next »

[fish]

it personally burned me twice and has been making my life miserable ever since i got into it.

i want to destroy it.

[Anthony Flack]

But it isn't really a single unified thing, is it? It's just a collective word for a whole bunch of different companies.

[Alex May]

There are standard practices that go on at a significant enough proportion of companies to generalise to the whole Western industry. I don't know what it's like in the East.

[Bezzy]

There are standard practices that go on at a significant enough proportion of companies to generalise to the whole Western industry. I don't know what it's like in the East.

Exactly. If you find yourself in a pub with other developers, sharing war stories, you're bound to hear common problems crop up.

The industry really just has to mature - that takes time. Problems seem to have to get bad before they get fixed, or people don't really believe that they're real problems.

The companies who kill the problems in utero are the ones who are a joy to work for while making games that come out on time, under budget, and to critical acclaim.

[PoV]

I spent a year an a half making Plug'n'play TV Games, ...

Ah ha.  Digital Eclipse I presume.

[guille]

Producing a game today costs MUCH more than producing a game 15 years ago.

Are games today more enjoyable? No.

Are games today selling more? No.

Then, what's the point? They are getting worse and generating less revenue. To me, it seems like something is broken.

I think game companies are investing their budgets in the WRONG departments. I don't need Marlon Brando's voice in a game, 50 cent rapping shit or Jean Reno being the hero. Neither I need 2 hours of stupid CG movies that I'm gonna end skipping after the first time I see'em. I don't need the extra-ass resolution and the excesive detail. That just WON'T make a game better.

I want style, innovation, personality, originality, expression. Don't try to lure me to buy your game by wowing me with cheap aestethic tricks. Don't try to be the next Hollywood. Offer me, instead, an enjoyable GAMING experience, and I'm all in.  

[Akhel]

It'd be awesome if everyone though like you, guillermo. Too bad they don't. Most people care more about LOLZ TEH SHINYE GRAFIX than gameplay or whatever.

[Alex May]

I spent a year an a half making Plug'n'play TV Games, ...

Ah ha.  Digital Eclipse I presume.

No, though I do believe we were working on the same material, SunPlus hardware etc, for Jakks Pacific. Who are morons btw. I was working in the UK for Curve, who'd got the work outsourced from Hotgen.

[Bebop]

I think MMORPG currently suck. You always do the same thing over and over and over. Levels are pointless, and Nobody plays in team, cooperate and do multiplayer stuff. But thats what mmorpgs should be about. Like alot of you said they reuse the same ideas as if it's going to sell more.

I think they should revive 2d gaming and sprites. not invest all they're money in em but at leats produce a little more. I respect a lot Koji Igarashi the castlevania Producer. He thinks the same thing and castlevania continues to do sprites and 2d games. I love platform game and I want some more. Nintendo ds was really great with those because They could add great sprites and effects. It was eye candy.

[Alex May]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with guillermo and Akhel here.

Producing a game today costs MUCH more than producing a game 15 years ago.

S'true

Are games today more enjoyable? No.

I very much disagree with this. I think that a much larger proportion of modern games are enjoyable as compared to twenty years ago. I can barely play half the games I used to play these days. The rock solid classics, Rainbow Islands, Exile, that sort of thing, those are still awesome, but the tons of crap I used to play and enjoy I now realise actually were crap. On average I'd say that the enjoyment factor of any given game has increased MASSIVELY in the past 20 years.

Are games today selling more? No.

Have you got any figures to back this statement up? Have you?

Most people care more about LOLZ TEH SHINYE GRAFIX

More people care about that now than they used to? Are you certain? I used to love looking at new screenshots of amazing-looking games in game magazines. The graphics were more than anything else the reason I'd be excited about the game. Sometimes there was an interesting game mechanic there that was being hyped up but so many more instances of a game's graphics being the source of the hype. Consider also that the demographic for games has changed and that people as old now as you were back then are different people to the person you were back then.

I too would like to see further innovation and better use of technology for more interesting video games, but blaming the average consumer for degrading the industry or wallowing in some rose-tinted retro coma are not valid answers IMO.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm finding myself agreeing with Haowan.

But there's one thing I can add. The main problem with the games industry in my mind is that people who play games grew up, but the industry didn't. They're still making games that kids find fun, there's a relative lack of games that adults find fun.

Adults have different tastes than kids. FPSs, RTSs, shooters, platformers, etc. are all basically kid games. While adults can enjoy kid games too, the way they can enjoy cartoons, their tastes are more mature than the candy and bubblegum style they grew up with, and the industry doesn't yet know how to make real food.

And no, the independent game community doesn't know how either. But at least they're more experimental and some of them are trying for it.

[vitaminNewB]

This is actually going wayyy back to some good points Bezzy made above, and everybody else too.  I think that what was said about marketing seems to be very true.  It is more of a hatred for the marketing practices and "strategies" that many companies are using.

I don't know if it's just me, but when I read in EGM (forgot which one) about  a game publisher who says that  we don't care about your new idea, "if it hasn't been done before we don't want it"  , that's enough to make me go find a pitchfork.  In other words what they're saying is add GUNZBOOBZz or it's a no go.  Even if it doesn't fit your particular genre of game.  That's where the hate comes in IMO.  Not all companies are like that, though most seem to be.  I think they even have a word now for why they do it.

For the creative few (artists, musicians, game devs, etc....) not having the ability to be creative would be the end of TEH RRWoLLld.  Just because you're making a game that is YOUR idea.  Not someone else's.  Critiques are great.  But when it comes to the point of someone saying "Add This or Die!", that seems like it would make my tummy feel funny.

One thing that keeps me pumped is when i hear about companies that were either dissolved or the key players decided to leave and "do their own thang".  Mistwalker (Final fantasy creator & Uematsu)  and Seeds  http://www.seeds-inc.jp/ (formerly Clover Studios, Okami) are two companies that i really admire for that.  They're hardcore in my books.  Can't wait to see what those ex-Clover guys come up with next!

edit:
ZooPs --> http://www.mistwalker.info/

[Inane]

I think the whole argument Rinkuhero made is based on the fact that most companies lay off a lot of people in order to hire people fresh out of college, so they can pay them less.
I'm actually not sure how many studios do that, though.

[guille]

I think that a much larger proportion of modern games are enjoyable as compared to twenty years ago.

I agree, they also used to release me-too games, clones, and hollow stuff back in the days. You can't help that.

A larger proportion of games are more enjoyable nowadays? I don't think so. And the problem is that games have evolved mostly in the audiovisual department. If you take a game like Dragon Quest VIII or Final Fantasy VII and take off all the cinemas, voices, and 3D graphics you are left with the same gameplay that the early games on the series had. Games that were released decades ago for 8-bit consoles.

You enjoy more current games because the industry focuses on making longer games, games where you can save oftenly, you are not as forced to be skilled to suceed, etc. So getting more playing time out of your games may make it more enjoyable to some. You get more time, but less quality time, in my opinion.

Today someone releases something that sells, and soon all the clones start to emerge from under the rocks. They are less willing to take any risks.

Have you got any figures to back this statement up? Have you?

You can see some numbers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_computer_and_video_games maybe there's not much difference in brute numbers, but the percentages is what matters. If you take into account the number of consoles sold, what was the avergae budget for a NES game compared to a PS2 one, price, and everything you will see that today they invest more and they need to sell more copies in order to make a profit, if to that you add there's more companies and games out there, you see what the problem is. And this is affecting not only the business side, but also the final games we get to play.

The graphics were more than anything else the reason I'd be excited about the game.

I think graphics are important, but there's two sides to it. One thing is graphical quality -technically speaking- (resolution, colors, number of polygons, filters, etc) and the other is graphical quality -artistically speaking- (styles, designs, innovation, variety). The industry seems so focused on the former, that's boring. For me an 'amazing looking game' is the one that has style, the one that seems unique. Not the one that's so high res and high poly and realistic but has no soul, that's boring. And you don't need the latest technology to show you've got style. That's the good thing.

I know, though, that the ones that are just getting into gaming see the industry as I saw it back in the NES days. That they can't stand NES just as I could never stand Atari. That happens. I'm not blaming anyone, it's a natural thing. Those kids will be ranting here 15 years from now complaining how the PS5 is not as good as the PS3 and I hope Derek Jr. is arround to ban the mothafuckers J/K.

[Arne]

Yeah, GUI/UI have gotten a lot better. More responsive and stuff.

People do prefer to spend $500 on a gfx card rather than a gameplay card of some sort. Of course, they might just have been locked in by "Minimum requirements".

I don't think games have gotten better looking though... if we look at the contemporary perception. Quake 1 was absolutely gorgeous in software render 400*300. More than enough pleasing. Demands met. Enough for gameplay presentation. When comparing it with new games it's obvious that it has aged, but mostly graphically and UI. The gameplay difference compared to new games is marginal, imo. We've gotten vehicles, ragdolls and crawling and babbling NPCs. In Q1 the corpses stays though :D


Out of my arse:
I think programmers are generally good game designers, because they understand how to break down problems, and quickly see potential problems with bad approaches. Some decades years ago, many game designers were probably the boss of the project, and they might have had gotten away with some... peak features that wouldn't survive the process as it looks today (for better or worse (worse)). Nowdays the man in charge of the game design and direction  can be someone who is just a "game designer" and I've heard whispers from some that have quit places that these people aren't very buff on the talents side.

On a sidenote, I think innovation can also be to do things that haven't been done... recently. There are lots of 'dead' genres that I think could be interesting if resurrected, such as a Blaster Master+Excite bike+Bionic Commando+Tribes+Metroid Sidescroller (I'm still at the concept level with that one.)

[moi]

Producing a game today costs MUCH more than producing a game 15 years ago.

Are games today more enjoyable? No.

Are games today selling more? No.

Then, what's the point? They are getting worse and generating less revenue. To me, it seems like something is broken.

I think game companies are investing their budgets in the WRONG departments. I don't need Marlon Brando's voice in a game, 50 cent rapping shit or Jean Reno being the hero. Neither I need 2 hours of stupid CG movies that I'm gonna end skipping after the first time I see'em. I don't need the extra-ass resolution and the excesive detail. That just WON'T make a game better.

I want style, innovation, personality, originality, expression. Don't try to lure me to buy your game by wowing me with cheap aestethic tricks. Don't try to be the next Hollywood. Offer me, instead, an enjoyable GAMING experience, and I'm all in. 

I agree with all you say, unfortunately  games based on hype (shiny graphics, useless CGI, derivative concepts) will sadly sell more than good games that don't present well in magazines or that aren't in the trend. If you manage to have all the teenagers talking about, say, Gears of wars, you know that the game will sell metric shitloads, even if it is not a good game (I'm not saying that GOW isn't good, it's just a theory here).
Everybody knows that pokemon is exploitation of the youth, nevertheless, everybody was buying it because the kids were asking for it.

In the same vein, stupid games like "Company of brother heroes of WW2" will sell a lot while "beyond good and evil" or "okami" will bring ruin to the devellopers.

[Bezzy]

Out of my arse:
I think programmers are generally good game designers, because they understand how to break down problems, and quickly see potential problems with bad approaches.

This is somewhat true. There are plenty of programmers who might be technically superb coders, but don't get game design at all (i.e. they're more interested in beautiful code than a beautiful experience for the player), and plenty of designers who don't know what's really possible in code, but who have fantastic ideas*. The trick (especially for small teams) is to be in the intersection - coders who design, or designers who code.

*And you also get shitty designers and coders, natch.

Some decades years ago, many game designers were probably the boss of the project, and they might have had gotten away with some... peak features that wouldn't survive the process as it looks today (for better or worse (worse)). Nowdays the man in charge of the game design and direction  can be someone who is just a "game designer" and I've heard whispers from some that have quit places that these people aren't very buff on the talents side.

Christ yes. Game development has changed. So has design. Used to be that adhoc design was never a problem - just throw as much shit at the wall as possible, and something will stick. With all the extra technical effort you need for a game nowadays, and especially with bigger teams, that's less and less practical. That's why prototyping has become so important - a place to experiment, BEFORE throwing lots of effort at an unproven idea.

On a sidenote, I think innovation can also be to do things that haven't been done... recently. There are lots of 'dead' genres that I think could be interesting if resurrected, such as a Blaster Master+Excite bike+Bionic Commando+Tribes+Metroid Sidescroller (I'm still at the concept level with that one.)

I completely agree. Lots of people love to say that "all games are pong" or "all racing games are basically the same"* or whatever, but a lot of forgotten ideas can be revitalized with new technology, as well as more refined design.

*That's actually a minor personal bugbear of mine... people saying "Graphics don't matter, gameplay is everything". I used to think this, and the sentiment is in the right place, but nowadays, I think that might be a bit of a simplification. It's true that we don't need high fidelity to get an idea across, but fidelity does affect how we feel... it affects player psychology, which feeds into how they play the game, even if the core mechanics are, indeed, identical. Admittedly, it probably doesn't affect you quite as much as mechanical changes to, but to suggest that it has no affect seems like willful ignorance, wouldn't you say? I don't mean to say that higher fidelity == better... just that different levels of fidelity create different emotions.

I don't mean to confuse the changing of fidelity with the changing of the actual information fed-back from a game - which certainly has more affect on how you play than pure fidelity changes. For example, Grand Theft Auto 3 gives you different information than Grand Theft Auto, just because of its camera position - the mechanics may be pretty similar (alright... they're not identical, but if they were...), still, the way in which information is conveyed changes how you play substantially more than just a new lick of paint (not that the new lick of paint doesn't).

I think I've probably said enough now. Bye!

[Xion]

Sometimes I just feel like playing a game that I've played before, in the same room I've played before, with the same controls I've played before, but with different graphics and different characters and enemies and levels.
I really don't judge games on mainstream or not, more like a just plain "is it fun?" (same with music). I'll admit I succomb to graphics and franchises, but it sometimes is worth it because the graphics immerse me with the same formula and the franchise delivers what I'm used to.
While I do believe that the Industry is getting extremely repetitive, there are very good games out there and on the way. They may not be innovative but they're fun for the sake of being fun. I can play a fun game 100 times and if it's still fun in the end I won't hesitate to ask for more games like it.
When I want something original I come to the indies, and they deliver what I expect just as the Industry delivers what I expect. Besides, if the Industry came out with an original game you can't honestly say that within the first ten inevitable clones from other game companies you wouldn't go "come out with something new already" even when the original only came out about a year ago.

So it's people like me who crave those cloned games and make people like you mad I guess.

But I guess I don't matter because I don't know anything. Da's jist mah 1/4 uv a cen'.

[Matt]

The industry world-wide is broken economically.
-The emerging economic model for publishers is mirroring the movie industry, yet they are drastically different and require different models. The 'Big Budget Blockbuster' is off-set by Independent film and low-budget successes. Games outside of the current 'Big Budget Blockbuster' zone have no chance to compete financially.
-Movies have equalized in content and price whereas games still have no defining measuring stick.
-The audience and publishers have a skewed perception of value. Publishers want(need?) more money for the amount of product they are making. Audiences want more content regardless of price. The pricing model is out-dated.
-Personel management and pay are pointing towards the hollywood model as well. Big productions have a bloated staff or are understaffed. Pay is disproportionate to work and time invested.

There are a lot more issues and they can't be fixed over-night. I think Nintendo has a much better business strategy and economic model than most other companies, but they are one of the few that is going in a new direction.
Meanwhile, the 'industry' is cannibalizing other companies and waiting for Nintendo to stagger.
And much hot-air as he spews, I hope Costikyan succeeds somehowin creating his utopian model. Then we would a new alternative.

[progrium]

But there's one thing I can add. The main problem with the games industry in my mind is that people who play games grew up, but the industry didn't. They're still making games that kids find fun, there's a relative lack of games that adults find fun.

It's probably worth pointing out that today they still don't really make games for kids in general, but mostly for boys.

Anyway, there's not much more I can add to this thread. You've all covered the major pain points in some way.

One thing I don't think I heard though was about the persistence of individual games. Whereas, say, a film lasts quite a while, a game doesn't last very long.

Part of it is a technology thing because older games can't always run on the latest platforms (this extends into PC games as well!), however we've gotten smarter about this with building in backwards compatibility, and the Wii is supporting ported classic games.

It would be nice if we could figure out a system where we can release and get exposure as much as they do in movies: theatrical, DVD, movie channels, basic cable, etc.

What I would really love right now is if somebody would start another thread where we can synthesize ideas to change and build a better industry. Enough talking about what's wrong, let's do something about it, right?

One approach is to try and take the system of problems we have, and design an ideal industry where all these problems just don't exist. With an ideal industry, we can start making iterative efforts towards turning what we have into the ideal.

I think a big part of this, and it didn't seem like anybody mentioned this problem of the industry, is to build out infrastructure for indie. I really don't see "the industry" and indie as separate, but I can understand how you could see it that way. Our industry (and I say "our" as an indie though I'm referring to the game industry) has no room for indies.

However, those who have power in the industry have little incentive to built this infrastructure out. It's going to be our responsibility. We have to do it, and I have no doubt that we can.

Although it's going to take more than just Costikyan and his people (which I was at one point)...