the gaming industry as a whole. Publishers don't pick and choose favorites but what's financially viable and if the want the money they like they'll continue to do that.

Also, I am under no illusion that the games heavily blasted at the launch of a console are the ones to truly look forward to (with rare exceptions). Not even Bayonetta 2 will be available at launch, and no console will come to be defined in its core success strictly by its release titles years after the fact. I fear I must re-evaluate how I present myself if it's feasible that an outside source of retardation of any type has afflicted me.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Basicly it's:

1. Jagged Alliance 2 (and to a lesser extent the original).
2. UFO:EU = XCOM (it's sequels / spinoffs didn't succeed as well).

a really big gap

3. Fallout Tactics (it's a mediocre game really)
4. SRPGs that are good enough but aren't the same thing(genre) anymore, games like Tactics Ogre and Knights of the Chalice.

I see, thank you for the education. I actually never played Jagged Alliance 2, but I loved the original years ago and if the sequel is more "tactical" then I just may look into that.

This being so, I truly applaud the bravery of Firaxis for spending years trying to bring back a genre like this. Good on them.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

I think you're ignoring a few other possibilities. Don't forget, there aren't near as many hardcore gamers as there are just average gamers, even before the "casual market" became a major demographic. These numbers don't show the demographics, they just say "More people bought a PS2 then a Gamecube." For all any of us know, that 22 million could have more hardcore gamers in there then the 154 million.

Sales figures or no, the Gamecube still had a large amount of games that appealed to the hardcore market (on top of that, I personally feel Nintendo was at the top of their game with 1st part releases back then). There was certainly enough there to justify a purchase from us.

Keep in mind I'm not necessarily trying to discredit you, but that isn't really enough evidence to back up your argument.

Oh, and by the way the PS2 outlasted the Gamecube by like 5 years. It would be odd if it DIDN'T outsell the Gamecube.

 

[TrevHead]

PC doing well is good for everybody even those who don't play on PC, It gives a space for indies to grow and some of them find their way onto console.

It's gives the rest of the industry an kick up the arse when something new becomes popular, because many of them need it atm.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

Here are the sales figures.

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

So a big part of the 154 million were 'hardcore' gamers? Where do you get that statement from? I remember that about everyone had a PS2 back then, from dads to some guy who wanted more of his dvd player than just playing dvds.

And by that logic the Wii is a more hardcore console this gen because it outsold the PS3 and 360 by a landslide.

(Damn this 'hardcore' bullshit start to irk me... Most of the so called hardcore gamers spend the most part playing those dang casual games)

Ugh.

I thought the chain of thought was clear here, but apparently it wasn't. Allow me to elaborate.

Let's be generous and say that everyone who bought a Gamecube also bought a PS2. That would still leave 132 million out of 154 million gamers who bought only the PS2, meaning that, if we also ignore the Xbox and Dreamcast (also a generous assumption), 85.7% of the market avoided the Gamecube in the last generation. Now, it's hard to determine exactly what proportion of the market consists of "hardcore" gamers (and I'll elaborate on that in a bit), but even if only 30% of gamers are "hardcore," that still means that a majority of them bought a PS2 and didn't buy a Gamecube.

Now, just so we're clear on this point, I'm not in support of the ridiculous "casual"/"hardcore" dichotomy. (You might have picked up on this from the quotation marks I put around the terms.) Those terms get thrown around so much that they have no real meaning. If, however, we focus on gamers who call themselves "hardcore," we can make meaningful statements.

You might notice that I originally made the point to counter the OP's assertion that Nintendo lost the "hardcore" market with the Wii; my claim was that whatever "hardcore" gamers abandoned Nintendo did so before the 7th generation. It's not an absolute proof, but it's a simpler (and therefore better) explanation of the data than "There aren't that many "hardcore" gamers AND they all bought Gamecubes AND everyone buying the PS2 was really buying it for its DVD-playing abilities AND for some reason they didn't use the same justification when it came to the PS3."

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Snip

Come on, cut me some slack here. I never "only wanted PC games", I love my PC but I will always be interested in what experiences the consoles have to bring, as I will be excited about what all of gaming brings as a whole. The major examples I listed (Xcom, Dishonored, and Bayonetta 2) are at home on the consoles too.

Obsidian's last games (South Park, Dungeon Siege 3, New Vegas, and Alpha Protocol) are to or did come out on PC and console alike. Eternity is an exception, but if it turns out to be a wild success who's to say it won't see a port in the future on XBLA or the future console's equivalent? Or even on tablet like Baldur's Gate is seeing? Even if that never happens, it's release on PC could all the same be a statement about the gaming industry as a whole. Publishers don't pick and choose favorites but what's financially viable and if the want the money they like they'll continue to do that.

Also, I am under no illusion that the games heavily blasted at the launch of a console are the ones to truly look forward to (with rare exceptions). Not even Bayonetta 2 will be available at launch, and no console will come to be defined in its core success strictly by its release titles years after the fact. I fear I must re-evaluate how I present myself if it's feasible that an outside source of retardation of any type has afflicted me.

Yes, well, I am quite annoyed at the "next generation" being associated with trends of certain types of games coming back into the frame. Because there has been an awful lot of sturm und drang involved in getting these things back. Still, people who argue for them are put down as fossils or people actively trying to keep game development from advancing. (Only when it's something they personally don't love though.) The very thing that is being pushed back is the sort of philosophy of people who believe in a console centred game industry, it's popcorn movie blockbusters, it's eternal love of "next gen."

 

[soes757]

Adverts on the Escapists barely even qualify. You might get one person, the Escapist isn't very big.

The real ads are on TV. Dishonored had ads out the ass on TV, and yet it was still beaten by XCOM.

I've also seen them on ARS, IGN and RPS.
Attack of the acronyms!
I've never seen a Dishonored ad on TV.