Poll: Is gaming ultimately moving forward?

[DueAccident]

I check the forums a few times a week, and haven't seen anything about this, and just did a search and nothing came up on the first 4 or so pages, so..
This is my first topic, to my knowledge...so...be nice...I am fragile..

So, just something I have been finding myself wondering recently. Just wanted to open it to the forum and hopefully get some sensible discussion, opinions as I am actually in the rare state of undecidedness; I haven't made this thread with my mind already made up, and consider myself to be genuinely asking the question without trying to convince anyone.

I think of the games I played pre-2002, which I guess I think of as the "old/new" divide in my mind; before it, there was Deus Ex, Doom, Half Life, Thief;The Dark Project, System Shock 2, Myst, Goldeneye, Fallout, Curse of Monkey Island, Quake, Grim Fandango, Starcraft, Silent Hill, Counterstrike, Planetscape: Torment, American Mcgees Alice, Sacrifice, No One Lives For Ever, Max Payne, Black and White, Halo
I didn't play all of those (though the vast majority), but I recognise their quality, and the effect most of them had on their various sub-compartments of the gaming industry.

Post-2001 has Halo 2/3, COD franchise, Gears of War 1/2, Red Faction, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Morrowind, X-Beyond, Splinter Cell, Warcraft III, Deus Ex Invisible War, KOTOR, Bioshock 1/2, Oblivion, Fable, Fallout 3, L4D, Mass Effect 1/2, Assassins Creed, Portal, Half Life 2, Shadow of the Collosus, WOW, Far Cry 1/2, STALKER, TF2 etc.

Of course I bet I missed a lot of games from both lists that would deserve a place, but that is a quick summary of what I'd consider some of the more influential/popular games in that period, so no real need to just point out any ommissions.
I find myself missing games with such excellent concepts as Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Thief etc. But what really brought these thoughts to the fore is people at the present being on the whole oblivious to games such as I listed above, who wouldn't know a SHODAN from a Garrett, or their Manny Calaveras from their JC Dentons. I discovered this when a competition for "greatest video game characters" was on going, and so many people just didn't know who these characters were.

So in one way, I feel less time is put into the concepts of the games, less effort into...truly "making" the game, as opposed to simply constructing it in time for release. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Thief all have plots which could be novels in and of themselves, and I guess I refer to those 3 games more than most for the emphasis on story and unique gaming concepts at the time. Deus Ex/System Shock 2 were unique blends of FPS and RPG elements, Thief obviously created and revolutionised stealth games.
A lot of games these days suffer from being rushed out, KOTOR 2 being one namely. It also seems like too many nameless bland super soldier games are coming out of a near endless conveyor belt.

A good example for me is Lucasarts, they created a lot of great games when they had to, however now they churn out anything and it makes money, there seems so much more...apathy in their games, no standard of quality, or imagination.

Obviously the gaming genre has moved forward in several ways, graphics being the most obvious one, certainly not up for debate I suppose. There are great games being made currently, Mass Effect, Bioshock etc.
But the thing is, a lot of those great games post-2001 side are actually only *just* post, i.e. in 2002,2003 etc. And personally, as much as I liked Bioshock, it doesn't hold as much of a place in my heart as System Shock 2 in some ways, the title it was meant to emulate.
Certainly you cannot deny the impact of some features and games; JRPG's exploding onto the scene, halo inspired recharging health that seems to be in every game now, seasonal releases etc.

Perhaps I am just nostalgic, I find it hard to tell. There are a lot of really great games out and coming out that I love, but similarly I can't shake the feeling that the gaming genre is stagnating or even regressing to a certain extent; basically hurt by it's own success, as games don't have to stand on their own merit now so much, but more the branding and marketing. Games are often too aimed towards a general market, taking no chances. You can't afford to screw up etc.


SHORT VERSION; I see plus and negative points for gamings progression, perhaps I am being too nostalgic about older games, or perhaps the situation really is stagnating with the odd glimpse of quality.


Sorry for the long read, hope it isn't too dreadfully boring! Thoughts?

EDIT - I apologise, I have no idea where the poll has gone...I put it in, but it isn't there.

 

[loooooowwww]

I think the pre 2001 era had some really great games and everyone remembers them but it also had some horrifically bad ones. I think these days there are more bad games than before but thats because the standard is higher now. If the graphics arent perfect no one will buy it, if the voice acting isnt top notch its ignored. recently I played alpha protocal a game that had slow texture loading, other than that it was incredably immersive and fun and i really enjoyed it but it got slated in the reviews because of the texture loading.

anyway my point is this the gaming scene is much the same as it ever was, 10 years from now when people are reminissing the 360 they wont be talking about too human or king kong theyll be talking about fallout 3, mass effect, and ass creed. gaming has only been around about 40 years time will prove this I think. people will always wonder if things were better before. fact is alot of those unreal games had massive flaws that people went along with. final fantasy 6 - 10 are all in subtitles lol and its considered one of the best rpg series ever. no way that would fly these days.

 

[DueAccident]

I think the pre 2001 era had some really great games and everyone remembers them but it also had some horrifically bad ones. I think these days there are more bad games than before but thats because the standard is higher now. If the graphics arent perfect no one will buy it, if the voice acting isnt top notch its ignored. recently I played alpha protocal a game that had slow texture loading, other than that it was incredably immersive and fun and i really enjoyed it but it got slated in the reviews because of the texture loading.

anyway my point is this the gaming scene is much the same as it ever was, 10 years from now when people are reminissing the 360 they wont be talking about too human or king kong theyll be talking about fallout 3, mass effect, and ass creed. gaming has only been around about 40 years time will prove this I think. people will always wonder if things were better before. fact is alot of those unreal games had massive flaws that people went along with. final fantasy 6 - 10 are all in subtitles lol and its considered one of the best rpg series ever. no way that would fly these days.

Thank god, my deepest worry was that no one would reply and this topic would slip off the bottom of the page to where ever unsuccessful topics go to die!

You are right, there were bad games back then too, quite a lot, and I do tend to forgive flaws of the older games I love. Deus Ex had catastrophic voice acting at times, namely with "IT'S A BOMB" etc. (youtube it, if you need to hear it in all it's awfulness) but I still love the game to death because of it's blend of action, rpg elements, fantastic story with twists, and humor. The combat was...pretty poor, very poor by todays standards, but I still love it.

Maybe the bar has just been raised higher than ever, and so games that have any flaws are seen as disasters. I know if Deus Ex were released today as it was first time around, it would be ridiculed, trashed and ignored, which makes me wonder about the gaming situation at the moment.

One half of me though does think gaming is taking incredible steps forward with the sheer technology involved, draw distances, pretty graphics, etc. etc. The wonder of stepping out of the cave in Oblivion wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago, and yet one one hand I see that as a good thing, that games back then kinda had to get by on things other than having the best water effects etc.

Hmm.

 

[loooooowwww]

for me personally graphica arent the be all and end all I like it when there good but bad graphics wont stop me from playing a possibly good game. Im much more concerned with the story of a game I hate games that just go through the motions. think of your favourite movies or books i would imagine that most of them are ones where the plot twists and turns and keeps you guessing why should games be any different?

besides I think the future of gaming is going to be motion controls mixed with voice commands.. that shit will be awesome (lets hope someone in power realises it soon)

 

[loooooowwww]

I think the pre 2001 era had some really great games and everyone remembers them but it also had some horrifically bad ones. I think these days there are more bad games than before but thats because the standard is higher now. If the graphics arent perfect no one will buy it, if the voice acting isnt top notch its ignored. recently I played alpha protocal a game that had slow texture loading, other than that it was incredably immersive and fun and i really enjoyed it but it got slated in the reviews because of the texture loading.

anyway my point is this the gaming scene is much the same as it ever was, 10 years from now when people are reminissing the 360 they wont be talking about too human or king kong theyll be talking about fallout 3, mass effect, and ass creed. gaming has only been around about 40 years time will prove this I think. people will always wonder if things were better before. fact is alot of those unreal games had massive flaws that people went along with. final fantasy 6 - 10 are all in subtitles lol and its considered one of the best rpg series ever. no way that would fly these days.

standard is HIGHER? its LOWER compared to the past. if you put the dumbed down games on the market 10 years ago, gamers then would LAUGH at it like simcity societies was laughed at by gamers. game companies are making one LAST push to the "mommy mommy i want crowd" before console gaming starts going downhill and they need to up the game complexity.

ever played a game called the last report my mom got it for me with my ps1 worst fuckin game ever even the worst of today trumps that shit

 

[SextusMaximus]

I think the pre 2001 era had some really great games and everyone remembers them but it also had some horrifically bad ones. I think these days there are more bad games than before but thats because the standard is higher now. If the graphics arent perfect no one will buy it, if the voice acting isnt top notch its ignored. recently I played alpha protocal a game that had slow texture loading, other than that it was incredably immersive and fun and i really enjoyed it but it got slated in the reviews because of the texture loading.

anyway my point is this the gaming scene is much the same as it ever was, 10 years from now when people are reminissing the 360 they wont be talking about too human or king kong theyll be talking about fallout 3, mass effect, and ass creed. gaming has only been around about 40 years time will prove this I think. people will always wonder if things were better before. fact is alot of those unreal games had massive flaws that people went along with. final fantasy 6 - 10 are all in subtitles lol and its considered one of the best rpg series ever. no way that would fly these days.

standard is HIGHER? its LOWER compared to the past. if you put the dumbed down games on the market 10 years ago, gamers then would LAUGH at it like simcity societies was laughed at by gamers. game companies are making one LAST push to the "mommy mommy i want crowd" before console gaming starts going downhill and they need to up the game complexity.

I think you might want to calm down a little, the user was posting his opinion. Don't get irrationally annoyed at him.

OT: In terms of games, no. In terms of certain gaming elements, yes! Sure, the standard quality of games from 2001 has fallen, but graphics, in certain cases gameplay, very much story - have all been greatly improved since 2001.

 

[SplashyAxis]

One half of me though does think gaming is taking incredible steps forward with the sheer technology involved, draw distances, pretty graphics, etc. etc. The wonder of stepping out of the cave in Oblivion wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago, and yet one one hand I see that as a good thing, that games back then kinda had to get by on things other than having the best water effects etc.

I think you've pretty much nailed it here. Gaming is taking giant steps forward with regards to technology. Just look at Kinect for example. I don't particularly like the idea of motion control gaming, but I have to stand back and admire the technology involved. There is no way anyone would have imagined 10 years ago that such a thing would be possible. And for better or for worse, gaming is moving in a forward direction because of motion control.

In terms of games themselves, look at Space Invaders, and compare it to Mass Effect. That shows how far gaming has come in terms of technology, storytelling and gameplay. However I will admit that although gaming is going forward in the technological sense, everything else is slowing down.

There seems to be an awful lot less of originality in games these days. There are some genuinely original titles, such as Assassins Creed or Bioshock. But for every one of those, we seem to get 5 generic shooters that follow the same pathway and end up using cliched characters and plot twists as well storylines we've seen elsewhere.

So basically, yes gaming is moving forward technologically, but everywhere else it seems to me like it's moving forward, but a little slower than we would like.

 

[Thaius]

The only thing that's happening to gaming is that it's becoming more mainstream. There are just as many great games coming out, and the medium is definitely evolving as an artistic and competitive field. But since more and more people are making more and more games to make more and more money, there is more crap out there.

So basically, there is more crap, but there is still just as many, if not more, amazing games being made. Don't let the increased amount of crap fool you: it's simply a side-effect of an evolving and growing industry.

 

[loooooowwww]

The only thing that's happening to gaming is that it's becoming more mainstream. There are just as many great games coming out, and the medium is definitely evolving as an artistic and competitive field. But since more and more people are making more and more games to make more and more money, there is more crap out there.

So basically, there is more crap, but there is still just as many, if not more, amazing games being made. Don't let the increased amount of crap fool you: it's simply a side-effect of an evolving and growing industry.

thats what I wanted to say but i got lazy trying to find the right words. I think you hit the nail on the head though.

 

[Pingieking]

Gaming is going mainstream, and the direct result of that is the standardization of products. Publishers want to publish games which they KNOW will sell, which essentially means making another one of their last best seller. This will be a huge blow to originality.
But we are still getting great games from great developers. So it's all good, I think.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Is gaming ultimately moving forward? It's hard to tell. I guess it largely depends on what you consider important.

In my opinion? No, not really. Consider how much importance developers and console makers (not Nintendo) are putting into graphics and processing power. Ultimately, these are dead ends--graphics can only increase to the level of photorealism--and even then, we're still going to have problems with movement and the Uncanny Valley. Unless developers want to spend thousands of hours coding pure animation to simulate every single movement a human is capable of, they'll need to spend hundreds of thousands mocapping that movement; not to mention the costs of paying the artists and animators to create the character models, the textures, and light effects just to create a simulacrum of a real person. Increasingly better graphics will end up making the costs of games skyrocket, and in turn, so will the cost of the games themselves. It's a lose-lose situation.

Processing power is similarly a dead-end, but it's not as expensive as graphics. Computer technology will always continue to advance, especially once we move away from silicon technology. Compared with how cheap technology becomes after a few years on the market, we'll start seeing consoles with RAM and HDD space comparable to that of today's supercomputers. Eventually, though, we'll reach a point of excess, where we'll simply not need that extra processing power, unless we breed a generation of lazy developers who write inefficient code and make sloppy data structures. (At this point, I'm finding it hard to get my thoughts into writing, so hopefully you get my point.)

So, then, how can gaming move forward? We shouldn't just be looking at the games that push graphics, or writing, but we should also be looking for the games that change the notion of what it means to be a "gamer." What many people on this site are quick to bash--social gaming, "casual" gaming, the Wii and motion controls--are arguably the areas that will help gaming evolve. Until the mass public is successfully able to get over the barrier to what we consider "core" gaming--navigation in a representation of a 3D space, use of an analogue stick or use of both a keyboard and mouse simultaneously, etc.--our hobby will always be maligned as "those violent people who spend all their time learning how to kill people." Once we overcome this barrier will we see gaming ultimately moving forward--much like what happened with every other form of media.

What we should be focusing on is the creation of new control schemes to further engross the player. We should also focus on increasing the levels of immersion in games, but graphics are only a part of that equation. We need force feedback. We need VR. In order to truly create the ultimate gaming experience, we need to literally immerse the player in the game world. Graphics and power will only carry us so far.

 

[DueAccident]

One half of me though does think gaming is taking incredible steps forward with the sheer technology involved, draw distances, pretty graphics, etc. etc. The wonder of stepping out of the cave in Oblivion wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago, and yet one one hand I see that as a good thing, that games back then kinda had to get by on things other than having the best water effects etc.

I think you've pretty much nailed it here. Gaming is taking giant steps forward with regards to technology. Just look at Kinect for example. I don't particularly like the idea of motion control gaming, but I have to stand back and admire the technology involved. There is no way anyone would have imagined 10 years ago that such a thing would be possible. And for better or for worse, gaming is moving in a forward direction because of motion control.

In terms of games themselves, look at Space Invaders, and compare it to Mass Effect. That shows how far gaming has come in terms of technology, storytelling and gameplay. However I will admit that although gaming is going forward in the technological sense, everything else is slowing down.

There seems to be an awful lot less of originality in games these days. There are some genuinely original titles, such as Assassins Creed or Bioshock. But for every one of those, we seem to get 5 generic shooters that follow the same pathway and end up using cliched characters and plot twists as well storylines we've seen elsewhere.

So basically, yes gaming is moving forward technologically, but everywhere else it seems to me like it's moving forward, but a little slower than we would like.

Good points; I agree technologically, I sometimes just sit back and think "wow". I mean, I remember when playing half life 10+ years ago, I did not see where gaming would be today at all.
Graphics, production values, the sheer technology, that has without doubt progressed, and it is truly incredible; just being able to sit on top of the cathedral in Acre in Assassins Creed and see such a stunning view, just shows how far gaming has come in technological terms.

However, Assassins Creed also makes a good example for the negative side of it, as despite the technological advances, the actual game was incredibly bland. It was a good idea smothered in pure repetition and poorly executed ideas, unfortunately. This is the point at which I find myself asking, this technological advancement, does it come at some price? Is it worth the perhaps lack in actual design quality and execution of the game?

The only thing that's happening to gaming is that it's becoming more mainstream. There are just as many great games coming out, and the medium is definitely evolving as an artistic and competitive field. But since more and more people are making more and more games to make more and more money, there is more crap out there.

So basically, there is more crap, but there is still just as many, if not more, amazing games being made. Don't let the increased amount of crap fool you: it's simply a side-effect of an evolving and growing industry.

Also possibly true. I mean, I do love games like Mass Effect for instance, such a blend of great story telling, graphics/technology and gameplay, but there seems to be a never ending slew of average shooters, with plots that are just basically "fill in the blanks".

I am not sure if I would say there is "more" amazing games being made though; but I suppose it depends on your definition of amazing.

 

[DueAccident]

Is gaming ultimately moving forward? It's hard to tell. I guess it largely depends on what you consider important.

In my opinion? No, not really. Consider how much importance developers and console makers (not Nintendo) are putting into graphics and processing power. Ultimately, these are dead ends--graphics can only increase to the level of photorealism--and even then, we're still going to have problems with movement and the Uncanny Valley. Unless developers want to spend thousands of hours coding pure animation to simulate every single movement a human is capable of, they'll need to spend hundreds of thousands mocapping that movement; not to mention the costs of paying the artists and animators to create the character models, the textures, and light effects just to create a simulacrum of a real person. Increasingly better graphics will end up making the costs of games skyrocket, and in turn, so will the cost of the games themselves. It's a lose-lose situation.

Processing power is similarly a dead-end, but it's not as expensive as graphics. Computer technology will always continue to advance, especially once we move away from silicon technology. Compared with how cheap technology becomes after a few years on the market, we'll start seeing consoles with RAM and HDD space comparable to that of today's supercomputers. Eventually, though, we'll reach a point of excess, where we'll simply not need that extra processing power, unless we breed a generation of lazy developers who write inefficient code and make sloppy data structures. (At this point, I'm finding it hard to get my thoughts into writing, so hopefully you get my point.)

So, then, how can gaming move forward? We shouldn't just be looking at the games that push graphics, or writing, but we should also be looking for the games that change the notion of what it means to be a "gamer." What many people on this site are quick to bash--social gaming, "casual" gaming, the Wii and motion controls--are arguably the areas that will help gaming evolve. Until the mass public is successfully able to get over the barrier to what we consider "core" gaming--navigation in a representation of a 3D space, use of an analogue stick or use of both a keyboard and mouse simultaneously, etc.--our hobby will always be maligned as "those violent people who spend all their time learning how to kill people." Once we overcome this barrier will we see gaming ultimately moving forward--much like what happened with every other form of media.

What we should be focusing on is the creation of new control schemes to further engross the player. We should also focus on increasing the levels of immersion in games, but graphics are only a part of that equation. We need force feedback. We need VR. In order to truly create the ultimate gaming experience, we need to literally immerse the player in the game world. Graphics and power will only carry us so far.

Some very good points, and I agree to an extent, the drain on resources towards the goal of better graphics is only going to end badly I fear. It's partly why originality is hard to come by I feel, the developers who have the creativity to try something new probably don't have the hard cash to actually realise the ambition, because no game gets by these days without good graphics, sound, lighting etc. etc.
These things all cost... a lot..It makes the market inaccessible to a lot of developers, and so only the big companies can do anything about it, but no one really wants to take a risk that simply might not pay off.
Introversion have the slogan, "Last of the bedroom designers", and I think it is apt for this discussion. They are one of the few smaller companies able to make their way, and they have done it through great innovation, Uplink, Defcon, Darwinia and soon to be Subversion all look really nice, play really nice. But without the marketing monstrosity of EA for instance, it's hard to make any real gains.

Part of me almost feels gaming has become too mainstream. I love my hobby to get the good attention it deserves, for more and more people to experience the true immersion and joy a game like System Shock 2 or Thief can give you, but instead it's becoming a victim of it's own success, you no longer have to be innovative to make money, and infact most companies that make money, aren't innovative.
Case in point Lucasarts again, churning out anything, chucking the label on it. Also EA, Fifa every year. Makes a metric fuckton of cash, but innovative? No.

 

[Dango]

Yes, it's moving forward, as all technologies do. Even if only looking at the quality of games, they are. People tend to ignore any game that isn't mainstream. Good games are still being made, but you'll never realize it if all you pay attention to is how much Modern Warfare 2 sucks (in your opinion).

 

[Ertol]

I think it's moving forward in some regards. I notice a lot of games getting released, and there are still a lot of really fun, great games coming out. But there are a lot of really bad games as well. Mass Effect was an incredible game in my opinion which paced storyline and plot development with character development. But some people find it to be complete crap. There are still just as many great games out there, you just have to ignore all the junk some developers put out. I've also noticed a lot of people tend to call Fallout 3 a bad game because it wasen't like the original two. Maybe it's just me and I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but I find Fallout 3 to be just as much fun, if not more fun then the original two. Because of updated graphics I can actually run around the wasteland and actually feel the atmosphere, and I feel like I didn't get that experience in the first two. Maybe you don't find a sort of bland FPS shooter with no story to be any fun, but some people might like the challange of maxing out the difficulty and trying to run through the campaign gunning everything down. All you have to do as a gamer is find the type of games you enjoy. There are terrific FPS's, RPG's, RTS's, and all other types of games out there.

 

[SageRuffin]

My response is this:

Anyone remember that ridiculous-ass PS9 commercial that dropped around the same time the PS2 did (the one with the electronic spores or what the fuck)? I think that's where gaming is headed, and quite frankly, I don't like it.

 

[SplashyAxis]

Good points; I agree technologically, I sometimes just sit back and think "wow". I mean, I remember when playing half life 10+ years ago, I did not see where gaming would be today at all.
Graphics, production values, the sheer technology, that has without doubt progressed, and it is truly incredible; just being able to sit on top of the cathedral in Acre in Assassins Creed and see such a stunning view, just shows how far gaming has come in technological terms.

However, Assassins Creed also makes a good example for the negative side of it, as despite the technological advances, the actual game was incredibly bland. It was a good idea smothered in pure repetition and poorly executed ideas, unfortunately. This is the point at which I find myself asking, this technological advancement, does it come at some price? Is it worth the perhaps lack in actual design quality and execution of the game?

Yes, great point with Assassins Creed. I loved that game, so I don't tend to remember it for repetition or blandness (even though it has fair share of both), but I do totally agree with what you're saying.

To answer your questions, yes, I think with some games, technology can get in the way of gameplay. An example I think of right away is Red Faction Guerilla. It had an amazing destruction phsyics engine, but I felt that THQ used that as a foundation to build their game on, and not the other way around.

Another would be Singularity. It has a great concept, and the technology was there to fully implement it, but the gameplay ultimately suffers because of it. I think some game developers look first at what they can do with the technology, and build their game around that, instead of focusing equally on both gameplay and game mechanics.

Is it worth having better technology, but having the excecution of the game suffer? Not in my opinion, no. It's one thing having great ideas and having the ways and means of making those ideas appear in a game, but it's another thing entirely to actually sucessfully pull it off.