The Gamer's Quarter

[Shapermc]

Developers use advanced technology as a crutch to obfuscate the fact that games are, frankly, devolving. Gameplay is suffering. Innovation is frowned upon, and copycatting encouraged.


Thoughts? Comments?

I think that the quote above hits the nail on the head. (well if taken within context.) I think that games up through the 16 bit era were about feeling around for something new, something unique. It was aiming at a representation of a real thing your imagination was to take off with. We had innovation up the wazoo. Then things slowed down. Thigs are at a grinding halt right now and it will only get slower. The process of re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

I was talking with Ryan about this a few nights ago and I think he is right. PCs are going to be where we are going to see the only inovation for a while, and only out of European developers. Well that and the rare freeware game.

I look forward to a time when we can no longer make better graphics. They never really mattered much anyways.

[SuperWes]

I'm not totally sure I agree with that. Well that's not totally true, I agree with it but it's ignoring some of the facts. The fact is that the most innovative games are also the biggest sellers and that 90% of those derivative games don't do well.

More games come out now than they have in the past, and more games sell terribly than in the past. Sure, innovative games also do badly, but that's because marketing plays a large role in game sales and innovative games tend to be undermarketed because they're viewed as risks. Look at the best-selling games of all time: Grand Theft Auto 3, The Sims, Super Mario Bros., Doom, Myst, Pokemon, Half-Life, Everquest, Tomb Raider, Mario 64, Madden for Genesis, and almost any other enormously successful game was both innovative and had great marketing.

On second thought, I'm not sure this really correlates with the article except to say that banking on innovation is much more likely to make money and have a longer shelf life than banking on what's been done before.

-Wes
_________________

[Mr. Mechanical]

I think the most innovation we'll see in the upcoming years will be from people who don't play video games. People who exist outside the current system. Look at Takahashi and his Katamari Damacy. He was an artist before becoming a game designer, same with Miyamoto, or the guy who Pac-Man.

You know, I was thinking today(as I usually do) about where games are going. It seems the focus used to Mario. It used to be Sonic. The focus used to be lots of color and action and pleasing music. It used to be more narrowly defined. Then something funny happened. Publishers started marketing to people who don't play games and big graphics and system prowess started to rule the day. Now the focus was on imitating reality, making games more real because that was the standard that people who don't play them held them up to. Somewhere the margins widened and the focus went, well--out of focus.

Now none of us knows what the hell the focus is, or what it ought to be. We're all just caught in the maelstrom of marketing and hype behind big names and the little niche titles that fill in the cracks. We've lost the focus, or if we ever had it I doubt we knew, and I doubt we'll get it back.

[nICO]

I'm sure most of us have recognized this problem for years, but I'm glad people with at least some degree of influence are starting to acknowledge it.

I wouldn't say that the 16-bit systems were platforms of great innovation, however. For the most part, they just refined what had already been explored on the NES. They were also part of the problem documented in that article. Remember Blast Processing? 16 Bits? The PSX and N64 saw far more innovation than the SNES and Genesis, with developers beginning to explore the possibilities of really being able to use polygons. You're right, though, in saying that this led to a focus on re-creating reality.

[Shapermc]

[dhex]

at a certain age, refinement IS innovation.

chrono trigger? FFVI? i shit myself seeing those, even though both were damn good refinements.

too much stuff is put on "innovation" and not enough on "good."

[SuperWes]

But more games are "good" now than they ever were. In fact, so much is "good" that the only way for things to stand apart is through innovation.

Remember some of the crap that came out on the NES, SNES, Genesis, CD-i, 3DO, and early Playstation? Home Alone, True Lies, Plumbers Don't Wear Bow Ties, Batman Forever, Xmen, etc, etc. Those were some of the worst "professional" games ever. Most of the reason we're so into Japanese games was the lack of quality control in most games coming from the US.

Things are so good now that there's a demand for innovation that just isn't getting met.

-Wes
_________________

[nICO]

I was actually gonna mention that in my last post, but wasn't sure if it was necessary. Just because the 16-bit era had less innovation than the 8-bit doesn't mean the games weren't better. They were, in most cases.

I can also agree with Dhex in saying that innovation still continued. It was just redefined from creating the boundaries to repositioning within the boundaries.

I think the problem now is that we've been refining the current formulas for at least 8 years or so, varying by genre, and you can only play so much before you...well...get bored. I'm sure that Gran Turismo 4 is an awesome game and the best in the series. But if you've already played the first three to death, is it really worth doing it again? The same might be said for Zelda.

Yes, games now are, generally speaking, better than they've ever been. And if you're just getting into games, newer ones will probably be your best bet. But many people have been gaming for years, and they just can't muster much enthusiasm for yet another turn-based RPG or WWII FPS.

I mean, I don't think we've reached this point yet (well, aside from WWII FPSs, TB RPGs and a few others...). I just think that's the direction we're heading.

[dhex]

lemme put it this way.

i loved ultima. then i loved ultima underworld. then system shock. then u2. then ss2, for 10 minutes (it won't play on win2k machines, fuckerz). i love deus ex. they're all related games in my head, but what makes them work is how they're pulled off. they're scripted, but tight. you're free to fuck up, even.

i miss being free to fuck up.

[Shapermc]

[purplechair]

I don't think developers use technology to cover up the lack of 'fun' in their games... the causality, to me, seems to be the other way round... they 'obliged' to put so much technology into their games that they just don't have the resources to put any 'fun' in.

The Sims, Made in Wario and Katamari Damacy are (relatively) technically simplistic, but are oozing playability. I'm also going to mention Daikatana, and the trouble they had with having to switch from the Quake engine to Quake 2, in order to keep up with the competition. Half-Life 2 is an obvious exception to this idea, but they'd been working on it for 5 years and funding it with their own money - compare it to Doom III, coming from a more traditional background. Perhaps you could even consider DNF?

There's probably a dozen examples that prove me wrong; I'm just being selective (obviously).

[ApM]

Daikatana's problems can hardly be attributed to Quake II. John Romero figured he could write a design document, throw it to the wolves, and they'd throw a game back at him.

[purplechair]

Oh, yeah... I'm not saying it's all just down to that, but it shows what I'm trying to say. Keeping up with the technology curve cost a lot of time and effort that could have been used to improve the gameplay.