Thoughts on the state of the gaming industry today.

The world is going to be like what it is in Idiocracy sooner than most people think

 

I understand what you're saying, but like I said, this is nothing new. In fact, with indie games being mass produced, games with lower quality graphics and awesome art style are being made more than ever. I think this is less of a problem today than it was 10 years ago.

 

Oh look, it's the recurring "complain about today's games while wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses" thread *yawn*

 

From what I see Games are going to look alot more realistic as technology improves.

 

This I do not understand at all. They've made over 800 million dollars. How much money do they want?

 

From my experience, indie games are just as terrible as mainstream games. Actually, I think they might be worse.

I forget who said it, it might've been the guy everyone loves to hate for telling a blunt truth about the modern state of Japanese developed games, but I recall a quote where an indie developer said that indie games are just as uncreative (as a whole) as mainstream games due to the massive amounts of shit plaguing both. I agree with him completely.

Mainstream games are boring and copy western trends too much? Sure, but think about how many indie games go for the whole 8-bit "retro" look, or how many "pay homage" to an 8-bit or 16-bit classic by ripping it off blatantly (and doing a questionable job in the process), or how many focus on telling some pretentious story (especially love stories), or how many spend too much time trying to be modern art than to be a fun video game, or how many have an insane difficulty with infinite lives (which again goes back to the whole retro thing). It's all recycled garbage to me. Obviously not all indie games follow these trends, but the same could be said of certain mainstream games as well.

I'd say now the fault is more in the hands of the people who keep buying it despite little changes in each installment (and no, sports games don't really count in this instance). Can't blame Activision for milking the cow that has still not gone dry after all these years, it's just too bad it's having such a negative effect on everything else.

 

It's a pain in the ass but I don't blame them. Companies exist to make money, they don't say, "Well, I guess we've reached 800 million dollars in sales, good enough for me". At least they actually have a good game to back it with, in my opinion they deserve every penny they're getting.

 

The Video Game Industry is doing fine and will continue to do fine, I don't know why select console games are peoples choices on how the WHOLE industry is doing.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry

 

So basically, it's okay for us to bash Activision, EA, Capcom, etc for nickel and diming us, but when someone we like does it we're just supposed to turn a blind eye or say "oh well"?

Sorry, I don't agree with that. I like Rockstar, but I'm not gonna defend them. The main reason companies like EA and Capcom follow these anti-consumer practices is because they're hurting for money (largely due to the quality of their games declining), and being cheap dickheads is the only way they can avoid bankruptcy. Rockstar is not hurting for money, they are not on the verge of bankrputcy, and really have no reason to do so besides squeeze a few million more out of their customers who already gave them absurd profits. I get that they're a business, and that the main goal of a business like Rockstar is to make profits, but there are ways to conduct a business without treating your customers like this (especially when you're not even slightly hurting for cash).

 

To me, modern gaming is like a desert with few oases. Things like f2p, DLC, DD and the persisting lack of originality are all signs decadence, signs of lack of actual care both by costumers and developers and publishers.

Most things were genuinely better "back in the day", and I am not saying that because I am blinded by "rose-tinted glasses" but because I keep my eyes open and compare the current trends with the ones of the past.

And no, I don't like the current trends at all.

 

I'm not too happy with the overall direction the industry is headed, but there are a few modern games I like. I just finished Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, and I thought it was a really good game. It made me think, in addition to being fun (and scary). I also liked Bioshock Infinite, and there are a few others. I don't have a problem with there being a focus on graphics, as that's almost always been the case, and who doesn't enjoy a little eye candy? I don't think it's good to focus entirely on graphics to the point that you ignore things like gameplay, level design, story, etc. It's a matter of balance.

I don't like COD, and I'm sick of the endless stream of shitty war games. It's true, there have been other points in gaming history where a particular game or group of games spawned endless shitty clones - like Super Mario Bros. did in the mid-'80s, or SFII in the early '90s, or Super Mario 64 in the mid-'90s. The difference I see is that, in those other examples, at least the original games were good - and in fact, a lot of the games that were inspired by those games turned out to be pretty good as well. COD/Battlefield were never good, and I can't imagine their imitators are any better.

 

Gaming is fine. If you're sick of something, whether it is DLC, COD, or whatever, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet. There are enough (good) games out there for you to be able to buy only the ones you want to play & still not have enough time to play them all.

Also, it's tough to define a "mainstream" anymore. Obviously, AAA games still exist, but there are so many ways to buy games now, you don't have to rely on big box electronics shops to be the only place to buy new ones. You can be a "gamer" today and not even own a console or computer. That's a good thing (it's a bad thing too, because it means it is easier to "ship" bad games, but bad games have always existed too).

...and if you legit still can't see what you want, learn how to make a game yourself, or kick some cash to someone who already has. Be the change you want to see.

 

I perfer name your own price game bundles.

 

I get that, and you're right they do deserve it BUT I kinda like to think that some of the developers out there are aware of the asshattery that goes on in the world of micro purchases and DLC. I never thought I'd see the day when Rockstar took the "if you can't beat them join them attitude" especially seeing as their games are sure fire sellers.

 

Just wondering, is there a reason you thought that? Or rather, why you think they had a "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude? I legitimately don't know, have they said something in the past about not doing DLC for GTA, or something that made them seem that series was above all that? I don't know if they were ever trying to "beat them".

For example, going back to 1999, if you wanted to play GTA: London 1969 on PS or PC, you had to have already have a GTA disc. Yes, London 1961 was free (on PC), but you had to already have BOTH GTA & London 1969.

Max Payne 3 has DLC. Red Dead Redemption has DLC...

 

Exactly, it's hilarious when some people try to bring up indie games as some kind of oasis of creativity when there are definite trends that indie games follow too: fake retro graphics, zombies, twin stick shooters, platformers with some kind of gimmick, Internet memes...the "wacky" humor in a lot of the games is irritating too, especially when they include Internet memes (Binding of Isaac). And really, the fake retro look is usually just an excuse for terrible art, since most of the time it looks nothing like anything that could've been done on a retro console - except for a very small amount of games like Oniken and Wizorb where they've actually put some thought into making retro graphics, most of them look like horrible messes.

 

There is a good number of indie games that are poor indeed. That trend you mentioned about zombies and the like is just one of the recurrent themes that I'm personally tired of as well. But there is good and bad in both mainstream and indie games in my opinion... Just that I tend to find more interesting things to play in the indie circles recently. And it's true that most of the time the 8-bit retro pixelly graphics are an excuse for shitty art, but some actually use it in an artistic statement or plot device, or to give a certain style to the game (see Hotline Miami for example). And not all are about retro-esque graphics, one of my recent favorites, Antichamber, is actually very slick graphically speaking, whether it's indie or not, and I'm really looking forward to Jonathan Blow's "The Witness" on PS4 that looks absolutely stunning.

On the other hand, there are still some mainstream games worth playing. I'm always all for anything Suda 51 makes, because even when he misses, his stuff is always interesting and unique. Platinum Games are another example of a really good mainstream developer (for me). Pretty much anything Valve makes (I mean, Portal ? damn) is outstanding.

I think that, as always, you have to make your pick. Exercise critical thinking and don't be set on one or the other because "mainstream companies are dicks" or "indie developers are pretentious". There's interesting stuff being done in both worlds, it would be foolish to limit oneself to just a few choices.

 

The microtransaction thing feels like one of those dumb trends that hit the gaming industry, I can picture some dingbat manager saying "X company is doing it, why not us?"

Less than 2 years ago it was about the gaming industry collapsing and social gaming taking the reins, but since zynga went to shit I see a lot of those opinionators decided to STFU

Anyways, if microtransactions are still here is because most gamers are ok with it, really unpopular trends rarely stick around

One thing is "me and my forum buddies hate this shit" and another very different is proof that 90% of the market effectively hates this shit, which apparently they don't

 

Suda's games aren't really mainstream though. Hence why they get low scores by mainstream media outlets...

These games are too "difficult" for the narrow-minded mainstream audience.

 

Totally. It kinda feels like the wave of platformers with cute animals in the wake of Sonic (think Bubsy, Awesome Possum, etc), or the absurd number of games with digitized characters that came after the success of Mortal Kombat. That stuff isn't new.

Regarding Grasshopper Manufacture, yes they don't have the same kind of mainstream success as other big titles, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still published and released alongside big name titles on consoles. I see Suda as the kind of outsider trying to combat the system from the inside. A bit like John Carpenter on the few occasions when he hit mainstream success and was given a big budget only to have it flop afterwards.