Orgull wrote:Every time someone is forced to stifle their creativity by making yet another sequel, a small part of gaming chokes and dies.
A few more years of this and no games will be fun anymore... and by then, most people won't care anymore either.
Very well said! I concur totally on these two points, and probably are why PC gaming is nearly dead for me now.
There is no greater evidence of EA hurting gamers than their cashgrab of buying up massively overpriced exclusives of the NFL, Nascar, etc.
So while all the Ulitma sequels were coming out were guys like you crying about the death of gaming? About how stiffiling this was to creativity?
Just so you know, sequels are indicative of the end of a console cycle. Which is where we are. Oh, and they sell. Buckets.
Have a some cheese with your whine and relax, it will all be better tomorrow.
JG93
"Pain or damage don’t end the world, or despair or f*ckin’ beatin’s. The world ends when you’re dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man—and give some back." Al Swearingen, Deadwood
Orgull wrote:@Icebear... what do you believe the "inevitable" outcome of the current trend will be?
I have my own ideas, but I'd be interested to know what you (and everyone else) think(s).
Well, I haven't thought about it hard but from what I can see two things are happening - consoles are getting more PC like, so eventually we'll all be playing games on PC/console hybrids and there won't be many "traditional" PC games left (I doubt it will ever completely die).
Second, I see more developers moving to the digital distribution model and thus cut of the publishers entirely. With fewer games to publish, it'll force publishers to take a chance on some developers with innovative ideas.
Anyway, I'm sure what's going to happen - I'm not analyzing stuff and losing sleep over it (it's just games) - but I do feel the current market is "collapsing"
Interesting... while I hope your first point (hybrids) deosn't work out but I think you may be right. I definitely agree on the second point though. I'd love to see a mass exodus of devs going digital-only... I think in a few more years PC games in brick-and-mortar stores may be a thing of the past.
Yes. my first thought is really more of a long term thing. I eventually see one device in your house that is a TV/telephone/games console/internet port. But that's off a bit
Until consoles let you surf the net and download pr0n there will be PCs in people's houses and as long as there are PCs, there will be some form of PC game
Orgull wrote:I don't care about arguments that start with "it's a business". It's not "business" types who devote themselves to 100 hour weeks creating games, it's people who love the games, love to create and get satisfaction from doing it, that are the lifeblood of the industry.
A-fucking-men.
Remove the the developers, but leave the people with the funding.
Remove the money, and leave the developers.
Either way, the industry goes kerplunk. Both are absolutely vital - all the artistry, good idea, fantastic writing, and inspired planning won't mean one whit unless you have the money to hire a team to make it into reality. That means money. Money means either being a millionaire willing to throw it all away, or investments from a business intending to make money back.
Orgull wrote:Currently, because 90% of games are underdeveloped and therefore "unfun" (IMHO), there is a significant demand for quality product. Unfortunately, the publishers look to the mainstream audience (which I'll admit, does make short-term business sense) to find out what "quality" and "fun" is, and frankly the general public has no effing clue.
Jesus, I think you just nailed it why most of the games coming out now are buggy pieces of shit that just aren't fun.
There was a pretty amazing stat in one of the gaming magazines a month or two ago (EGM perhaps?). Of the top 50 selling games in the past year, only one wasn't a sequel or follow-up (I believe that one was Fable). What that says about the consumers, I'll let you decide.
edit: Now that I think about it, that must refer to only console games. Unless, of course, World of Warcraft is considered a follow-up to other Warcraft games.
"Unfortunately, the publishers look to the mainstream audience (which I'll admit, does make short-term business sense) to find out what "quality" and "fun" is, and frankly the general public has no effing clue."
"Fun" is different for everyone. What some people might find fun may bore others to tears. If 90% of the people want simple action games and 10% of the people want deep strategy games, who does it make more sense to try to please? People buy Madden every year because they enjoy playing it. People buy games based on licenses because they enjoy playing as characters they recognize. If they're enjoying these games, who are we to tell them not to?
Blackhawk wrote:Remove the the developers, but leave the people with the funding.
Remove the money, and leave the developers.
Either way, the industry goes kerplunk.
You're doing yourself, and the industry, a disservice here. Games can be quite profitable without ever touching a publisher. There's nothing that REQUIRES a publisher for a game to be good or for that game to make a sizeable profit.
True, you say "the money" and "the people with the funding" instead of "the publishers", but the meanings in your context are identical. They don't need to be. Why can't the developers distribute their own games? Because publishers have a stranglehold on distribution and bully around any company they can to prevent them from self-distributing. Companies like Bioware and Valve have enough clout from their successes that they can digitally distribute their games and receive the full profit from those sales; the only reason many other companies don't go the same route is that they would sacrifice their chance of having any of their other games published if the digital distribution didn't pan out.
Without the monolithic publishers out there playing King of the Sandbox with uzis, there would be a lot more fresh air in the industry and a lot fewer crappy sequels. There'd still be sequels, of course... but do you really think the developers wanted to make Tomb Raider Eleventymillionandone?
there will be PCs in people's houses and as long as there are PCs, there will be some form of PC game
