Poll: What is holding gaming back, as an industry?

[Lunar Templar]

Well, I guess you'll be forever depressed, because there will NEVER be any "Perfect" games, because the people making the games aren't perfect, and don't have perfect vision. The fun is in finding the adequate games that have features you enjoy and would like to see more of.

not asking for perfect, just something i find interesting, to which this year, there is but one game (maybe 2 if they release it this year)

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

honestly, the only thing holding the industry back is the industry itself, due to it trying to do everything at once, it wants to have an each way bet on the financial success/artistic merit front simultaneously despite the fact that you can only really be either one or the other, it also wants to achieve in months what took other mediums decades or even centuries to achieve, add into the mix that some of the developers out there are showing themselves to be rather egotistical and controlling, some questionable business practices, reaction to criticism with condescending self congradulatory remarks, and so on.

really, the industry is its own worst enemy when it comes to 'being held back'

 

[Rikomag132]

Consoles, big corporations and the community. Consoles not because console gaming in and of itself is bad, but the consoles are terribly outdated, and when devs are making new games, they have to take that into consideration. Games that only come out for PC generally have better graphics (unless it's a indie game) and better experience because the devs don't have to compensate for the horrible graphics cards and such on the consoles.

Big corporations because of what they're doing to DLC and updates. Instead of making updates for the game, devs are actually selling dlcs instead. I reckon it won't be long until bug fixes will be released as DLC..

And finally, the community, for telling the big companies that this is okay by buying that DLC. Because it's not.

 

[Wdbisl]

I have to say one of the major ones is the obsession with graphics. I mean a lot of people if it doesn't look the absolute best won't even play a game which is ridiculous. This bring up another issue price because the graphics have to be so great the price goes way up and doesn't come down. Look at the price of a wii compared to the price of a 360 or ps3. Another issue is the lack of difficulty lately in mainstream games, they just want to hold your hand to where you can beat it and practically speed run it on your first time through. Also is it me or have games been getting shorter and shorter? This goes back to the price thing because it costs so much to make a game they are getting shorter.

 

[Hyper-space]

Everything and everyone is holding gaming back as a medium. I mean after all, if the people in the press, the corporations and the communities always did the right thing, then there wouldn't be any problem with anything! And this applies to everything else!

So yeah, peepz be messing up yo mediums.

 

[BoogityBoogityMan]

As an INDUSTRY?
Nothing. Business is booming. Publishers are getting more of that market control they always wanted, customers are gobbling it all up. Apart from slaughtering consumers' rights on the altar of greed, why change what works?

if you are referring to traditional gaming (consoles + PC gaming), the industry has been in decline since 2008; and it is accelerating. year on year sales are down 25% in the first quarter of this year, truly stunning numbers. All you need to do is look at the stock numbers for the big publishers.

However, if you are including the numbers from things like facebook/Ipad games, then yes the industry is still expanding.

As to the OP's question, imo there are 2 problesm: 1) Companies are trying to create games that aren't games. They want big expensive E-P-I-C stories, and cgi, and voice acting, etc. and they want the games to be playable by almost everyone. So what people get is a boring (re: easy) interactive movie. Games require constant interaction and unpredictable outcomes, but what game companies are making are neither of those things.

If you don't engage the player and get them involved in the actual gameplay (nothing to do with story), all you're left with is a really bad movie with with really boring gameplay.

why is COD popular? Because the multiplayer provides a true gaming experince, that is one that engages the player from minute one and is totally focused on keeping them interacting with the game. So pointing at that game and saying how crappy it is shows a real ignorance of what games are actually supposed to be.

2)the way gaming companies market themselves. The games industry seems to be built on bait and switch. For example, the Kinect was suposed to be all things to all people, and its abilities were highly exaggerted. So many bought it thinking that it was going to be more than a kiddie-toy/dance-partner/thing-for-geeks-to-take-apart-and-mod. So they look at their game setup and realize that all they use it for is netflix and you can get a $99 apple tv for that, then comes the anger at being ripped off. And dont even get me started on how software pubs market their products.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

The fans......really that's it, we don't take criticism well, we get angry over everything.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same basic subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you

Much as CoD 4 is an above-average shooter with okay writing, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

 

[AngleWyrm]

This poll should be check boxes instead of mutually exclusive. Ultimately, I had to pick Big Corporations, but I feel that media/press is a substantial influence as well, because the desires and enjoyment of people attracted to and working in the field of journalism does not constitute a representative cross section of all people.

But the major detriment is the dollar drive for companies like EA. They recently cancelled Bulletstorm 2, because it wasn't going to be a multi-million dollar cash cow. This is the problem, we can't have nice things if everyone has to develop a bland, casual-friendly mass-appeal piece of tastelessness.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you

Much as CoD 4 is a pretty above-average shooter, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one - I can't tell if you're actually a kid whose gaming experience begins and ends with CoD, or pretending to be one. In the case of the former, give it a couple years and come back to this question when you're a little older

 

[DioWallachia]

Consoles. 'Nuff said.

You mean the biggest reason why videogames are so popular and why dev companies have such huge budgets?

Yeah, consoles are definately holding gaming back.

I guess he is pissed off because if it wasnt for consoles and games like Smash Bross and Dragon Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi then older games from the PC like One Must Fall 2097 would have more praise for being the first fighting game with RPG elements

Or maybe because he believes that System Shock 2 deserves more respect from the console people who loves Bioshock (a game that was marketed more on the console favor and wont be know by the PC fans until much later even if it was released on the same day)

 

[Kahunaburger]

Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fa8shion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you

Much as CoD 4 is a pretty above-average shooter, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one - I can't tell if you're actually a kid whose gaming experience begins and ends with CoD, or pretending to be one. In the case of the former, give it a couple years and come back to this question when you're a little older

Ah, pretentious wanker - the kind who actually thinks Dear Esther is any good. Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up.

Actually, I think Dear Esther is overrated. It shares a critical flaw with the various CoD death scenes - no use of interactivity in any interesting way. Funny that you mention it, because I was wondering what game Dear Esther reminded me of.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Publishers strangling creativity for the sake of moar cash.

 

[Atmos Duality]

why is COD popular? Because the multiplayer provides a true gaming experince, that is one that engages the player from minute one and is totally focused on keeping them interacting with the game.
So pointing at that game and saying how crappy it is shows a real ignorance of what games are actually supposed to be.

It didn't engross or engage me for one second. It reminded me of a mixture of Counterstrike and Halo, either of which I don't find particularly engaging or interesting.

High production values and popularity alone do not make for a great gaming experience. Yet, people constantly insist that I'm wrong just because I don't like something that's popular.