The future of gaming

[roberttitus]

Is it just me, or does it seem like gaming's future may be short & bleak? It is true that gaming is more popular now than ever, but the way things are going, it seems that consoles are getting more & more powerful & using up more & more ideas that could just as well help make there next console succeed (see 3D gaming, Kinect & PS Move). Not to mention that the graphics are getting so good that it is basically one step away from playing as another human inside your TV. I just can't see where they can possibly go from here... especially when they are wasting perfectly good (albeit slightly ripped off) ideas on a console that they will most like abandon in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are thinking in the now & not realising how these little decisions can negatively effect them in 10-20 years.

BTW... Don't even think about starting a PC vs. Console war. PCs are just as guilty from a graphical standpoint.

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't doubt technology will improve exponentially and keep on impressing us. It never fails. We keep saying "What else can they do now?" and yet there's still much more to do. I rather gravitate to a different reasoning for why gaming may be coming to an end.

Most games today suck. Gaming nowadays is all about a certain gimmick. Every game has one and exploits the crap out of it. Then other companies copy them and add all the different flavours so that everyone's tastes are represented (ie- LA's The Force Unleashed to SM's God of War, the newer Medal of Honour games to Call of Duty etc). No thought is given to the gameplay anymore just the concepts. Sandbox games are the worst for this I think with their "Oh wow! Look, you can even do this!" sensationalist reactions. But that's all it is. Fluff. A shallow experience.

Either eventually people will realise this and the market will inevitably crash again and be reborn once more or more and more companies will create meaningful, interesting, and above all FUN products and overtake the market. Some game companies have great design philosophies like Telltale, Valve, and a few others. Hopefully these philosophies eventually knock some sense into all the money hungry business-minded game publishers. If it doesn't we do indeed have a bleak future.

[roberttitus]

I'm going to stop you right there... so you complain that games have similar mechanics & then compliment Telltale for being different? Just in case you haven't noticed, almost every Telltale game plays exactly the same as the next with very slight modifications. Also if you want to go further back, they play very similar to classic adventures. The company does nothing new or innovative whatsoever... but that is okay because I enjoy there games.

Be it Streets of Rage & Final Fight, Final Fantasy & Breath of Fire, Street Fighter & Art of Fighting or even Monkey Island & Sam and Max... Games have always used similar mechanics to others. I think you just have your nostalgia glasses on.

[MusicallyInspired]

No, I'm not complaining about every game having similar mechanics. I'm complaining that they have no fun gameplay and all similar gimmick game concepts and bad design philosophies. They may all be "nice" but they're not exceptional. Whereas companies like Valve and Telltale have yet to create a product that's unimpressive to me (besides Bone).

[BoneFreak]

I think one of the saddest things about games today is that people will say that games will suck because they're:

- not made by a big, well-known company
- not part of a well-known series
- are on a small amount of consoles

I think what would make gaming better would be going back to non-motion control. The Wii is just a motion-control upgrade from the Gamecube but is a seperate console instead.

[MusicallyInspired]

As far ast they majority is concerned, big game companies with huge budgets can do no wrong. The trouble is nobody really knows what a good game really is anymore.

[JedExodus]

Games will keep growing, they're infiltrating peoples lives more and more every day, just look at Facebook. Maybe the future of the AAA title is questionable, but maybe that's a good thing, what some may see as regression may just spark some new ideas.

Some day publishers, like record labels, are gonna find themselves in hot water, when that happens we'll see the landscape change drastically

[Shauntron]

Games today are better than they've ever been. Every time I've been disappointed by a $60 high budget studio turd with polish, there are five indie or freeware games that blow my mind and could only have been made today. And then there's the occasional Arkham Asylum or Bioshock, clearly expensive endeavors that were worth every penny on my end.

This is an art that's not going anywhere.

[Rather Dashing]

The concept and existence of things that are called Video Games isn't going anywhere. The trend for the big game releases though is...troubling. With few exceptions, the large-budget titles don't care so much about creating a compelling game so much as they want to craft "interactive experiences". These "games" are the equivalent of modern film in a way, money thrown into everything but substance, because substance doesn't fit in a 2-minute made-for-TV teaser.

Like with the modern state of film, you have to look to the arthouses, the smaller markets, the developing artists to find anything of value. Most of the large, established "big names" will fail you, unless you like the fact that video games have become something that you watch.

There is value to things like challenge, balance, and competition. There is value in gameplay, in mechanics, in basic design philosophy. Why can't more ads be like this, showcasing gameplay elements and challenging possibilities as something exciting? Is it because the people with the money, the people who fund the creation of our games, simply don't care about games?

It's not even completely their fault. The gaming public has fallen in lock-step with this way of doing things. Gaming magazines rate big-budget titles on a scale of 80-100. Major gaming publications see minor graphical imperfections as major scandals.

"I like video games" is simply not descriptive enough anymore, with games whose challenge is making sure you click on a thing once every 5 hours fall under the same umbrella label as a major high-budget title or indie creations like World of Goo or Penumbra, or mid-range developments like Telltale's episodic releases.

[Hassat Hunter]

I am not good in writing essays like the people before me, so I keep it short.

Once developers stop putting so much effort in graphics and more in gameplay games can be better, cost less to produce, and as a result need less to sell to make profit.
That by itself can lead to more creativity without being "punished" for it by heavy losses.

But until gamers and developers alike learn that graphics make no difference (If I read reviews of games like Alpha Protocol there is still a looooooong way) we're stuck in this upward spiral, until it just collapses upon itself, which can hardly be a bad thing IMO.

[Fealiks]

Originally Posted by Shauntron

Games today are better than they've ever been. Every time I've been disappointed by a $60 high budget studio turd with polish, there are five indie or freeware games that blow my mind and could only have been made today. And then there's the occasional Arkham Asylum or Bioshock, clearly expensive endeavors that were worth every penny on my end.

This is an art that's not going anywhere.

Agreed.

People always worry that a certain artistic medium is going to "die out" just because corporations have got their hands on it, but in my opinion, that's nonsense. The same thing is always said for music - "music is dead", "all music nowadays is just regurgitated corporate crap". It's just not true.

If you're an artist of any medium, be it music, visual art, film, games, etc., your creativity isn't going to be extinguished by the mere existence of companies who try to exploit art for money. It just won't happen. Just because games that are built exclusively for money do exist doesn't mean they're all that exists.

Also, roberttitus, to combat your original point, here's a quote from Charles H. Duell, the commissioner at the US Patents office: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." That was said in 1899.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Penumbra

WOOOO!!! PENUMBRA!!!! Wait, what was this thread about?

Oh ... um, all I know is that I hope Activision isn't the future of gaming.

[Fealiks]

(sorry about these late replies, I'd had the tab open for a while when I replied before so Shaun's post was the latest one)

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

The concept and existence of things that are called Video Games isn't going anywhere. The trend for the big game releases though is...troubling. With few exceptions, the large-budget titles don't care so much about creating a compelling game so much as they want to craft "interactive experiences". These "games" are the equivalent of modern film in a way, money thrown into everything but substance, because substance doesn't fit in a 2-minute made-for-TV teaser.

Like with the modern state of film, you have to look to the arthouses, the smaller markets, the developing artists to find anything of value. Most of the large, established "big names" will fail you, unless you like the fact that video games have become something that you watch.

There is value to things like challenge, balance, and competition. There is value in gameplay, in mechanics, in basic design philosophy. Why can't more ads be like this, showcasing gameplay elements and challenging possibilities as something exciting? Is it because the people with the money, the people who fund the creation of our games, simply don't care about games?

It's not even completely their fault. The gaming public has fallen in lock-step with this way of doing things. Gaming magazines rate big-budget titles on a scale of 80-100. Major gaming publications see minor graphical imperfections as major scandals.

"I like video games" is simply not descriptive enough anymore, with games whose challenge is making sure you click on a thing once every 5 hours fall under the same umbrella label as a major high-budget title or indie creations like World of Goo or Penumbra, or mid-range developments like Telltale's episodic releases.

I kind of agree with what you're saying, but I do disagree with a few points.

Just because a movie was funded by a big-budget company doesn't mean it's impervious to being good. Some of the best films ever made have been big budget productions and some of the worst have been indie films.

Similarly, just because a game was funded by a huge company like EA doesn't mean it's going to be a poor game. For the sake of example, Dragon Age was funded by EA and that game was brilliant.

I understand that you're more talking about games that were designed specifically with money in mind, though. Again, I would say that this doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the product. You should look at the product itself as a measure of quality rather than the way in which it was made.

There's a very common misconception that the method by which a piece of art is made directly affects how good it can be. A lot of people think, for example, that if a piece of art is worked on by a thousand people for two years with millions of dollars behind them, it's guaranteed to be better than a piece of art that's worked on by one person in under a day, but we all know that this isn't true. A lot of people also think that if a piece of art is worked on by someone who cares a lot about what they're doing, it is guaranteed to be better than a piece of art that's worked on by someone who doesn't care and just wants money, but this is no more true.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

I am not good in writing essays like the people before me, so I keep it short.

Once developers stop putting so much effort in graphics and more in gameplay games can be better, cost less to produce, and as a result need less to sell to make profit.
That by itself can lead to more creativity without being "punished" for it by heavy losses.

But until gamers and developers alike learn that graphics make no difference (If I read reviews of games like Alpha Protocol there is still a looooooong way) we're stuck in this upward spiral, until it just collapses upon itself, which can hardly be a bad thing IMO.

I disagree with the notion that graphics make no difference. I agree that the importance of graphics is often overestimated, but there's a large leap between "overestimated" and "unimportant".

[patters]

Originally Posted by roberttitus

Is it just me, or does it seem like gaming's future may be short & bleak? It is true that gaming is more popular now than ever, but the way things are going, it seems that consoles are getting more & more powerful & using up more & more ideas that could just as well help make there next console succeed (see 3D gaming, Kinect & PS Move). Not to mention that the graphics are getting so good that it is basically one step away from playing as another human inside your TV. I just can't see where they can possibly go from here... especially when they are wasting perfectly good (albeit slightly ripped off) ideas on a console that they will most like abandon in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are thinking in the now & not realising how these little decisions can negatively effect them in 10-20 years.

BTW... Don't even think about starting a PC vs. Console war. PCs are just as guilty from a graphical standpoint.

Go watch this, if you still think that gaming is lacking in future potential. Video games are increasing their audience through Facebook games, motion controls, among other ideas. You still get your Call of Duties, FIFAs, Mass Effects, hell even STALKERs.

I put it to you that if you think games aren't going somewhere, you are playing the wrong games. I've had my mindblown a load of times recently, particularly by Minecraft: something that looks incredibly simple, yet can inspire incredible emotion.

Originally Posted by Shauntron

This is an art that's not going anywhere.

In the sense that it's not going to up and disappear yes, hopefully less in the sense that it will stay exactly as it is, otherwise it wouldn't be an art.

[GuruGuru214]

Originally Posted by Fealiks

A lot of people also think that if a piece of art is worked on by someone who cares a lot about what they're doing, it is guaranteed to be better than a piece of art that's worked on by someone who doesn't care and just wants money, but this is no more true.

The difference being that in one case the finished product would be good because of genuine effort and in the other the finished product would be good as a total fluke.

[Avistew]

I think Fealiks has a point though. You can pour your heart into something and it might still look like crap in the end. It's something to keep in mind. Just because someone worked hard on something doesn't mean you have to like it. And just because someone didn't work hard doesn't mean their work can't be good.

[taumel]

My thoughts: Games to a large degree are about gaming and that's something which quite some people on the development and also on the press side are missing these days. The percentage of games, i really want to play, has decreased significantly.

Technically they've enhanced almost every aspect but that's not the core of what makes a game important to me. I've written this a couple of times on this forum already but it's just true, i'm really happy that the indie scene exists as the majority of the output of the big players is frighteningly trivial since many years.

Form my personal experience as a player, TTG makes at least some of those mistakes as well. Technically they've pimped the graphics, the animations, the poly count and so on but i don't see this improvement in fields like the riddle design at all. There things remain static. I would love to play an adventure where a larger chunk of the ressources are spent on the riddles, the story and the characters instead. They've improved on the dialogues, music got worse or stagnates as well, talkie has improved, ... anyway, could you imagine how an adventure would feel like where aspects like the riddle quality have improved by factor 3 instead of aspects they more care about?!

[Fealiks]

Originally Posted by GuruGuru214

The difference being that in one case the finished product would be good because of genuine effort and in the other the finished product would be good as a total fluke.

Not total fluke, good business. Business doesn't have to be evil and soulless. And I'd much prefer a quality game that came about through good business than a poor game with a lot of effort put into it.

Originally Posted by taumel

My thoughts: Games to a large degree are about gaming and that's something which quite some people on the development and also on the press side are missing these days. The percentage of games, i really want to play, has decreased significantly.

Technically they've enhanced almost every aspect but that's not the core of what makes a game important to me. I've written this a couple of times on this forum already but it's just true, i'm really happy that the indie scene exists as the majority of the output of the big players is frighteningly trivial since many years.

Form my personal experience as a player, TTG makes at least some of those mistakes as well. Technically they've pimped the graphics, the animations, the poly count and so on but i don't see this improvement in fields like the riddle design at all. There things remain static. I would love to play an adventure where a larger chunk of the ressources are spent on the riddles, the story and the characters instead. They've improved on the dialogues, music got worse or stagnates as well, talkie has improved, ... anyway, could you imagine how an adventure would feel like where aspects like the riddle quality have improved by factor 3 instead of aspects they more care about?!

I can appreciate what you're saying but I will say that you should remember that everyone has different tastes.

Personally, I'd much rather Telltale improved their games' graphics than their riddle design because I value graphics more highly than I do puzzles. I play adventure games to immerse myself in a world and story while others play more for the puzzles.

I've heard people complain about CMI's puzzles being too easy, but in my eyes the puzzles being any harder would have damaged the game, and the graphics were, and still are, breathtaking. For me, CMI is a perfect video game, but others would disagree. Similarly, some people see Modern Warfare 2 as a perfect video game. While I disagree, I have to do so respectfully of their different values and tastes when it comes to video games, and I have to be mindful of what led MW2 to be seen by them as perfect. They probably grew up on games that aimed for that very brand of perfection. I, on the other hand, grew up on games that aimed for Curse's brand of perfection. You could very easily argue that Curse was a soulless continuation of a profitable IP, but I don't think any of us would do that because we're generally all adventure gamers, just like nobody on a MW2 forum would see that as being a cash cow because they're all FPS gamers. To them, that game is soulful and perfect.

[Giant Tope]

my feelings on the future of video games: as long as they keep making games that keep me entertained, then they're doin an a ++ job.

and since more and more people are making vidja nowadays, i don't think i have to worry so much.

[BoneFreak]

I think games could use slight more variety, and also just because a game is good, doesn't mean we require sequels upon sequels only because people want them.

Sure, a company looks at reviews for their games, but must also keep in mind what their future looks like.

Example: Team Fortress 2 is a great multiplayer game, nay, expierience. However, it is near perfection, and the addition of a sequel may be too much.

Left 4 Dead 2 is also a great game, and while I do say it could have some additions, I wouldn't want a sequel. The storyline is pretty wrapped up here as the U.S is completely infected, and to have a completely new game would be a little ridiculous when it could easily just be an update.

(Apparently from reading this thread, Valve and Telltale are really good companies. Can anybody say, team-up?)