The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Games are becoming an increasingly mainstream medium, but is this a positive move for an industry founded on originality and innovation?
Ten years ago, if you were to ask Joe Public about his opinion on gaming, you may well have been assured (with some authority) that it was a pastime reserved for geeks and hermits. Nowadays however, this attitude exists only among the minority, and you’ll be more likely to be greeted with interest than you are the phrase ‘get a life’ when sparking off such a conversation. Over the past decade, the games industry has grown massively in popularity, and Joe has managed to become its most influential man by merely following the crowd. The question is, do we want him to be?
Joe is a casual player, yet he represents the key demographic. The more involved or ‘hardcore’ gamers who have stood by the industry since its shaky beginnings have been forgotten to make way for the average consumer, who outnumbers them considerably. He doesn’t care for originality or innovation – he wants yearly sports updates, he wants sequels, he wants movie tie-ins and, unfortunately, what he wants matters. It is a sad fact that, because of this, many modern masterpieces are quickly forgotten in spite of good press, such as Sony’s epic Ico – a game that received mass critical acclaim due to the unique way in which it exploited the player’s imagination to create an engrossing experience. Instead, it is generic rubbish like Shiny’s Enter the Matrix, a clumsy and rushed movie tie-in if there ever was one, that is sold by the truckload. The consequences are tragic, and we are left with uninspired nonsense cluttering the release lists as a cruel evolutionary process comes into play. After all, is the games industry not a business? Why should publishers fund original projects when the profits will inevitably be minimal or non-existent?
It takes a mere glance down the weekly television listings or music and film top tens to see examples of this business orientated survival of the fittest in other areas. How ideas like Holiday Hospital are passed for broadcast, while brilliance such as Family Guy is cancelled indefinitely is a concept we must grudgingly accept. Furthermore, the music industry appears to have reached an all-time low, and it is a struggle to think of a great film since the nineties. What is perhaps the most depressing thing of all, though, is that this firmly proves that there really is a market out there for such manufactured garbage. However, this is not to say there isn’t hope. The music industry is on a decline in royalties caused by reduced CD sales, and over the past few years, games have generated more revenue than box office, video and DVD sales combined. It seems that if the games industry continues down this path, it will lead to both its financial peak, and its eventual demise.
Peter Molyneux, Managing Director of Lionhead Studios, is known to have strong views regarding this quickly growing commercial pressure. “Making a computer game now is incredibly expensive. A few developers are really, really struggling. The small independents are the creators of all the new, fresh and different ideas and that is definitely going to suffer.”
The most obvious solution is for publishers and developers to establish some form of balance, and signs of this are already apparent. Nintendo and Sega, for example, have always been known as driving forces in the industry with regards to innovation, but they too are guilty of rehashing franchises for easy profit. Sega have not yet managed to create a 3D Sonic title that is as playable as its 2D cousins, and the GameCube updates of Mario and Mario Kart have shown little of the originality Nintendo are known for. Yet it is these guaranteed sellers that provide the funding for the risky innovations like Pikmin and Animal Crossing from Nintendo, and Rez and Jet Set Radio from Sega.
As with every generalisation, however, there are exceptions. Metroid Prime, Super Mario World, and the truly epic Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are but a few examples of astounding sequels to major game franchises while Goldeneye 007 and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic are a testimony to the fact that once every so often, an excellent film tie-in does come along. So it all comes back down to this notion that a proportion of old against new needs to be instituted. Ideally, the shelves need to be cleared of the tripe that sells simply because it has a brand name to it, and replaced with the sequels that do deserve recognition – all the while leaving space for new, exciting games. All that is needed now is for our friend Joe to realise that.
Sadly though, we are still stuck in a world where critical acclaim doesn’t necessarily guarantee commercial success, and it looks as if that won’t be changing any time soon. In the meanwhile, try not to be part of the problem. As we experience what is probably the slowest time of the gaming calendar, the summer drought, it may be a good idea to try something a little different with what spare cash you might have lying around. Who knows? You might just be surprised.
Mav.
Ten years ago, if you were to ask Joe Public about his opinion on gaming, you may well have been assured (with some authority) that it was a pastime reserved for geeks and hermits. Nowadays however, this attitude exists only among the minority, and you’ll be more likely to be greeted with interest than you are the phrase ‘get a life’ when sparking off such a conversation. Over the past decade, the games industry has grown massively in popularity, and Joe has managed to become its most influential man by merely following the crowd. The question is, do we want him to be?
Joe is a casual player, yet he represents the key demographic. The more involved or ‘hardcore’ gamers who have stood by the industry since its shaky beginnings have been forgotten to make way for the average consumer, who outnumbers them considerably. He doesn’t care for originality or innovation – he wants yearly sports updates, he wants sequels, he wants movie tie-ins and, unfortunately, what he wants matters. It is a sad fact that, because of this, many modern masterpieces are quickly forgotten in spite of good press, such as Sony’s epic Ico – a game that received mass critical acclaim due to the unique way in which it exploited the player’s imagination to create an engrossing experience. Instead, it is generic rubbish like Shiny’s Enter the Matrix, a clumsy and rushed movie tie-in if there ever was one, that is sold by the truckload. The consequences are tragic, and we are left with uninspired nonsense cluttering the release lists as a cruel evolutionary process comes into play. After all, is the games industry not a business? Why should publishers fund original projects when the profits will inevitably be minimal or non-existent?
It takes a mere glance down the weekly television listings or music and film top tens to see examples of this business orientated survival of the fittest in other areas. How ideas like Holiday Hospital are passed for broadcast, while brilliance such as Family Guy is cancelled indefinitely is a concept we must grudgingly accept. Furthermore, the music industry appears to have reached an all-time low, and it is a struggle to think of a great film since the nineties. What is perhaps the most depressing thing of all, though, is that this firmly proves that there really is a market out there for such manufactured garbage. However, this is not to say there isn’t hope. The music industry is on a decline in royalties caused by reduced CD sales, and over the past few years, games have generated more revenue than box office, video and DVD sales combined. It seems that if the games industry continues down this path, it will lead to both its financial peak, and its eventual demise.
Peter Molyneux, Managing Director of Lionhead Studios, is known to have strong views regarding this quickly growing commercial pressure. “Making a computer game now is incredibly expensive. A few developers are really, really struggling. The small independents are the creators of all the new, fresh and different ideas and that is definitely going to suffer.”
The most obvious solution is for publishers and developers to establish some form of balance, and signs of this are already apparent. Nintendo and Sega, for example, have always been known as driving forces in the industry with regards to innovation, but they too are guilty of rehashing franchises for easy profit. Sega have not yet managed to create a 3D Sonic title that is as playable as its 2D cousins, and the GameCube updates of Mario and Mario Kart have shown little of the originality Nintendo are known for. Yet it is these guaranteed sellers that provide the funding for the risky innovations like Pikmin and Animal Crossing from Nintendo, and Rez and Jet Set Radio from Sega.
As with every generalisation, however, there are exceptions. Metroid Prime, Super Mario World, and the truly epic Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are but a few examples of astounding sequels to major game franchises while Goldeneye 007 and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic are a testimony to the fact that once every so often, an excellent film tie-in does come along. So it all comes back down to this notion that a proportion of old against new needs to be instituted. Ideally, the shelves need to be cleared of the tripe that sells simply because it has a brand name to it, and replaced with the sequels that do deserve recognition – all the while leaving space for new, exciting games. All that is needed now is for our friend Joe to realise that.
Sadly though, we are still stuck in a world where critical acclaim doesn’t necessarily guarantee commercial success, and it looks as if that won’t be changing any time soon. In the meanwhile, try not to be part of the problem. As we experience what is probably the slowest time of the gaming calendar, the summer drought, it may be a good idea to try something a little different with what spare cash you might have lying around. Who knows? You might just be surprised.
Mav.
Page:
I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer, even though I only started gaming a few years ago. I have n about 70 games, and countless demos, and free internet games. Im sure lots of you have far more impressive collections. Anyway, the point is that I like origional games as much as the next person, but I also like fun games. Im looking forward to getting The Matrix Online because it looks truly enjoyable. Im not a big MMORPR player, or even a RPG player but it looks like an enjoyable way to spend 6 hours of my weekend.
But nothing can beat a game revolution, such as FF7, a beauty, however now the series has descended into a corporate slum. The latest are just attempts to sell using the presious titles. There will always be classics like Empire Earth, or Halo. The market is just so lucrative that despite demand for games for the sake of playing games, there is still a demand for truly special games, works of art if you will. Im sure you all remember Diablo? Im sure games like that will be around for a long time. As for spin offs like Blade Runner and Enter the Matrix. Blade Runner was an excellent game. A lot of sweat and blood went into it. It was loosely based on the previous idea, however it was a whole new game. The plot wasnt that close to the film, or the book that influenced it. It was n idea unto itself. As for Enter the Matrix, that isnt what I would consider an origional game. Its a way people, mainly fans of the genre, can continue the idea of the Matrix, to a possibly infinite extent. Altohugh the second and third movies sucked, The first posed some very interesting ideas and its style was unbeatable. This type of games gives fans a way to continue the idea, and for the film/book/tv show to live forever. Its not always a money driven scheme.
But nothing can beat a game revolution, such as FF7, a beauty, however now the series has descended into a corporate slum. The latest are just attempts to sell using the presious titles. There will always be classics like Empire Earth, or Halo. The market is just so lucrative that despite demand for games for the sake of playing games, there is still a demand for truly special games, works of art if you will. Im sure you all remember Diablo? Im sure games like that will be around for a long time. As for spin offs like Blade Runner and Enter the Matrix. Blade Runner was an excellent game. A lot of sweat and blood went into it. It was loosely based on the previous idea, however it was a whole new game. The plot wasnt that close to the film, or the book that influenced it. It was n idea unto itself. As for Enter the Matrix, that isnt what I would consider an origional game. Its a way people, mainly fans of the genre, can continue the idea of the Matrix, to a possibly infinite extent. Altohugh the second and third movies sucked, The first posed some very interesting ideas and its style was unbeatable. This type of games gives fans a way to continue the idea, and for the film/book/tv show to live forever. Its not always a money driven scheme.
Evolution. As you watch it, you can see David Duchovny realise what a massive mistake it was to leave The X-Files.
Revolution
It's rhetorical, friend.
evolution
Evolution of the Revolution :-)
There - I said I'd read them, and almost a month later, I have :-)
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Electrum wrote:
> Wasnt this forum title used by Tony Hares (programming commissioner of
> the BBC) in 'Im Alan Partridge: Series 1, episode 1. Rather comical
> when alan forgot which one, evolution or revolution came first.
Yes it is, but it's actually a phrase that I've heard commonly used on these forums and elsewhere. The headline in that I'm Alan Partridge episode, "Evolution not Revolution", was probably an adaptation of the phrase :-)
> Im actually glad that game success isnt based on critical accclaim
> (remember that Enter the Matrix scored highly on most commercial
> magazines) although since you mentioned both Rez and Ico I assume
> that you read Edge or some other forward thinking computer magazine.
Fair point. The magazine situation can also be linked back to business and profit. Casual gamers are in abundance, and so people must write magazines to reflect the views of these people. I personally read gamesTM, who are like Edge but I agree with their scores.
> Sometimes innovation for innovation's sake doesnt make a fun game,
> i've played Rez to completion and can say that I found more generic
> titles like Soul Calibur 2 and Devil May Cry much more fun
To be honest though, Soul Calibur 2 and Devil May Cry are two rather innovative titles themselves. While a sequel, Soul Calibur 2 is based around weaponry - quite a different approach for a beat 'em up game, when the genre usually focuses around Street Fighter-style combat. Devil May Cry marked a merge between 2D side-scrolling action games and 3D horror such as Resident Evil, and inspired games such as Viewtiful Joe.
> Wasnt this forum title used by Tony Hares (programming commissioner of
> the BBC) in 'Im Alan Partridge: Series 1, episode 1. Rather comical
> when alan forgot which one, evolution or revolution came first.
Yes it is, but it's actually a phrase that I've heard commonly used on these forums and elsewhere. The headline in that I'm Alan Partridge episode, "Evolution not Revolution", was probably an adaptation of the phrase :-)
> Im actually glad that game success isnt based on critical accclaim
> (remember that Enter the Matrix scored highly on most commercial
> magazines) although since you mentioned both Rez and Ico I assume
> that you read Edge or some other forward thinking computer magazine.
Fair point. The magazine situation can also be linked back to business and profit. Casual gamers are in abundance, and so people must write magazines to reflect the views of these people. I personally read gamesTM, who are like Edge but I agree with their scores.
> Sometimes innovation for innovation's sake doesnt make a fun game,
> i've played Rez to completion and can say that I found more generic
> titles like Soul Calibur 2 and Devil May Cry much more fun
To be honest though, Soul Calibur 2 and Devil May Cry are two rather innovative titles themselves. While a sequel, Soul Calibur 2 is based around weaponry - quite a different approach for a beat 'em up game, when the genre usually focuses around Street Fighter-style combat. Devil May Cry marked a merge between 2D side-scrolling action games and 3D horror such as Resident Evil, and inspired games such as Viewtiful Joe.
Strafio wrote:
> The public like tried and tested because they know where they stand
> with it. More experienced gamers like innovation because they've
> played the old stuff to death and it bores them.
It makes sense really - for every older generation of gamers who have grown bored of old ideas, there's a new generation of customers who are just starting to experience the gaming world. Therefore, to them, tried and tested is innovative and so there's no need for developers to go that extra mile for originality.
> The public like tried and tested because they know where they stand
> with it. More experienced gamers like innovation because they've
> played the old stuff to death and it bores them.
It makes sense really - for every older generation of gamers who have grown bored of old ideas, there's a new generation of customers who are just starting to experience the gaming world. Therefore, to them, tried and tested is innovative and so there's no need for developers to go that extra mile for originality.
Lou Role wrote:
> some of the GC titles are deceptivaly involving and would
> certainly provide a casual with more than a challenge.
Indeed. I doubt you'd find any "kiddies" that can complete Super Mario Sunshine. People just aren't willing to give things a chance when it's much easier to just follow the crowd.
> some of the GC titles are deceptivaly involving and would
> certainly provide a casual with more than a challenge.
Indeed. I doubt you'd find any "kiddies" that can complete Super Mario Sunshine. People just aren't willing to give things a chance when it's much easier to just follow the crowd.
Page: