Gaming Downturns

[Josquin des Prez]

The developmental inflation that games experience is because they take at least as long to develop as they always have, but as little as 10 years ago, major games could be produced by a room full of people (5-30 or so, often dedicated amateurs), but nowadays they require enormous amounts of programming to keep up with the expectations of the customers, often large sandbox style or inanely detailed environments and the fear of failure leads publishers to even further encourage an emphasis on these superficial aspects, hugely inflating costs on what is usually extremely simplistic gameplay.

This argument could have made sense five years ago. It no longer does. Graphics have been stagnating for three years. Console hardware limitations have essentially brought technological advancement to a stand still. This is the irony here. Games aren't just getting dumber, they aren't even getting prettier anymore. Like i said before, we now even have games like Crysis 2 that are technologically inferior to their predecessors.

often large sandbox style

If you are referring to Bethesda, they are among the most untalented, unprofessional companies out there. Their games are a big ugly mess of nonfunctional features, ugly graphics and bugs. The reason they are so popular is that nobody else is producing similar games, even though the market is extremely ripe for big sandbox RPGs (which explains the success of a game like New Vegas despite the gaming media's best effort to downplay its merits). This is exactly what i'm talking about here. Gaming companies actually believe they have found a gold mine in the console market and are ignoring what could actually be a revolution on the PC (and it has to be the PC if you are hoping to do it well). Imagine a big sandbox RPG with actual good graphics and good gameplay and people at Bethesda would have to find another job.

[Philoctetes]

Activision is currently one of the worst publishers out there, mainly interested in milking franchises until they die, and pioneering the ripping off of inexperienced/gullible customers with additional charges for extra content that doesn't merit a price. Any financial hit that they take I greatly support

They made Spycraft, so they'll forever be in my graces.

[ibanezmonster]

This argument could have made sense five years ago. It no longer does. Graphics have been stagnating for three years. Console hardware limitations have essentially brought technological advancement to a stand still. This is the irony here. Games aren't just getting dumber, they aren't even getting prettier anymore. Like i said before, we now even have games like Crysis 2 that are technologically inferior to their predecessors.

Makes me wonder what there is to expect in the future, in terms of graphics. The videos I've seen of Crysis 2 look very impressive, still. The environments of Crysis often look indistinguishable from real life, but the main flaw in computer graphics so far has been modeling people.

The only video I've seen that is a computer representation of a person that I've seen is this (but only if you ignore some moments with the mouth):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o

I'd like to one day be able to play a fully immersive RPG with virtual reality glasses and completely realistic graphics- like you are really there...   

[Lethevich]

If you are referring to Bethesda, they are among the most untalented, unprofessional companies out there. Their games are a big ugly mess of nonfunctional features, ugly graphics and bugs. The reason they are so popular is that nobody else is producing similar games, even though the market is extremely ripe for big sandbox RPGs (which explains the success of a game like New Vegas despite the gaming media's best effort to downplay its merits). This is exactly what i'm talking about here. Gaming companies actually believe they have found a gold mine in the console market and are ignoring what could actually be a revolution on the PC (and it has to be the PC if you are hoping to do it well). Imagine a big sandbox RPG with actual good graphics and good gameplay and people at Bethesda would have to find another job.

Bethesda, GTA, Uncharted, MMOs, RDR, those various mafia-themed GTA ripoffs - peoples obsession with repetitive pseudo-RPG dicking around (with none of the plot) has come at the expense of interestingly built semi-open levels like Deus Ex 1 or Thief where a tight story-like narrative can be woven into the progression. I don't even care about character customisation as long as there is a good plot with countless branches.

I don't mind consolised games, which at their best could make combat more fun, but it's people who can't read more than a paragraph per minute (and the PC is full of these, like Counterstrike kiddies or all the people who play WoW and read none of the quest text) that ruin supposed RPGs, plus developers who push action onto every genre and now kids no longer understand that just because you can kill everything, doesn't mean that you should have to - so even if a developer tried to make a sandbox or RPG that could be completed with minimal combat, nobody would play it that way because the gap between now and the last good games are a generation apart. Then they would complain about all the bits their friends found that they missed, and the sequel will be like Oblivion or Deus Ex 2...

[Grazioso]

As we have reached a point where games can produce an effect somewhat approximating realism with current technology, it's down to the fanbase to grow up and begin to support independant developers in producing worthwhile games with the reasonable tools now available to them. In 5 years an Unreal 3 engined game won't look half as ugly as an Unreal 1 engine game did after the same elapsed time.

Of course, Unreal Tournament is still as fun as it was when released, and when you're immersed that sort of adrenaline-pumping, split-second-timing experience, you soon don't even pay attention to the graphics.

In fairness to the fanbase, there is support for indie games--witness Portal, for example--via self-publishing, Xbox Marketplace et al. You can still find hardcore wargames etc. if you know where to look.

As for growing up, that's a big problem. People can talk till they're blue in the face about how gaming is a serious art form for adults--and sometimes, as with Deus Ex, there's some truth in that--but mostly the whole industry is stuck in a juvenile mentality where explicit violence is confused with "mature content". For most games, the "M for mature" rating should really be "I for immature". With books, film, theater, music, etc. there are plenty of actual options for adults, but with games, not so much. You pretty much have to call upon your inner 15-year-old.

[Lethevich]

[...] but mostly the whole industry is stuck in a juvenile mentality where explicit violence is confused with "mature content".

In the case of "RPG"s, Witcher and Dragon Age also take it along the lines of "including (preferably lesbian) sex scenes makes gaming grown-up". It's cringe-worthy...

[drogulus]

A big part of the problem is that it's a form of entertainment tied to an ever-advancing technology. If we can create insanely detailed 3D graphics, mocap animation, motion sensing, etc. well, we better pay to have all that in the game--even if the gameplay is just more of the same old stuff. Forget that. Give me 2D isometric graphics and really unique, engaging gameplay, and I'd be much happier than playing what amounts to Doom with a very fancy paint job.

     The market is distorted by the contradictory imperatives that the game appeal to graphics freaks with $600 cards yet still be playable on a normal PC. Obviously what the ultras prize is a game that can't be played at reasonably high settings by anyone who doesn't have their kind of rig. And I almost never read articles about great games that can be played with a normal PC and a $100 graphics card. Of course I frequent hardware sites, not gamer sites.

     Long ago I read a thread at a tech site where a gamer gloomily talked about how a game demo called Codecreatures (not really a game but a tech demonstrator/benchmarking tool) was too intense to run beyond about 7 fps on his PC. The extremely knowledgeable site guru responded "Codecreatures? That's not a game demo, that's a goddam science project!".

     Overwhelmed by waves of nostalgia and curiosity, I looked for the Codecreatures benchmark at Guru3d. Would this thing even run? The demo is from 2004, but the tech is about 10 years old.

     Ah.......69.5fps average @1280x960 w/4xAA. In olden times I managed about 11, and I wouldn't dream of enabling antialiasing.

[Todd]

How indeed? But if 2d isometric games are a thing of the past, as gaming companies have come to believe (based on whatever idiotic marketing predictor they happen to rely upon), how come a large company like Blizzard is releasing two major isometric games (Starcraft II, and the imminent Diablo III), and are raking millions in the process? What was the highest selling PC game until very recently? Ho yes, the Sims, an isometric game. What is the single highest selling game today?. Ho yes, its a 2d, isometric game called Farmville. I rest my case.

Well, then it looks like everything is fine. 

As to your longer post, well, I've got bad news for gamers.  Video games are not high art.  They are video games.  That is all.  Ever since Pong appeared, the only thing that has mattered to game makers is separating first quarters and then dozens and hundreds of dollars from gamers. 

Really, when I look at games, I see people either shooting things or other people, solving puzzles of some type, or (poorly) replicating sports.  That's it.  And having a teenage son, I see a lot of video games, both console and PC.  Not one is anything more than a diversion.  They can be fun diversions, especially when they are online with other gamers, but they are diversions.  The "stories", for games that have them, run the gamut from Cormanesque B-movie quality to trash, and every one I've seen any part of suffers from terrible dialog that looks like it was written by someone trying to appeal to adolescent males.  Maybe I just haven't seen enough games, but since the late 70s, when games hit the scene where I grew up, I've played or seen hundreds of games, and not one of them can be taken seriously. 

This is in stark contrast to other art forms.  Your music company analogy is particularly poor.  There are companies that exist solely to record classical music.  (Or jazz, or bluegrass, or whatever.)  They are focused on great art.  What about video games?  Who produces the great art of the medium?  And what, pray tell, is the video game equivalent of Beethoven's Op 132, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, Wagner's Tristan?  The same can be asked for the video game equivalent of Crime and Punishment, The Trial, and hundreds of other great works of literature.  Hell, even taking movies, where is the video game equal to The Godfather or whatever other great movie one wants to think of.

Now video games are big business, and some big games make lots of money, some flop, and companies are bought and sold and will come and go over time. That's a good thing.  You ask how long will the market last?  What market?  The market will change.  As not only consoles but also PCs become increasingly obsolete, something new will emerge.  And you know what, it'll still be just a video game. 

[ibanezmonster]

What about video games?  Who produces the great art of the medium?  And what, pray tell, is the video game equivalent of Beethoven's Op 132, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, Wagner's Tristan?  The same can be asked for the video game equivalent of Crime and Punishment, The Trial, and hundreds of other great works of literature.  Hell, even taking movies, where is the video game equal to The Godfather or whatever other great movie one wants to think of.

In my opinion, Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 9 would be a few I can think of. These are games that could be considered "epic works of art," which is what you are probably looking for.

But everything has a different function. What about Prokofiev's "Sarcasms?" It doesn't all have to serious. It can also be crazy and fun (maybe an equivalent of that would be Postal? (according to what I've heard about it)).

[Todd]

In my opinion, Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 9 would be a few I can think of. These are games that could be considered "epic works of art," which is what you are probably looking for.

I don't know about the first two, but the second two are not epic works of art.  While I'll be long dead and will not be able to confirm my opinion, I very seriously doubt that 200 years from now people will be talking about how great Final Fantasy games are, whereas Beethoven's (or Bach's or Mozart's, etc) music will still be performed, written about, and discussed, including his lesser music.

[drogulus]

Well, then it looks like everything is fine. 

As to your longer post, well, I've got bad news for gamers.  Video games are not high art.  They are video games.  That is all.  Ever since Pong appeared, the only thing that has mattered to game makers is separating first quarters and then dozens and hundreds of dollars from gamers. 

Really, when I look at games, I see people either shooting things or other people, solving puzzles of some type, or (poorly) replicating sports.  That's it.  And having a teenage son, I see a lot of video games, both console and PC.  Not one is anything more than a diversion.  They can be fun diversions, especially when they are online with other gamers, but they are diversions.  The "stories", for games that have them, run the gamut from Cormanesque B-movie quality to trash, and every one I've seen any part of suffers from terrible dialog that looks like it was written by someone trying to appeal to adolescent males.  Maybe I just haven't seen enough games, but since the late 70s, when games hit the scene where I grew up, I've played or seen hundreds of games, and not one of them can be taken seriously. 

This is in stark contrast to other art forms.  Your music company analogy is particularly poor.  There are companies that exist solely to record classical music.  (Or jazz, or bluegrass, or whatever.)  They are focused on great art.  What about video games?  Who produces the great art of the medium?  And what, pray tell, is the video game equivalent of Beethoven's Op 132, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, Wagner's Tristan?  The same can be asked for the video game equivalent of Crime and Punishment, The Trial, and hundreds of other great works of literature.  Hell, even taking movies, where is the video game equal to The Godfather or whatever other great movie one wants to think of.

Now video games are big business, and some big games make lots of money, some flop, and companies are bought and sold and will come and go over time. That's a good thing.  You ask how long will the market last?  What market?  The market will change.  As not only consoles but also PCs become increasingly obsolete, something new will emerge.  And you know what, it'll still be just a video game. 

     The better analogy is with cars, not art. There's art in it, though, just like there's art in hot cars. Industrial art is something I really like, though I focus on the parts of it that are close to other interests like music or war.

     

     

     

[Todd]

The better analogy is with cars, not art. There's art in it, though, just like there's art in hot cars.

That does seem like a better analogy, but even there the limits seem obvious.  Has any video game had the impact on society that the Model T did?  Can it?  (I'd rather own a Model T than an old Atari, that's for sure.)  And considering just aesthetics, I'd rather stare at a vintage 911 over a video game screen.  And I do have to wonder if mass-produced games will ever appreciate in value like some classic cars.  I know there are some now ancient coin op games that can fetch handsome prices, but I just don't see video games turning into an obsession like cars.

[ibanezmonster]

I don't know about the first two, but the second two are not epic works of art.  While I'll be long dead and will not be able to confirm my opinion, I very seriously doubt that 200 years from now people will be talking about how great Final Fantasy games are, whereas Beethoven's (or Bach's or Mozart's, etc) music will still be performed, written about, and discussed, including his lesser music.

I'm pretty sure they will be remembered. FF7 is 14 years old and there is still a high demand for a remake. If people don't play those games 200 years from now, it's most likely because of hardware compatibility. Everyone knows what Donkey Kong is, and it's 30 years old.

[Henk]

I'm pretty sure they will be remembered. FF7 is 14 years old and there is still a high demand for a remake. If people don't play those games 200 years from now, it's most likely because of hardware compatibility.

rofl

[Todd]

I'm pretty sure they will be remembered. FF7 is 14 years old and there is still a high demand for a remake. If people don't play those games 200 years from now, it's most likely because of hardware compatibility. Everyone knows what Donkey Kong is, and it's 30 years old.

First, I doubt that everyone knows what Donkey Kong is, and second, 30 years is a far cry from 200 years, where everyone discussing the topic today will be dead. 

[ibanezmonster]

First, I doubt that everyone knows what Donkey Kong is, and second, 30 years is a far cry from 200 years, where everyone discussing the topic today will be dead.

But how many people even listen to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart nowadays? Most people have heard about them, but don't listen. It will be a similar situation, probably, with people knowing about Mario but not playing it (unless the Mario franchise keeps on going).

[Todd]

But how many people even listen to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart nowadays? Most people have heard about them, but don't listen. It will be a similar situation, probably, with people knowing about Mario but not playing it (unless the Mario franchise keeps on going).

I don't think that's a good analogy, either.  With the great composers, it is generally accepted that they contributed to culture in a positive way.  I don't see any similar view with video games.

[Henk]

But how many people even listen to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart nowadays? Most people have heard about them, but don't listen. It will be a similar situation, probably, with people knowing about Mario but not playing it (unless the Mario franchise keeps on going).

Computer games are a recycling product. Any comparison with music is invalid.

[Josquin des Prez]

And I almost never read articles about great games that can be played with a normal PC and a $100 graphics card.

Blizzard is the single most successful PC gaming company, and their games have always been on the lowest end of the technological scale. Either way, there isn't a single game that would tax a "normal PC" with a $100 graphic card. Maybe Metro 2023, but only if you run the game in directx 11 (which is probably just poor implementation to begin with|). I have a simple Phenom II X3 (OC at 3.2ghz) with 4gb of mem and a Gefore 460, which is a "modest" setup by all accounts. Yet, i haven't found a game capable of bringing my PC to its knees. The only way you are ever going to make use of a 600$ card if you run a multiple monitor setup, and even then i have my doubts. Its an absurd situation.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That may be the retail gross, parts of which get kept by various participants on the supply chain.

There are lots of financial mysteries, like how did Stravinsky eat, when he only got paid $2500 for the Symphony in C, for example.

Inflation. $2500 in 1940 would be equivalent to about $38,000 today.