Poll: Is gaming ultimately moving forward?

[Aux]

I'm going to be honest, I did not read your full post. I do intend to but I am just going off the topic name.

I do not think gaming is moving forward. I see a lot of repeats, and not much new material coming to the table. I see the same ideas being used over and over again. True there have been some games that have broken the mold and have been truly "unique".

Technology wise, anyone that disagrees is a lair. True the Wii has the same power as the Gamecube but with the Xbox, PS3, and PC there have been major leaps and bounds with graphics, controls, etc. I feel that the ways to play games has been changing, but the basic idea is just being copied and pasted from other big titles.

If this is totally off topic I apologize and I request this post deleted.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I feel like actual consumers don't put nearly the same premium on graphics as the developers and publishers do anymore. In the past, games with cutting-edge visuals stood out, and they enjoyed sales success as a result. Now most games have a certain level of visual polish, especially with the proliferation of shared tools. It takes a truly AAA effort to produce something noticeably better than your average game running on the standard Unreal 2/3 engine, and there are certainly non-AAA games that sell.

I'd like to see a group of smaller studios combine forces into one medium-sized development group that focuses almost exclusively on the actual game content - writing, gameplay, balance, innovation, art design - while allowing fairly standard tech to handle all of the graphics. The end result will obviously be a step down from the likes of Halo and Uncharted, but the game might be a lot more fun. Plus they could probably sell it at a discounted price without all of that tech overhead. If it gets positive reviews and solid word-of-mouth, maybe the sales numbers could influence an entirely new approach to development - one that yields far more engrossing and satisfying, if less flashy, experiences.

 

[DueAccident]

Snip

Don't get me wrong, I liked Assassins Creed a lot, but after I finished it, I just felt so disappointed with what it could have been. It was a good idea, but ultimately it showed itself to be more of a concept idea, as it ended up being smothered under days of repetition and poor execution, as they clearly didn't have much other than the base idea and technology to sell it.

Good point on Red Faction Guerilla; I played the demo and read a couple of review and could tell immediately that it was a glorified tech demo, much like Mirrors Edge (though that was more fun). Too many developers think a nifty gaming gimmick will suffice, and too much time goes into it. These gimmicks should be a mean to an end, not the be all and end all; as ultimately, the ability to knock down a building won't remain in your mind as much as a fantastic story, at least for me.

For instance, and I know I keep referencing the holy trinity of Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and Thief, but Thief:The Dark Project was revolutionary in it's "gimmick", i.e. that of stealth with the lightbar, however it was a means to an end, you needed this gimmick to progress, it was fun and unique, however it was one component of the gameplay, the story was top notch, the gameplay was great.

I guess developers seem to have just got a bit...lazy, I guess? Thinking that one unique, nifty gimmick will make a game.

Snip

No worries, I know it was a long one! There was a summarised version at the bottom, I shoulda made it clearer.

I am not quite sure what you mean, on your technology paragraph? I think you are saying that despite technological improvements, games are still much the same?

Snip

I don't know, I would love to believe that, but as I said before, I bet if Deus Ex were released today, it would be slated and ignored. While a game like Far Cry was hailed for its wonderful graphics, but the actual game was incredibly lackluster.

What you suggest sounds interesting; it does immediately make me think of Introversion though. If you aren't familiar, they make small concept games with great art design and execution. They don't pretend to have the best graphics or anything, but the core gameplay is fantastic, and the design is minimalistic and sleek; case in point, Defcon.

I guess the feeling I get from reading these comments is that a lot of people would favour a more "back to basics" approach for gaming. Less focus on advancing the graphical capability, more actual thinking about what they want to create. Perhaps I am being nostalgic again, but it seems like to me 10+ years ago, game development was a lot more...for the sake of creating a game. It was obviously a for profit business, it had to be, but it seemed like it was a new untouched media, and companies and developers were genuinely excited to see what they can put on a fresh canvas. Today, it seems like the canvas is a Jackson Pollock clusterfuck with huge dashes of EAsports Red here, and plentiful splashes of Far Cryesque graphic games blue there, with very little white canvas left over for the creative and innovative touches of yellow.

Snip

My reply to the post above is also aimed at you. ^^

 

[SplashyAxis]

Snip

Yeah, you said what I was trying to say, but you said it much better. Using gimmicks to entice a player into playing the game, only for them to be (sometimes) left unrewarded with a good and worthwhile experience. And this, is what I feel is hindering the forward progression of gaming today. Basically having great concepts and/or gimmicks, but not having everything else to support it. There's no longer anything completely new or groundbreaking, such as Doom, GTA 3 or Half-Life, probably because everything has been done already.

I think developers have realised that all there is to do in certain genres have been done. They don't want to make a regular run-of-the-mill FPS because it's been done thousands of times over. So they try to implement these gimmicks (for want of a better word) and hope it's enough to pull players through.

So, yeah some aspects are moving forward, some not so much. But overall, I think gaming is moving forward, but not as fast as it was 10 years ago. I must say though, this thread has been very enlightening.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It depends on what goals you have when deciding on lofty judgements like "is gaming moving forward" and saying things like games are moving forward without saying what forward is is just empty rhetoric.

Is the goal making sure that games publishers are more focussed on impressing share holders in the short term? Then games are arguably moving forward. Is the goal making sure that graphics technology is always moving forward and production budgets keep on going up? Then games have been moving forward.

It is obvious to me though that ten years ago there were a lot of things I would have seen as being areas where games could get better where they have been back sliding. I never really cared if games had full voice acting, rooms full of pixar animators or if investors lost all of their money.

 

[DueAccident]

Snip

I am not sure I agree that everything has been done before; it's just hard to see what hasn't been done...for the very reason it hasn't been done.
To me, I see plenty of ways to be innovative within gaming. Though heck, I'm not even sure if every single game has to have some new gimmick to hook people, just a higher quality of design would be nice really. Just focusing on good plot, good writing, an involving game rather than graphics.

Something I realised the other day, when I was playing Dead Space, is that even so called survival horror games like that become a routine of;
Walk around in creepy silence > Something jumps out at me > I was startled and killed it > Repeat several hundred times.

Coming across an enemy is no real surprise, it eventually suffers from what a lot of FPS's do, i.e. that of basically running and gunning down hundreds of enemies, just at a much slower pace. Is that really what survival horror should be? I am not so sure.
When I think of what it could be, I think of more akin to the movie The Thing, (not the dreadful game), the suspense where anyone could be the monster, no one can trust anyone else, friendships fall apart, violence ensues. Similarly, most of the greatest horror movies only have one enemy, 'Alien' is a case in point. 'Aliens' loses it's terror value in favour of a scare value(i.e. that of things jumping out at you).
This is just one example I could see games taking a step forward; the Survival Horror genre could be so much better in my mind, true terror comes from being helpless, tension building, uncertainty, lack of trust, not simply waiting for something to jump out at you.

I think if more developers went back to stage one, trying to create something, as opposed to simply trying to improve on last years version (Fifa, COD etc.), we'd realise there was a whole lot more games could be doing as a medium.

On your other points, the problem is developers are just churning out standard, by the books FPS's. I agree gaming is moving forward technologically, but it is beginning to feel like the phrase "Man's reach exceeds his grasp" is all too pertinent; we have this fantastic technology, but are we really doing anything ground breaking with it? Are we making the absolute most of it? I am not sure..

Snip

I understand it depends on what criteria you judge it, that's why I left it purposely vague, and tried to indicate a few ways in which it could be argued to be progressing or regressing, to see what people thought. It's why I put "ultimately", to see if people think taking everything into account, if it is progressing.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

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.

And the same can be said of every form of media--eventually, it becomes a victim of its own success once it goes mainstream because we see an increase in output. In accordance with Sturgeon's Revelation, this means that what is actually released is in a 9:1 ratio of crap to something worthwhile. It doesn't matter if it's books, films, or games--if it can make money, people will slap a price sticker on it, regardless of quality.

But I'm going to argue that going mainstream isn't as bad as you imply. Think about it this way: before literacy was standard, writing was used mostly as a form of record keeping, and even then it was only done by people wealthy enough or lucky enough to get an education. THe market of books as entertainment was small. But once education became cheaper (or the average wealth increased), we see basic literacy becoming standard, and thus the market for books as entertainment grew. If this never happened, would Melville write Moby Dick? Would Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities have ever come to be? What about Poe, who was incredibly poor for most of his life? Would he have been able to write The Raven, The Tell-Tale Heart, or The Fall of the House of Usher?

As media goes more mainstream, the tools to both enjoy and create said media become easier for the public to use, as well. How many people could create high quality films when it was first released? Very little, seeing as how the first reels were used mostly as newsreels. Today we have people able to create amazing short videos [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk] on a budget of less than $500. Even Windows and Mac PCs come with basic movie editors; all the aspiring fil-maker needs to invest in is a cheap video recorder and he can be making films in no time flat. We can do the same with games, too--with programs like Game Maker and Adventure Game Studio, ordinary people can make games, too, without needing to learn programming languages (despite it being a plus). Going mainstream isn't bad; if anything, it's a good thing, and one step for helping gaming move forward.

 

[JoshGod]

overall ill'd say yes. but most mainstream games aren't helping. then again it is a recession, mainstream games are understandable. hopefully when the recession is over games developers will gain more freedom.

 

[Manji187]

Finally....a thread with real discussion value!

Well...first off..what is progress? What is "forward"? In terms of technology we're definitely moving forward. Plenty of examples have already been mentioned (processing power etc.).

But technology is only a part of the total picture.

Is more people playing games progress? If so then the "casual gaming" development should be welcomed with open arms.

But if you say that narrative (story and plot) is important...or genuine character development or "immersion"...then those things have definitely become scarce these days...and IMHO are becoming even more scarce.


I really don't mean to offend but...in my book...games like CoD MW(2) and Gears of War (2) are the way to "gaming hell": the reduction of variation in experiences. A serious emotional/ moral/ psychological/ philosophical dumbing down that doesn't do justice to the rich potential of the human imagination.

Deep/ interesting dialogues? Fuhgetaboutit! Genuine character development? Fuhgetaboutit! Nuanced morality? (I'm not talkin Mass Effect 2/ Fallout 3...that's anything but nuanced) More than superficial relationships between characters? Villians you could actually sympathize with? Fuh...get....about....it.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Technology wise, yes, with bigger and bigger leaps each time. Of course as far as graphics are concerned we may have hit or be close to hitting a wall, there is only so much you can do to make them look realistic or smooth out the shapes and make them look less blocky. Then it will just transfer to another area.

As far as game play and game stories are concerned, some of it might be but I think it?s evolving rather than taking a definite step forward or backwards. Things change, tastes change, current gimmicks and fads change. There?s a lot of crap now for sure, there are a lot more games so you are going to get a lot more crap. The past has the benefit of you remembering the good stuff, maybe better than it was, and forgetting a lot of the fleeting crap. This isn?t even getting into the effects you get from childhood nostalgia; there is a lot of stuff I don?t want to ever see again because I know I would hate it and it would just ruin a childhood memory.