# The State of Gaming.



## Commonmind (Oct 31, 2007)

Gamers everywhere have noticed an overwhelming sense of stagnancy in the gaming industry. It's a subject heavily debated within the intangible confines of message boards, blogs and podcasts alike web-wide, and the issue is becoming more and more public as we, the gamers, are given more platforms for sharing our opinion with a larger audience. Many developers, too, have expressed that there is a lack of creativity amongst their peers and that some developers' willingness to move the industry forward is truncated by the fear that evolution is an often risky business move with little to no promise of financial gains. 

The main focus of the game developer has become one of survival, and in this very competitive market who can really blame them. But how long will these development methodologies keep major developers afloat? How long until we, the gaming public, become disenchanted with the market. Will we bear witness to another drastic decline in the gaming industry because we've simply tired of the same-old-same-old? Ironically, developers have another translation for the phrase “same-old-same-old,” they call it “tried-and-true” game design.

Companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision have created a new platform for development. Recycle, reuse and re-release. These publishers and developers are catering to the mass market, all but overlooking the hardcore and more-than-casual gamers - the people that made this industry what it is. These developers are consistently presenting products that are devoid of any real creativity and are quite literally insulting the overall gaming community by persistently handing us products which are, in a word, mediocre. Sequels come in the form of yearly releases that are akin to repackaged versions of last year's products; film-to-game adaptations that abuse their licenses, bastardized versions of their source material, are placed on the shelf congruent with the release of the film from which they’re derived. Meaning they’ve had a very short development cycle, which normally amounts to there being no time to create, design and refine. New titles hit the market each year that claim innovation, but do little different from other games in their respective genre. 

When was the last time anyone remembers playing a title based off a movie, comic book or even television series (yes, it does happen; CSI anyone?) that was worth its weight? Very rarely will you read a review of one of these games where it is praised for the things it does right. More often than not, there’s a laundry-list of what they do wrong, and why games like this fail at meeting the expectations of gamers. Granted a few exceptions do exist, but those exceptions are, ironically, often overlooked and passed on by the consumer. When was the last time you picked up a sports title that was a leap ahead of last year's offering and wasn’t simply a roster update, with a few new quirks built in that become the bullet points on the back of the box? When did you buy into a new franchise and really felt like you had experienced something different, something fresh and new, that redefined the way you played games, forced you to approach them differently. 

None of these companies are thinking outside the box, and very few of them are willing to redefine genres, or even invent new ones. The industry has become inundated with FPS, RTS, RPG, MMORPG, Sports and Racing franchises. But why? Is there simply nothing new to offer the consumer? Have we come to a point in this industry where a game must fit into one of these prescribed molds or it's simply not considered a good game? 

It's difficult to pinpoint the problem with this industry, because the blame doesn't fall solely on game designers. The consumer is also accountable. Mothers everywhere are willing to plop down 60 bucks on that latest film-to-game adaptation because Jimmy loved the movie so much in the theater he's sure to enjoy the game as well. And so, these titles continue to be made; and continually disappoint. We have consumers chomping at the bit for Halo 3, the next iteration of Madden, or the next big sequel of a largely popular franchise.  Meanwhile other, more innovative games which are arguably more unique go by the wayside and are overlooked by the mass-market. It seems gamers have become akin to music consumers, willing to buy into the hype and purchase the same thing the guy standing behind him in line is, simply because that’s what everyone else is playing and that’s what’s being advertised in the background of their favorite site or within the pages of EGM, GFW or any other print publication.

Speaking of Halo 3, let’s use it as an example. This is a game I own myself, and I enjoyed immensely, but it's a great example of stagnant game design as well. Halo 3 was the most pre-ordered game the industry has yet seen, selling millions of copies in the first few days of release and continually gaining sales momentum. Gamers and industry heads everywhere ranted and raved about it, yet there is this sense of "what's the big deal," from a good majority of gaming consumers. And really, what is the big deal? From a completely objective viewpoint, Halo 3 did little to nothing new. It was a visually stunning rendition of the same game we’ve played twice before. Sure, the new multiplayer components are hefty and have the potentiality to add a lot of replay to the game for quite a few consumers, but, again, where is the innovation? A few flashy new features here, a couple of added perks there, and we have a more illustrious version of Halo 2. There was no progression, nothing that moved the genre forward, that tried to hand gamers something unique and new that they haven’t seen before. 

  I hate to single Bungie out, being a fan of their franchise, but even so, I can still see there being a huge lack of innovation on their part as a developer. Games like Mass Effect and Assassin’s Creed are promising to be genre breaking titles that are going to present the gamer with a completely different way of play. I hope that’s true, but when we strip away the visual fidelity and tear apart the overall presentation, what are we left with. Mass Effect is still a hybrid RPG/Action title, and Assassin’s Creed is still a mission-based, open world game with a linear goal – despite how much of a sandbox the game ends up becoming, point A to point B are still definable and the methods the player uses to get there, while different for each, still serve to the same ends.

Square-Enix's new Final Fantasy sub-franchise is another example of this. SE has been one of the biggest, and most obvious proponents of milking the popularity of their titles. Short of an actual FFVII remake or direct (playable) sequel, they've done their best to produce more titles within the FFVII universe, to make the most money possible from it. Now we have a clear message from them, one that's so blatant and in your face it's hard to ignore. Where before they would expand upon earlier games with new titles for different systems, they're now using that methodology to creat sub-franchises from titles which are still in development. There are a list of games being developed from the FFXIII universe, and there are now 3 more Kingdom Hearts titles in development. They've taken this formula and actually turned it into a business tactic. Does anyone think Chrono Trigger, Vagrant Story or any number of other quality Square titles would've been made had they taken this same approach to FFVI for the Snes or FFVII for the PSX? Sure, they're doing it now with the FFVII franchise, but had they started this type of development process during the PSX days we may have missed out on Dew Prism, Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Einhander and many others.

  I could go on, and I feel somewhat torn, as many of these games I’m mentioning I’ve either enjoyed, or am looking forward to. Yet, I can’t help but feel like there’s nothing new being offered to us consumers. It’s obvious that we’re craving something uniquely different, Nintendo’s sales of the Wii, though some of those can be blamed on the affordability of the console by comparison with other next-gen platforms, is enough of a hint that consumers are looking for a change. I believe we want this industry to change, but until we start changing our buying habits and become educated consumers, and until developers stop painting with the same technique over and over again, I think the process of innovation is going to be a very slow one. 


I really have a lot more to say, but unfortunately I have a few things to do around the house so I'll have to cut it short. Any thoughts to share, feel free, I really want to hear your opinions on the matter.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Oct 31, 2007)

You make several good points that i would have to say i agree to. Out of the top of my head, i cannot remember the last time i picked up a game that's based on the movie. In my experience you just get to rein act what happened in the film and thats that. No satisfaction at all, just simple and boring gaming. Ok, some of the franchises have come from movies being released: Star Wars is a very good example. But how many movies are created after a game is released? Not many! The latest is that movie based on the old Dungeon Siege game: In The Name Of The King. 

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this show that the movie industry has taken a hold on the gaming one and is strangled it, using it to make people want to see the film because it has a 'best selling' game? 

Also, regarding the genres, i can't imagine any other types that could be made. The producers maybe feel the same way, i don't know, but i am enthralled by them all and cannot begin to work my way out. I am so used to seeing the huge piles of games stuck in them, i cannot begin to imagine something outside that because they all fit in neatly. Something entirely new, a game, would be stuck in there somewhere because the genres are so broad. It would have elements of them. 

Finally, games like Halo 3 usually sell better than anything else because people already know how good the first two were. This makes the producers greedy, knowing that they only have to make a storyline up and change this and that to make the game. They don't need to up the graphics by as much as UT3 has from UT2004, because they know people will buy it anyway. This, i feel, is a real shame. 

I might have waffled on about nothing there so i apologise if i have!


----------



## Commonmind (Oct 31, 2007)

> Also, regarding the genres, i can't imagine any other types that could be made. The producers maybe feel the same way, i don't know, but i am enthralled by them all and cannot begin to work my way out. I am so used to seeing the huge piles of games stuck in them, i cannot begin to imagine something outside that because they all fit in neatly. Something entirely new, a game, would be stuck in there somewhere because the genres are so broad. It would have elements of them.


Games like Katamari, Trauma Center, Guitar Hero and Ico or Shadow of the Colossus have done a lot to break the molds, and all of them, while not every one being a commercial success, are wildly popular and retain rabid fan-bases. Even in these cases, journalists have tried to pin genres to these titles, or like the music industry, have tried to create new genres in which they can fit.

You almost have to ask yourself how important is it to label the types of games that we play, as doing so has no real benefit to us as a consumer. In many cases, you may find that developers also tend to develop within these parameters simply because labels exist, which is hence why we see so many games that do not innovate beyond the formula from which they're created. Company of Heroes, Command and Conquer 3, both great titles, but both very much RTS games. World in Conflict is a good example of how some developers are trying to do something different, and it's almost difficult to call it an RTS game; while it involves a real time strategy element, it's so much more than an RTS.

Katamari is not simply an action, puzzle game, to lump it into that category would discredit the game as a whole, for it transcends both those genres. Trauma Center does something different than simple puzzles. Guitar Hero (given the label of "Rhythm Game") doesn't fit into any normal genre, and it's success and popularity is undeniable. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus could both be considered action adventure, or platforming, yet both blur those lines considerably; especially in the case of Shadow of Colossus; while it may have qualities you'd associate with an action adventure game or a platformer, it does so many things in a new and different way.

I don't want to turn this into a rant specifically about why I think the word "genre" should be eliminated from English language, but I do think it's important to note that our need to lump similar experiences into a certain category almost drives our motivation to create similar experiences - so that they can, pardon the redundancy, fit into a category. Some of the most innovative and memorable entertainment began as a way to do something different than what's being done. Blues, Rock and Roll, Grunge, Hip Hop; these genres of music all began out of the need to create something outside of the status quo. We've had music for thousands of years before these styles of music came about. The gaming industry is not a dry well of ideas. I believe they're fully capable of creating content that blurs the line so much it's difficult to label.


----------



## Snowdog (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm not sure it's a new phenomenon. Truly original games haven't been around for years, at least for the mass-market. 

Independent companies and small teams of (often amateur) developers are out there, on the internet, trying to put out games for niche markets and making something that isn't just another RTS, FPS etc. But their resources are limited and their games don't match up to the expectations of a lot of younger gamers especially, who can't see past the less than state-of-the-art graphics.

The main problem is that the major publishers now have to invest so much in a game that they cannot afford a failure, so they play safe all the time. I'm sure developers would create fantastic original, bug-free games if they were allowed to but the publishers won't risk it.

As for genres, some I like and some I hate. I don't mind a genre game as long as it's a  good, well-thought-out gaming experience. Too many games today place graphics above gameplay - I'm sick of having to fork out for a new graphics card every 6 months or year, just to play the latest game. And I've lost count of the potentially great games that were ruined because of cutting corners in the rush to get them out by a certain date, whether or not they're ready.


----------



## Connavar (Oct 31, 2007)

Gaming has become too big for its health.  In many countries like england,Japan gaming bizz is bigger than movie bizz.  


The creators are owned by huge companies that care more for getting as much money as possible and not create original games as before where you had to sell enough to get by.  It has become like the movie bizz.  A good proof is all these movie games that suck but are license games that are important cash flow for gaming companies. They are sadly almost as important for the companies as regular games.

There are some creative people left that make me enjoy games as before. Kojima with MGS series, Seabass and co with Pro Evolution,games like Ico,Shadow of Colossous,RE4,DMC people etc

I enjoy games with good feeling and story.  Sports and fight games like Pro evo,Soul Calibur series.

The state of gaming  is shown by how little things change in games almost all the time not much new except better and better graphics.  Also how fewer and fewer games interest you cause in the frenzy for the big bucks  more and more creators make the same damn game all the time again and again.....


----------



## Quokka (Nov 1, 2007)

As others have said I dont know how new a phenomenon this is, I think its always been a case of a few gems mixed in with masses of subpar games and few at the other extreme that are noteworthy for just how bad they are. If you've never heard of the ET Atari game (1982) its well worth reading about, here's a game so bad it helped to cripple Atari, which in turn was a major factor in the gaming crash of ~1983.

Likewise with the C64 there were some absolute classic games but there was also ALOT of rubbish and back then you couldnt even see a screen shot sometimes and had to buy a game based on the blurb and illustrations, which not suprisingly often meant jack. I think the expanding power of the 16 then 32bit games helped to drive a nice period in gaming, with how long game development takes now maybe the extra computing power takes longer for gaming companies to really take advantage of? 

I definitely think the size of the gaming industry is a double edged sword, its allowed for hardware to advance amazingly quickly (which in itself is good and bad) but it has also meant that there's more corporate decision making in game development (high profit, low risk) and the smaller more independant developers just struggle to compete. Which is a shame its great when you hear about people making games because they love gaming and want to produce the best finished product they possibly can. 

Still the Wii shows that being creative can be rewarding, its not suprising that its Nintendo that's still leading the way there and fron the discussion so far the 'gems' still seem to be out there unfortunately so is the rubbish.

Hmmm maybe what we really need is another crash in the gaming industry


----------



## Happy Joe (Nov 1, 2007)

I tend to agree with the rest of the opinions here. 
What we are seeing is the maturity of the gaming industry; most of the easy original ideas have been thought of and done, the easy money is in repackaging. 
There are a few ideas (basically enhancements that recently stand out; the WASD buttons used in PC RPGs and an attempt to mix RPG and FPS gaming (Hellgate London, a game that is otherwise excessively linear and which exhibits little originality), Crysis' expansion of the Farcry open landscape and visuals. but these are all just technical details/enhancements, creativity is in a down swing. 
I see it as a lot like murder mysteries/sci fi etc. we have seen most of the ideas and presentations before in one form or another; only the details change and the path to get to the end (but the stories can still be enjoyable). Future "stand out" games will tend to become more story oriented and depend on better production values, or unique stylistic aproaches, IMO.
I agree; we just have to sort the gems of originality from the chaff...but we should keep in mind; "its not the destination; its the journey"...
Enjoy!


----------



## Lenny (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm not adding my own opinions yet, but I read this article in one of my free's, and thought it was worth posting:

BBC NEWS | Technology | State of Play: A wide world of games

It's quite interesting.


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 1, 2007)

There's a lot of good points being made here. But to clarify, Snowdog, I don't view the current issue of stagnancy in the gaming industry as a new phenomenon; merely an old problem that is getting progressively worse.

If we look into the past, even amidst store shelves of craptastic software, there were a plethora of quality titles being released each year. New franchises were aplenty, and sequels were treated with the utmost care; often even the most popular titles never received a new iteration, as developers were more concerned with creating the next great piece of software. Again, look at Square as an example; the SNES was a veritable pumpkin patch of new and unique software for their company, yet now the majority of titles they have coming to market are sequels. Granted they've built sequels for many of the more successful titles in the past as well, but never on the scale we're seeing today.


----------



## Daenerys (Nov 6, 2007)

Of course hardcore/more-than-casual-gamers find it hard ti dig up that gem of a game these days. It's simple to explain.

First of all, if you are a hardcore gamer or play games more than a casual gamer you will have played quite a lot in your day. So of course a Halo 3 is not going to surprise you or hand you anything new. That is not the purpose of Halo 3 (if we stick to that example). Halo 3 is new to me, since I never played the original or the 2nd one myself.  And it will be new to younger gamers as well. It will be new to the new market and draw in new gamers with a old proven-to-be-good title. Which doesn't mean that hardcore gamers can't enjoy the game, just that they wont experience the same thrill as when they played the original or the sequel. Or even the same thrill a 16 year old who plays it for the first time has. But would you deny these new gamers that same experience?

The mass market is catching up with games. I see elderly people buying Braintraining (yes, I do see them) and my father who is nearly 70 is playing simcity 4 and looking forward to Sim Society. True, they are not the center of the new market, but they are there and they are being catered to. 

(but pleasepleaseplease make them stop bringing our girlie-titles such as 'Babyz' or 'I Love Shopping with my Pink Shopping Bag' and the like aimed at girls who are quite capable of playing more interesting games than that...)

The industry is still young and only now broadening its scope. The rest of the market needs to catch up to where the more-than-casual gamer is so that they can appreciate those games that challenge a bit more. 

And just because new developments are not to your taste does not mean they arent there... (Wiiiiiii!)

I think most (and not anyone who posted in this topic obviously) but most hardcore gamers are a bit upset at this new market. Where they could be rebels buying games no one heard of, now they stand shoulder to shoulder in the narrow isles of the game section in the shop being pushed out of the way by a grandmother or a man in a business suit or anyone who doesnt hold to the stereotype of the hardcore gamer.

*hides* You're going to hit me now, arent you...

Having said all that, I too find it hard to find something interesting to play these days. But whether that is due to lack of interesting titles, my own experience being in the way of enjoyment, or the lack of time I have these days.... I dunno. Times change, and once this has passed, I am sure we will see new games developed by brilliant minds to entertain and capture our imagination.

... right. Now I am going to install Ceasar IV.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 6, 2007)

Who says games must be a surprise to hardcore games to be good?  I dont think hardcore gamers wanting more than the usuall crap is the problem.



As a gamer you are used to see the same type of games all the time.  If they are good you dont care.

Wiii and nintendo i think are one of the biggest reasons gaming hasnt gone forward the last years.  They are interested in milking Mario,Metriod,Zelda for the 1000th game of those series instead of making new interesting games.  Unlike before in the 80's,90's where they were the creative leaders.



Personally im waiting for the big companies that create the best games like Konami,Capcom,Namco and Sony PS3 future games to save me from my gaming interest dying.  If not the horror i may become PC gamer only....


----------



## Lucien21 (Nov 6, 2007)

I think the gaming industry is in a similar position to the movie industry.

The investment in big blockbusters like Spiderman 3 is comparable to the likes of Halo 3. When businesses are investing/risking that kind of money in a project they have to be absolutly sure of a return. Therefore big companies become risk adverse. Why take risks with an untested genre when slapping a movie tie in or doing a sequel is a sure thing.

When suckers stop buying the same Fifa game every year or the latest Simpsons or Harry Potter game etc only then will companies realise they need to innovate.

Tha's not to say there are not a LOT of decent game out there and even innovative ones the problem is that they don't sell.

Games like Psychonauts, Okami, ICO etc don't sell in big enough quantities even with the spectacular reviews. 

Looking back even companies like "Looking Glass" constantly brought out innovative and critically lauded games, but went bust due to lack of sales. Ultima Underworld, Terra Nova, System Shock, Thief all games before there time that influenced a generation of games.

I think the innovation in the genre is in the smaller budget titles where risks can be taken. Or on the Wii and DS where production costs are a lot lower and the risks with innovation are reduced.

It's not all doom and gloom though because I think the big companies are finally getting the message. EA has put a lot of stock into new IP's and innovation in recent years with the Sims Wii games, Spore, Boogie, Purchasing Bioware etc

Electronic Arts: A Radical New Game Plan

I still believe in the gaming industry which still serves up some fantastic games like Gears of War, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assassins Creed, COD4, Metal Gear 4, Mario Galaxy etc etc


----------



## Commonmind (Nov 6, 2007)

Daenerys said:


> Of course hardcore/more-than-casual-gamers find it hard ti dig up that gem of a game these days. It's simple to explain.
> 
> First of all, if you are a hardcore gamer or play games more than a casual gamer you will have played quite a lot in your day. So of course a Halo 3 is not going to surprise you or hand you anything new. That is not the purpose of Halo 3 (if we stick to that example). Halo 3 is new to me, since I never played the original or the 2nd one myself.  And it will be new to younger gamers as well. It will be new to the new market and draw in new gamers with a old proven-to-be-good title. Which doesn't mean that hardcore gamers can't enjoy the game, just that they wont experience the same thrill as when they played the original or the sequel. Or even the same thrill a 16 year old who plays it for the first time has. But would you deny these new gamers that same experience?



Halo 3 was the final installment in an extremely popular franchise. It was marketed to its fanbase and promised to be "the game" we were waiting for. So, the difference of opinion here is that I believe the purpose of Halo 3 was clear. The game was aimed directly at its core market, the fans of the series. While Halo 3 was new for you, the larger majority of gamers that purchased the title were expectant fans who've been playing the franchise since its inception (or, at the very least, have played the previous titles prior to buying the game). And again, as a sequel it did nothing to move the genre forward. 

For those younger gamers who will experience Halo 3 as its own product, I'm happy they'll be experiencing something new and exciting. But that doesn't negate the point, that far more individuals buying the title have been longstanding fans.



> The mass market is catching up with games. I see elderly people buying Braintraining (yes, I do see them) and my father who is nearly 70 is playing simcity 4 and looking forward to Sim Society. True, they are not the center of the new market, but they are there and they are being catered to.
> 
> (but pleasepleaseplease make them stop bringing our girlie-titles such as 'Babyz' or 'I Love Shopping with my Pink Shopping Bag' and the like aimed at girls who are quite capable of playing more interesting games than that...)
> 
> ...



I love my Wii, I play it daily. I've finished Twilight Princess, Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3 and I love some of the quirky titles Nintendo has released for it; Cooking Mama, Carnival Games, Wii Sports, Super Monkey Ball, etc. It's definitely grabbed the casual market by the ears and forced them to pay attention.

Nintendo has had a successful run, but here we are, a year or more after release, and we're still in the midst of a software drought. Sure some of their more popular franchises have been great experiences on the Wii, but many of those are simply Fan Service. Mario Galaxy looks to be the first game so far to really give the Wii some bragging rights, but still it's just the next game in a twenty-year-old series. 

For quite some time Nintendo ignored the market, and it cost them their industry leadership. Nintendo ignored the market with the Wii, and, ironically, took that leadership back (1.2 Billion dollars worth of it, check the latest NPD - they just outdistanced Sony). What they need to do now is focus on a new hardware platform (the WiiNi anyone? lol) and give European and North American developers a reason to pay attention to their platform; take the same concept and turn it into a technologically next-gen console. Because right now, that's what the market is asking for. I only hope Nintendo doesn't ignore them this time.



> I think most (and not anyone who posted in this topic obviously) but most hardcore gamers are a bit upset at this new market. Where they could be rebels buying games no one heard of, now they stand shoulder to shoulder in the narrow isles of the game section in the shop being pushed out of the way by a grandmother or a man in a business suit or anyone who doesnt hold to the stereotype of the hardcore gamer.
> 
> *hides* You're going to hit me now, arent you...
> 
> ...



Agreed, and awesome post


----------

