Gaming Dead ? Not really...

[Karimi]

Gaming Dead? Not really...

A Rant by Karimi (With cool picture !)

For the past few years, we have seen a shift in the quality and type of games being made. Here at Idle Thumbs the general consensus (even if no one says it directly)is that gaming is pretty much dying and that gaming isn't what it used to be. I doubt it.

Because I know how much you people here love opinions I decided to post mine on several questions coming up today.

1 - Has the quality of gaming truly deteriorated over the past few years ?

It may seem like it has , but if you think about it not really. Games have increased in popularity, true ; but there is still quality out there. Lets look at genres, past and present. I will just name a few names in each for a general idea. Past is relative, I think 5+ years is pretty much good enough to count something as past since gaming hasn't been around for too long. Approximately 20 years if you count arcades, but gaming pretty much became strong in the 1990's.

FPS

Past : Doom , Halflife , Quake

Present : Halflife 2 ,Battlefield 2 , Call of Duty

Strategy

Past : Warcraft 1-2 , Civilization, Age of Empires.

Present : Warcraft 3 , Rome : Total War, Rise of Nations

Role-playing

Past : Fallout 1-2 , Planescape, Baldurs Gate

Present : Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights , Morrowind.

Adventure

Past: Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, Day of the Tentacle

Present : Beyond Good and Evil , Psychonauts

Simulation :

Past: Dungeon Keeper, Sim City, Theme Hospital

Present : Black and White, Evil Genius, The Sims 2

MMORGS :

Past : Ultima Online , Everquest

New : World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, City of Heroes

Etc.

Past: Fifa 98.

Present : Winning 11.

Overall, gaming has improved or maintained its level. The exceptions are adventure games and roleplaying games.

Roleplaying games are still popular but have become sort of a niche that has taken a backseat to action , Bioware is pretty much the driving force in today's rpgs (obsidian in the future hopefully). But its worth noting that most of the classics in the past were also made by one developer Black Isle.

As for adventure games, I will admit they are in a decline but not dead. Facts are adventure gaming will never really die , this could be a phase in its timeline , maybe adventure games were a phase. Adventure games will never die out, they won't be the traditional point and click games. They evolved into different genre, so that while some may say adventure games are dead I believe they have just integrated into other genres. Psychonauts which is an adventure/platformer is an example of that. Defining adventure as point and click is too specific, its like defining FPS as Hp/armor interface.

Adventure games are like arcade games, sure there aren't many arcades but they exist. The only reason arcades are "dead" is because gaming has evolved so that you don't have to walk down the block and insert credits you can play at home.

Because gaming has become a more accepted form of entertainment and is becoming more of a universal thing, you're getting more games and thus a greater variety. Think of it in terms of population, in a country with a million people a genius is one in a million; in China or a country with a billion people a genius is 1000 in a billion. So , you're getting more great games BUT you're getting more bad ones. Basically, you're getting a more diverse range. A wider spectrum which still shows the same colors , but with more degrees of variation. What does that mean for us? You've got to sift through the mud to find the gold.

2- Is gaming becoming more corporation oriented?

Yes and no, there are more corporations and EA is the horrible spawn of Satan that took the rights to the NFL. Its in man's nature to rebel , history can prove that and its almost certain that gaming will persevere. Corporations exist in the movies business but you still get amazing movies being made now and then. You say what gaming needs is a greater indie scene, things like the Sundance Film Festival ... we have that. Darwinia, Gish ,Uplink , mods, FireFox, and Linux are proof that gaming is not all corporation based. Gaming is becoming more open , everyone is doing their best to fight the "man" (Bill Gates). Which is sort of proof that its in man's nature to rebel and that games/computers are not and probably will never be controlled by corporations.

What gaming does need though is more support for these smaller developers, from the gaming sites and from gamers as well. Developers need to realize that there are different ways of getting published, selling the game on the site can work or sending the game by mail (Gish).

3- Are great games being ignored?

Some are, some aren't.

Katamari Damacy isn't being ignored, Psychonauts is being ignored. Why? Marketing , gamers, concept. Whatever it is , some games aren't getting the attention they "Deserve". Because of opinion and taste we say Psychonauts is good and shouldn't have been ignored. Not all good games are being ignored, so either Psychonauts is a bad game that we like or something was done wrong. There are games that prove that people still have taste so no, some games are being ignored but not all of them. If anything, in this day we make an effort to find good games and try to credit any game that does something well. Psychonauts was well received by the critics, so it wasn't "ignored" , people just didn't try it/get a chance to try it/want to try it.

4- Are gamers idiots?

Bear with me , here comes another example. Elections, a person where I live got elected for a position , a political group a relative of mine is it (Democratic society) is against it because the person was a close minded guy and too backward for the position. But still the person made it and many religious people voted for him. The political group says "People are blind, that person shouldn't be there, this isn't democracy, its stupid." Well, it is democracy, people voted for who they wanted and now they complain because it worked too well?

Same thing with gaming , in games majority rules. The people who buy games decide what games will be made. We ask who's buying these crappy games, we say people will buy Sam and Max but facts are the market is deciding all this and there are a lot of gamers who would rather play some shooting game than have an "EXPERIENCE". Should we call them idiots ? Not really , they play games for a different reason. They play to kill , for sounds , graphics , and explosions. We play for different reasons. We are a minority in the community, Halflife 2 was a really successful game. Saying other gamers are idiots for not buying adventure games is pretty much saying "He's an idiot for not liking what I like."

We just have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people buying the games we think are stupid, and that's what matters to a producer. Its the same thing with books and movies, people may hate a movie because they don't like its genre or style. The director may say people are stupid and that they don't appreciate it but in the end thats a risk , and if the people don't like it what's the point ? Tim Schafer knows we love him , but is that enough for a publisher ? Nope. Gamers aren't stupid , they are just different. Sort of like retards, with money. Not that gamers are retarded, im just saying they don't have the same taste as I do.

5- Is the future of gaming in any real peril?

Remember the last time you were in the city and saw that naked guy with the beard? Come on, you remember, the one with the sign "The world/wurld is cumin/coming to an end" ? Same thing.

There are still great games (Katamari Damacy), and great designers (Tim Schafer, Peter Molyneux, Will Wright). There will always be great games. Example: Bioware, Knights of the Old Republic.

6- Idle Thumbs

We should change the forums from Idle Forums to Grumpy Gamers.

I don't say this out of hate otherwise I wouldn't be here. Yes,yes, I know i've bothered you before but this should be the last time...

Lets not be negative, we should understand that gaming has changed and that what was once a hit in the past is considered a cult classic. 30,000 sales a while back was a hit, now its a start. Heck, there were more people playing cracked versions of Doom 3 than there were people playing Grim Fandango. We should have our preferences but let's not say gaming is dead, or that it was better the old way. It makes us sounds like tired old elitists. The old days are gone, let's keep our love for the old and try to embrace the new. We shouldn't change who we are, but let's not be the last on the bus or the last people willing to accept change.

We can keep our position as the elitist bastards of the gaming community, but at least lets be hard to please elitists not "The old ways are best" elitists.

=======================================

Footnotes :

Took too long , and its a has more words than I thought it would .

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

I miss SCUMM.

[Karimi]

I miss SCUMM.

We all do ?

[Tanukitsune]

Why does everybody think another "game crash" would be a bad thing?

The first gaming crisis happened because Atari starting making horrid games, or at least that was ONE of the reasons...

If there was another "game over", most gaming companies would eat the humble they needed to so long ago...

Not to mention, games would stop costing 50$ and would cost 5$ instead!

Some companies wouldn't make it, you say? All companied that aren't owned by a big company like EA are dropping like flies anyway!

I think only good would come out of "the end of gaming" since it would be the begining of a new golden era...

[miffy495]

Nice job man. I'm largely in agreement. Just because I prefer games like Psychonauts and BG&E, doesn't mean that I can't have fun just blowing things up for a half hour now and then. I especially like your point in reference to gamers being idiots. I'm Canadian, and our current PM is, in my mind, an idiot. His party doesn't speak for me. However, that doesn't mean that the majority didn't elect him, and so I still follow the people's rule. We need to remember that with every game that we buy, we're voting for that publisher/developer/genre as well. The games we like are being out-voted, but that's just something we need to come to accept. The people have spoken. We need to campaign harder, yes, but we may as well enjoy the benefits that the current industry has to offer until the next election/holiday buying frenzy allows us to change things.

Also, yeah. Let's have us a gaming crash. The kind that only the truly hard-core who've been playing all their lives would stick through. When it's over and the dust has settled, we'll be the only ones left still buying/voting. Guess what games will be in power then?

[Marek]

I think game design has improved by MILES AND MILES AND MILES in terms of the actual contents of a game. Level design, world design, interface design, etc. have all gotten dramatically better.

Many old games were awesome, but a lot of them also cheated by having you do the same things in roughly the same environments forever. Back then this was still acceptable, but not today. People demand varied, compelling gameplay in a variety of settings and mostly that's what we're getting. The mission design of the modern GTA games is something we could only dream of 15 years ago. Just compare Wolfenstein 3D to Return to Castle Wolfenstein, delete nostalgia from the equation, and then tell me which you'd rather play. (Hint: it's not Wolfenstein 3D, or you're lying.)

That said, I feel that when the industry was younger, there was a higher chance of interesting concepts worming their way through the system. Back then it was easier to say "LET'S MAKE A GAME ABOUT XYZ OMG!" and get it done, which led to a few creative disasters, but also some real gems that would never ever get funded today.

Maybe I'll comment on the industry crashing bit later, but I really need to get back to work.

[Roderick]

Yeah, I thought the general consensus here was that gaming has never better these days. There ARE more crap games (in our opinion... wait, no, they're really just crap), but the quality games of this day are among the best. We -Idle Thumbs- may be a little grumpy and hinge too much on the bad games, but we balance that by religiously devoting praise to BG&E and Psychonauts. And Damacy. But strangely not Resident Evil 4, which was awesome. But that may be because APPARANTLY, Marek HATES zombies!!

[Marek]

Sorry I deleted my Resident Evil 4 reference just after posting that. (I said that I thought it was a perfect example of what's right in games; the level design, atmosphere, camera, controls, etc. But that I also wished there were less games about zombies and other things we've seen a thousand times.)

I do not hate zombies, but I'm getting pretty tired of them. I don't think you could justify a new zombie game series right now without giving it a unique twist. Put some zombies on a fucking plane or something. Call it Zombie Plane. If the pilot is infected, you have to kill him and land the plane yourself. It's a flight sim FPS.

[Roderick]

Kamikaze zombies that crash on you with little planes? I can't really share that opinion because I love zombies and think I'll never tire of them. RE4 did have some cool twists on the zombie theme by making them peasants. That was nouveau. The biggest shame of the game is that they left that unique area and returned to the overused, extremely uninteresting "laboratory"/techno setting. It could've been an almost perfect game for me, but I despised that stupid commando setting.

Heyy, shouldn't you be working?

[miffy495]

Hmm... I still haven't played RE4, having never been able to get into survival horror in the past. Worth a shot, I'm guessing? This forum hasn't dissappointed me yet, your word is law, boys.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Games don't excite me the way they used to. I think we're definitely heading for a 'crash' of sorts, but that can only be good for the industry. At the moment the games industry rips off it's players and relies on sequels far too much, it's kind of like the movie studio 'factory system' they had in the 40s. Some bright sparks escape, but mostly it's dull dull dull.

How companies can insist on charging so much for a games is also in need of updating. I can buy a multi-million dollar film on DVD for £20 (if that!), but if I want to buy a multi-million dollar game it costs £40-50. It's arguable that I'd get more enjoyment from the game (if it doesn't suck) than the film, but the game cost LESS to make than the movie, so why does it cost more?!

I think the gaming industry is digging its own grave at the moment, but it will all sort itself out in the end.

[Roderick]

I don't know about that crash. Miffy, you should try it. It's not really survival horror as there's plenty of ammo to survive with. That makes it far more of a blazing-guns-galore thing. Really exhilirating. It's definitely an experience which I recommend, even IF the first part in the rural area is the best.

[baconian]

ahh, you bastard (me:pan:) I was getting ready to get back to RE4, and now you tell me the first bit is the best. I just got into the castle with all the monks and stuff.

I stopped playing it because my dog went mental at the sounds in that game. Honestly. Completely nuts. Howling mad.

[SoccerDude28]

I have been to E3 this year, and to be honest, I was astonished at the level of mediocrity I saw. Literally, I was looking for a game to be excited about, and most of them were crappy rehashes or sequels, or an FPS "with a twist". Yes there was Okami and maybe Shadow of the Collusus and Odama (which surprise!! are all Japanese), but it was easy for these games to shine when everything else was so unoriginal. I dunno, maybe I have played way too many games and I expect more now.

For example, I am replaying now Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers. The technology is now obsolete and the graphics suck, and even the puzzles are torturous. But the game is still fun to play, the story still interesting after 11 years.

You know, back in 97, I played Fifa and I loved it. It was something new, exciting, a soccer game that feels fresh. After 9 iterations, it looks slightly better, new rosters but I am bored to death with it. Interesting stat for you. Among the 10 top selling games last year, only one was not a movie licence or a sequel and that is Fable (not that original of gameplay as well). Even in the top 50 the number of original games was very small. You want proof of mediocrity, look at the next gen lineup of games, and point me to a game that is exciting to you. Am I the only one who is not excited about buying a PS3 or 360 because the games on it seem like the same old crap?

The only platform that seems to capture my interest these days is the DS and I've never been a handheld gamer except in the old days of the Game and watch. It has what most of the flashy "well designed" games lack today, FUN.

[SoccerDude28]

Just compare Wolfenstein 3D to Return to Castle Wolfenstein, delete nostalgia from the equation, and then tell me which you'd rather play. (Hint: it's not Wolfenstein 3D, or you're lying.)

It's not fair to tell me to compare them because they came out in different times. I think wolf 3d had a much bigger impact on me liking games than return to castle wolfenstein did. When I played Wolf 3d back in 94, it was one of the most fun games I've ever played till this day. But remember, wolf 3d was maybe not the first FPS but among the very very first ones, so it was something new for me. That is what made it so special, and what makes games like Katamari or ICO, or beyond good and evil shine.

[Steve]

Katamari or ICO, or beyond good and evil

These forums are killing me. Psychonauts. Fuck.

[SoccerDude28]

These forums are killing me. Psychonauts. Fuck.

It's a given that everyone here, or almost everyone loves Psychonauts. Just look at my avatar for god's sake.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I love Psychonauts.

I'm just not obsessed with it, like soooooome people.....

[jokemaster]

look at the next gen lineup of games, and point me to a game that is exciting to you. Am I the only one who is not excited about buying a PS3 or 360 because the games on it seem like the same old crap?

The only platform that seems to capture my interest these days is the DS and I've never been a handheld gamer except in the old days of the Game and watch. It has what most of the flashy "well designed" games lack today, FUN.

I'm pretty excited about Condemmned.

[Redwall]

I do not hate zombies, but I'm getting pretty tired of them. I don't think you could justify a new zombie game series right now without giving it a unique twist.

Like... playing as the zombies?

[Lechimp]

Even with all the zombie games being made, there still hasn't been the dream zombie game that I always wanted. In every zombie game like resident evil, you're always part of some special forces group that's trying to end the evil that's turning people into zombies.

How about a game where your person isn't a hero or specially trained to fight monsters, I want to play as some random citizen of a city and spend the whole game just trying to not die. We still haven't had a game that felt like a George Romero movie where there's zombies everywhere, it feel claustraphobic even though you're in a huge city because there's zombies everywhere closing in on you, and the only weapons are everyday items lying around.

I think the closest thing we have had to this was the beginning of resident evil four where you're allowed to walk around this village, but there's villages everywhere trying to kill you, and you have to run into the attic of a building and push bookcases in front of doors and kick over ladders to keep people from getting you.

A great example from the game would be the "boss" where you and the spanish person are trapped in the house, the windows and doors are boarded, and villages are trying to break through and kill you, one of my favorite parts of the game.

There are two George Romero games being made, but they look like complete shit.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Like... playing as the zombies?

Stubs The Zombie In Rebel Without A Pulse

launch date: Fall 2005 for PC, Xbox

[lailoken]

How about a game where your person isn't a hero or specially trained to fight monsters, I want to play as some random citizen of a city and spend the whole game just trying to not die.

Well gameplaywise (as if that was a word) I recommend trying to stealth through highlevel areas of World of Warcraft with a lowlevel character... so yeah, I think you might be onto something there!

[miffy495]

Yeah. I would absolutely love a game where there's no chance of success. Provided, of course, that the ways of dying are varried and creative. Maybe some kind of reward system where the longer you can survive, the cooler your death animation is. I think I remember reading about a mod where you couldn't possibly win (against zombies, no less.) It's in a copy of PC Gamer around here somewhere. Hang on.

*rummages around*

Found it. Killing Floor, a mod for UT2004. Has you and other players teaming up to see who can survive the longest against endless waves of zombies. I think I'll be downloading that tonight.

EDIT: Dammit, they're not putting up the full version link until tomorrow. I guess I'll be downloading it tomorrow night.

[Roderick]

Naww, of course you should be able to win. But I am interesting in having some sort of interactive environment like the shopping mall from Dawn of the Dead, and zombies would just lumber around it and you'd have to survive using all the tricks from the movie (like luring the zombies to a shopping window by attracting them from behind it, and then using an alternative escape route when they're all distracted). The terror would be awesome.