• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Video Game Industry

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
I've been involved with video games from a very young age. I've spent obscene amounts of time on them. Played them, loved them, modded them too (Red Alert was my first <3). But these last few years have witnessed my interest waning. I still play games, but no particularly "new" ones. I'm just not interested.

My opinion is that the video game industry is becoming stale, and this is reflected in the games as well. Longer development cycles, higher expenses, big fish eating small fish, and a definite inclination towards graphics rather than gameplay - these are what I'm observing. There's a distinct lack of originality - sure, there have always been genres, but the rehashing is completely commonplace by now. Graphics are the main attractions, the most distinctive feature of today's games - gameplay is secondary, tailored to match the grandeur of the graphics or other immersive aspects such as physics. (And no, it hasn't been this way since the beginning.) For instance - Bioshock is a great game, but how is System Shock 2, released in, like, 1999, any less good? One could even argue the contrary.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but, another example - a classic like Freespace 2, a space sim released in 2000, remains unbeaten. Why? Because there's no alternative (admittedly, Freelancer was good, but it was more like an arcade game than a true space sim). Possible alternatives can not, would not be able to sell as much as say, games like Crysis. And when they can't do that, the expenses remain unaccounted for, and developers go bankrupt. (Black Isle, Troika, Microprose, Ion Storm would be a few examples) So what happens? Genres disappear entirely or nearly so. (Adventure games anyone? Aforementioned space sims?) There's a reason why Planescape: Torment (released in late 1999, a RPG which is the favourite game I've played to date) is doomed to the status of a cult classic. It's stellar gameplay's recognition was dampered by its unattractive packaging, backward graphics even then. And since then the bar has sharply risen. (I would like to take a moment to voice my appreciation for exponential functions...) I don't see games like Torment anymore.

The only game I'm more or less looking forward to nowadays is Spore. It is fortunate to have Will Wright's backing. And it'd better live up to the expectations of innovation placed upon it, or I'm going to be really disappointed. I'm also interested in the work of Introversion Software of UK, as they have been so far truly creative in all their games and been receiving the recognition they deserve.

Thoughts? :)
 
Last edited:

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
First and foremost: YES! Another gamer 'round these parts!

Secondly, I agree with you.

Aside from your exemplary examples, it seems that you favour pc oriented games than console games, no? Cool! In regards to game play, PC Games innovate whereas consoles implement. That's not to say that there are no innovative console games e.g. Katamari Damaci; but for the most part PC Games have more flexibility in terms of new hardware/software/engines to push forward otherwise impossible ideas. E.g. Dedicated graphic cards running in an OS calculating game physics within a game. Since consoles are significantly cheaper than PCs, consoles offer inclusive inexpensive game play whereas PCs offer exclusive expensive game play. Consoles can implement PC games via porting and implement them better into the market due to their availability to everyone. E.g. Halo - The first "epic" fps for the console. As a pc gamer, I couldn't fathom how everyone thought this was the most epic fps game ever made. Deus ex/Half-life/SS2 came to my mind.

On the other hand, I do admire the limitations consoles have. Since new consoles come out every few years or so, developers have certain restrictions to work with and from that, how can they create a fun, innovative and profitable game? That reminds me of the days of owning a Voodoo 3 for the PC. That graphics card lasted me many years and much like the console example, developers were in the same situation. If everyone has the same limitations, then creating a innovate story sells itself. I'm thinking Lucas Arts puzzle games here.

But it seems with an increase in technological progress in the PC industry, story can't seem to keep up, if that makes sense. Shiny seems to be more profitable rather than story/replay value. With new hardware comes more software in order to play the newer software. E.g. Rather than just adding support for newer games, GPU drivers optimized existing hardware/drivers significantly - Nvidia Detonator glory days. A perfect example of this is one of my favourite games of all time: Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. It was very shiny (being the first proprietary game using the new source engine), had a GREAT story line/characters/acting/replay value, but it fell flat. Why? Because it was riddled with bugs. Troika forced the game out to coincide with HL2 despite the need for more internal testing.

But it seemed like Troika didn't have a chance otherwise for its publisher Activision put a great deal of pressure on its release. It seems the real decisions come from the publishers rather than the developers. Game studios seem to either go out of business e.g. black isle :cry: or become acquired from larger studios/publishers e.g. Bioware to EA :cry:. The much larger companies, like EA, can handle a game that flops whereas smaller companies simply can't - they have to either make an outstanding product or go under. And since the larger companies can suffer from games that flop and have the resources to create more games, then one can infer that larger companies aim towards quantity rather than quality.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think the first game I modded was Freespace. I never got around to playing Freespace 2, because it was impossible to find. I really wish they would eventually come out with Freespace 3.

Though my favorite space sim is Freelancer. That game desperately needs a sequel. Although the graphics were not great, the game had excellent implementation and presentation, not to mention excellent voice work.

My dream is a Freelancer 2 that would be like Oblivion in space.
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
Noel -

Yes, I like computer gaming more than the console variant - I just can't get used to console gaming, I am thinking. And you make a good point about publishers' pressure which I hadn't considered - it is true that they are pushy. I basically agree with the rest, including Bloodlines being great. But the community released how many unofficial patches?

Überführer -

I am sure that you can shadily obtain FS2 in some way. It makes FS1 look like a trial version by comparison. Freelancer, like I said, was excellent. Mouse Flight is the best control scheme I've played with, in a sim. Not to mention the ridiculous modding options. Seriously, now I feel like installing it. A sequel would be great.
 
Last edited:

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't really mod games that much. I'm too impatient to deal with details. I did play around with Cry Engine 2, though.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Please, no. Oblivion wasn't that good. The levelling world drove me nuts, not to mention the ending of the main plot.

I'm with you there. Didn't really think much of Oblivion, either. But I don't like fantasy games.

Maybe I should have said Grand Theft Auto in space. Now that'd kick ass!
 

Rohsiph

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
100
MBTI Type
lego
I've been thinking about the state of the video games industry a bit today, having just finished Mass Effect, Half-life 2: Episode 2, and Portal.

There are problems . . . but there are two solutions: poke around hard enough and there are plenty of independent game designers pumping out sophisticated designs (albeit with generally poor presentations, at least compared to the big boys), or wait long enough for the mainstays to release their perfected works. There's a lot of dross to wade through, and keeping up with industry news requires wading through it . . . but it's not a hopeless situation.

Read recent interviews with famous Western developers, and all of them are aware of the need to move out of the glam over game tendency the publishers have been pushing. The industry legends get to do what they want, for the most part--like Will Wright, but also Sid Meier, Warren Spector, and, well, everyone at Valve.

As a player, the industry is very healthy. As a prospective designer . . . well, with any creative industry, there's three immediate options: make something incredible by yourself, work on something showing off your talents to get picked up by the legends, or be happy making slop for the exoteric.

This is no golden age for the industry . . . but it's even further from an elegiac time.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I think games started going downhill around the time they went 3-D, however I'm always able to find good ones among all the trash. Actually, come to think of it, they're likely making about the same amount of good games that they always were, it's just that they're now mixed in with so many more lousy ones that it's harder to find them. Does that make sense?
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
I disagree that the gaming industry has gone stale. I guess it depends on what you define as 'industry'. With gaming becoming more mainstream and technology becoming more accessible (or maybe just more geeks are being born ;)) there are tons of niche markets and games opening up. Online gaming is HUGE and people who don't consider themselves 'gamers' subscribe to sites like BigFish and play those arcade style games. And a lot more women game now.

The biggest breakthrough in gaming IMHO has been the rise of immersive god games and huge MMORP..G..s?, that's kinda what gaming for me is about no limits within limits. The Sims really opened up gaming for everyone. And personally, I'll admit it, I love simulation games: dating simulation, child rearing simulation, talent management simulation, business simulation, etc. They've come A LONG way since Oregon Trail.

And music games have gotten better and more interesting as well. There are some freaky horror games that have come out and continue to come out and the freakiness level is directly related to how sophisticated graphics and sound are.

I'm not really much into 1st person shooters or action games, though I have noticed that game mechanics have gotten a more nuanced in general, like in Assassin.

I think the issue you may be noticing is more that gaming has really come a long way from the 80s and 90s and now a recognized Industry. And it's a profitable industry. But hand in hand with copy cats and people relying on formula or pretty packaging, it also fuels better games and more diverse gaming.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I have nothing to complain about. I bought an Xbox360 and have enjoyed some excellent releases, such as Bioshock, The Orange Box, Gears of War, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Mass Effect, The Darkness and Halo 3. I am also looking forward to Grand Theft Auto IV, Mass Effect 2, Half-Life 2: Episode Three and Gears of War 2, alongside those which I have either forgotten or have yet to be announced. It does not bother me that many of these games are similar to older releases, since I also enjoyed those older releases and I am quite happy to have more of the same with better graphics.

Imagine if movie critics insisted that movies be better each and every year, compared to the previous year. It is just silly, and even sillier to let that expectation ruin your enjoyment of quality new releases. In any list of the greatest movies of all time, it is expected than many will be very old, and that many similar movies with flashier special effects would have been released since. However, these newer movies can still be fun and worthwhile experiences, quite irrespective of whether something better came before.
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
Varelse: Yeah. An Elder Scrolls game where you can't fly, if nothing else. Not to mention those shudder-worthy leveled lists. Morrowind forever! (House Telvanni.) I don't have enough experience with Daggerfall or Arena to comment.

Rohsiph: That the legendary designers are aware of the problem makes me happier, and it's part of why I am so expectant of Spore.

athenian200: There are more lousy games these days, but there are gems too, like you say. (Most of these gems also have boatloads of hype behind them as a requirement to recognition.) But it's not that I'm complaining about the quality of games - it's more like the variety and diversity in them - that is certainly diminishing, I think.

CzeCze: Well, those niche markets (besides arcade games, which do appeal to a quite different audience of casual gamers but I can't say I really include them within the larger scope of the industry.) which usually boast a lot of creativity, innovation and rich gameplay but not so much photorealistic graphics, or other attention-garnering aspects should idealistically be able to contend with the top dogs for recognition and sales. But they can't. Not when the arena is competitive in such a way that the games with the most visual appeal and the most financial backing get the spotlight.

Those kinds of games that you cited - the question is not that they are better or worse (and I agree that graphics/sound are an integral part of horror/music games) but that they are simply rehashes of old formulae with the industry not allowing much deviation. The Sims is just about the best example that could be given, as the only reason those copious amounts of expansions are all released seperately is because they sell and not much else, being more of the same.

The gaming industry is recognized, it's bigger, but no, not everyone can profit. And this is not because the overlooked developers make bad games, but because they can't afford the time and money to make a good game with better graphics than gameplay - not to mention pre-release advertising, etc. Then there's the whole ordeal with publishers as Noel cited.

nocturne: Again, the question is not that those games are low quality games - they aren't, quite to the contrary. They are all excellent games from what I've seen and played of some of them, and very enjoyable. But the fact remains that all those games you cited belong to two genres - FPSs and RPGs - even though they all have their individual stories and minor gameplay variations (well, that much should be taken for granted.) And that leads me to think about where originality and creativity has gone to hide.

I appreciate your interest and differing perspectives! Keep 'em coming. :)
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
nocturne: Again, the question is not that those games are low quality games - they aren't, quite to the contrary. They are all excellent games from what I've seen and played of some of them, and very enjoyable. But the fact remains that all those games you cited belong to two genres - FPSs and RPGs - even though they all have their individual stories and minor gameplay variations (well, that much should be taken for granted.) And that leads me to think about where originality and creativity has gone to hide.

I appreciate your interest and differing perspectives! Keep 'em coming. :)
Well, to me they are just story driven interactive adventures, and that is exactly what I like. I also enjoy competitive games, such as those with a sport theme or multiplayer shoot-em-ups. I think that many genres are ceasing to exist, but mostly because technology is allowing genres to be blended. It is no longer necessary to have a story driven adventure or an adrenaline fuelled action experience, because you can have both in the same product. For example, Mass Effect is quite successful in offering gamers the opportunity to shape their own experience, and mix and match as they please.

Ultimately, I prefer that. I do not see much value in going back to a world with so many subgenres, and I imagine that few of those genres would have ever developed in the first place if not for technical limitations. Besides, there is still room to be creative, and it seems to me that plenty of games are, they are not always successful, but then that's what experimentation is about. Moreover, with new methods of digital distribution, there are many more opportunities for creativity. For example, check out XboxLive's Arcade, and also note its new Xbox Originals lineup, which has given new life to such innovative games as Psychonauts.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I have nothing to complain about.
Ditto.

But the fact remains that all those games you cited belong to two genres - FPSs and RPGs - even though they all have their individual stories and minor gameplay variations (well, that much should be taken for granted.) And that leads me to think about where originality and creativity has gone to hide.
By generalizing the value of games on a basis of genre or fundamental concept, you've shortchanged developers' innovations in gameplay, narrative, and aesthetics.

From The Orange Box, for example, Portal is on its face a first-person shooter; but the "portal" play mechanic is novel and fecund, while the artistic and dramatic execution of the game rivals that of a breakout short film. Similarly, the Half-Life series has reached a gold standard with its combination of storytelling, style, action and puzzles.

What about Chromehounds, an overlooked, highly customizable Sega/From release that my friends and I are still playing, eighteen months later? Or Viva Pinata? For the computer, consider the independently developed 4X game Galactic Civilizations II -- a second expansion for which is soon to come. Developers needn't effect paradigm shifts to be creative. If they do, then the nature of the complaint is subjective.

Here is a challenge to one looking for the conceptual sui generis: download and play Starflight and Starflight II. An emulator will be required, but each game is an exploration of persistent worlds that hasn't been followed in the twenty years since.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I never got The Orange Box. I just downloaded Half-Life 2: Episode Two from Steam. I already had the other two Half-Life 2 games, so getting The Orange Box would have been stupid.
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
Ditto.

By generalizing the value of games on a basis of genre or fundamental concept, you've shortchanged developers' innovations in gameplay, narrative, and aesthetics.

I understand what you mean here, but yes, I would contend that genres are important (because they have been disappearing) - and I never opposed that there was innovation within the existing genres. The games nocturne cited all utilize such innovations in the areas you cite, though admittedly, the part of my post which you quoted might have been unfair to them.

htb said:
From The Orange Box, for example, Portal is on its face a first-person shooter; but the "portal" play mechanic is novel and fecund, while the artistic and dramatic execution of the game rivals that of a breakout short film. Similarly, the Half-Life series has reached a gold standard with its combination of storytelling, style, action and puzzles.

Portal does not resemble a first person shooter in any way, it's a puzzle game utilizing a first-person perspective and the functions of the Source Engine. It is indeed, highly innovative, but it's not resembling a FPS except the point of view. I understand that it's included in the Orange Box. I should have been taken care to name it as an exception while responding to nocturne.

htb said:
What about Chromehounds, an overlooked, highly customizable Sega/From release that my friends and I are still playing, eighteen months later? Or Viva Pinata? For the computer, consider the independently developed 4X game Galactic Civilizations II -- a second expansion for which is soon to come. Developers needn't effect paradigm shifts to be creative. If they do, then the nature of the complaint is subjective.

You have a point here. But my complaint has, in essence, more to do with the fact that Chromehounds is overlooked than the existence of Chromehounds itself. Also, Chromehounds is, from my understanding, a mech game. The last well-known mech game released was, IIRC, Mechwarrior 4, back in 2001, or sometime close. Not counting games which utilize mechs as a subtheme (i.e Battlefield 2142), that is still quite a long interval, and I think that the gradual changes in the game industry as I posted about in my original post have contributed to that. Similarly, I doubt very much that Galactic Civilization could have reached prominence without the backing and strong effort from Stardock. Regardless, your point is taken.

htb said:
Here is a challenge to one looking for the conceptual sui generis: download and play Starflight and Starflight II. An emulator will be required, but each game is an exploration of persistent worlds that hasn't been followed in the twenty years since.

I will try them. Thanks for suggesting!

And keep the views coming!
 
Last edited:

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I think the video game industry is changing into specialized fields. Where before you could have one or a few people bring a game to life, now you need specialised skills to create everything from hi-res by low polygon models to advanced scripting and level design.

The problem is that while a few good people can put together a really personal and creative game, it's very hard to preserve that when you are dealing with 20-30 people... While the programmers and such are doing their job from the design specs, they don't have any input into creativity. There problem solving is only how to do (x), not how to make the program do something cool. Innovation is capped at the design level. That gap causes a change in how games are produced.

It's the same problem in converting any small business into a larger one. When the small businesses can't compete anymore because of the requirements to have the specialised skills, the game is built around design documents, breakdowns and management oversight. That's a huge difference. An easy example is how hard it is for small companies to meet all accounting requirements.

Having said that, companies like Blizzard have shown that there is more than one approach to how to manage game building... It's like night and day between them and the more sweat-shop approaches like EA.

Small doesn't always mean successful, of course. Supreme commander was a huge failure in my eyes. On the other hand, it was just about impossible to predict that Starcraft would dominate the way it did... a lot of it had to do with company culture - the support through battle.net and constant patching to support the free online competitions single handedly pushed SC to be the "professional RTS".

There is no way of knowing in advance what will be a good game. A company like blizzard puts few quality games out and the sales show it... instead of just being talk, they will cancel games that just won't end up working out. Compare this to EA... or even Sierra (Empire Earth 3) that puts out games that will severely damage their brand name, but are able to do it because they just throw (or buy out) so many games. EA pretty demonstrated how buzz words like "critical mass" actually work. Microsoft attempted to do this by buying out or creating certain key franchises (like AoE) - a more successful way of getting market share with better quality games, but still not quite like Blizzard's approach (who throw their name behind every game rather than having multiple development studios).

All of those, however, are more about how to manage the change, but the central change comes from the need for specialisation. With that, you need management... and good managers are hard as hell to find, never mind ones with experience in managing artists and programmers, marketing and design, and so forth. And if you specialise the managers (say because you have a large pool of opposing disciplines), then you end up with more and more layers of management.

This is vastly harder than most people realise.

However, I think that this will change when game engines stabilize... probably not for another decade, but eventually they will. This would allow amateurs to work together to "mod" a game... rather like how I still play RPGs in WC3, or how Varlese is modding/creating a new game. It would also allow a more standard way of creating game models, allowing "rent-a-coder" to be hired to produce quite a bit of the more specialised models and what not. Course, this will probably be offset by companies gaining more resources to be able to spend towards scripting and testing (least, the market would put pressure on them since the amateurs wouldn't be able to compete quite the same way).

(Err, just to be clear... I don't think it has become stale... it's too universal for that. I think it's a systemic change in the approach to making games.)
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
Noel -

Yes, I like computer gaming more than the console variant - I just can't get used to console gaming, I am thinking. And you make a good point about publishers' pressure which I hadn't considered - it is true that they are pushy.
I basically agree with the rest, including Bloodlines being great. But the community released how many unofficial patches?

Quite a few and because of it, has made the game much much better from release. I think you and I can agree with that. But that's just the thing though, that excites me so much about games, especially computer: having the ability to modify a game like you and Über have talked about. Another example of a Bloodlines scenario is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Bear in mind, I hope to play it once I upgrade my computer (soon!) but the modding community is absolutely astounding: perfecting the X-Ray engine by unlocking more potential shaders, new gun models, better UI, etc. It's all about community.


I never got The Orange Box. I just downloaded Half-Life 2: Episode Two from Steam. I already had the other two Half-Life 2 games, so getting The Orange Box would have been stupid.

TF2 alone is worth the price of Orange box as is Portal. Both of those games are outstanding! (Unless I read this incorrectly: when you said other two half-life 2 games, you meant tf2/portal - if so, carry on.)
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
TF2 alone is worth the price of Orange box as is Portal. Both of those games are outstanding! (Unless I read this incorrectly: when you said other two half-life 2 games, you meant tf2/portal - if so, carry on.)

No, I got Half-Life 2: Episode Two from Steam. If you get it retail, you can only get it through The Orange Box. Episode Two by itself was $20, the entire set was like $50 at the time. But nothing else was of interest so I downloaded Episode Two because that's the only one I wanted. And I already had Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode One, which I do believe are also part of The Orange Box. And I couldn't care less about Team Fortress 2 or Portal. So why would I waste the extra money on them?
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
No, I got Half-Life 2: Episode Two from Steam. If you get it retail, you can only get it through The Orange Box. Episode Two by itself was $20, the entire set was like $50 at the time. But nothing else was of interest so I downloaded Episode Two because that's the only one I wanted. And I already had Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode One, which I do believe are also part of The Orange Box. And I couldn't care less about Team Fortress 2 or Portal. So why would I waste the extra money on them?

Because they're games worth playing.

If you play fps'ers online, TF2 offers a lot of fun: nine classes, capture/defend maps and a creative direction (art, music, animations) making the game brilliant. If your in the mood for a more puzzle oriented game, then Portal offers that in the first person perspective. The puzzles are challenging and the physics in the game are quite incredible. Again, another brilliant game.
 
Top