The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Get in! 2nd GAD!
Cheers SR.
This should help with what looks to be a great year for games. :D
Cheers SR.
This should help with what looks to be a great year for games. :D
Well done, I got my first today. :D
Mav wrote:
> Thanks for the replies, guys.
>
> As I say, it's somewhat unfair that those with a real passion for
> games have next to no input with regards to what hits the shelves.
> Now it's for the most part dictated by "Joe" and the
> businessmen that develop them.
>
> Something that, I feel, is rather sad.
Well done on the GAD Mav, it was well deserved as that was a brilliant post. I've been thinking the same thing for ages but unfortunetly I couldn't really put it all into words like you have, but it's good to know that their are still some proper gamers out there that think the same as myself.
I think the post I quoted basically sums up the whole situation, there are way too many casual gamers nowadays, and I think gaming is becoming too popular for it's own good, I reckon this is largely due to the PS2. For some reason it seems to sell by the truckload, but take the GC for example, it has some of the most original, fun and quirky games out there, but because these casual gamers can't understand half these games, they just ignore them, which is a tragedy really.
The same goes for the X-Box, PGR2 is easily one of the best racers ever created, but nonsense like NFSU outsells it because casual gamers are easily amused by sticking some parts onto a car, but if they had any sense at all, they would realise that the actual racing itself is well below average.
I said this earlier today in another topic, but I'm actually quite glad that the GC and X-Box aren't as popular as the PS2, as these casual gamers would attract the same nonsense that appears on the PS2 and we would get endless movie tie-ins, and blatant cash-ins. The X-Box, and especially the GC are a great source of brilliant, original games like Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, Halo, PGR2, Harvest Moon, Super Monkey Ball and many others.
Maybe this is why the GC and X-Box don't sell as well as the PS2, it's not the lack of brilliant games, it's the lack of poor titles that the casuals apparently love so much. As you say, casuals far outnumber the dedicated gamer so they will head off to the shops and buy their PS2's because they are simply oblivious to the higher quality titles that can be found elsewhere. Wheras a more initiated gamer will probably head off and buy a GC, and get laughed at for buying the 'kiddies console'.
Which is another thing that annoys me, if someone had to actually sit down and play titles like Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin etc, then they would quickly change their opinions. These games may look kiddy but there certainly isn't anything kiddy about them, some of the GC titles are deceptivaly involving and would certainly provide a casual with more than a challenge.
I think that eventually there will come a time when gaming becomes too popular and games developers will just churn out endless cash-ins for all consoles in order to please "Joe", as you put it, and eventually the more dedicated gamers like myself will just grow tired of rubbish releases. So while the new era of gamers carry on buying the below average nonsense that'll be released, we will all just stick to our older consoles and become the new batch of retro gamers.
> Thanks for the replies, guys.
>
> As I say, it's somewhat unfair that those with a real passion for
> games have next to no input with regards to what hits the shelves.
> Now it's for the most part dictated by "Joe" and the
> businessmen that develop them.
>
> Something that, I feel, is rather sad.
Well done on the GAD Mav, it was well deserved as that was a brilliant post. I've been thinking the same thing for ages but unfortunetly I couldn't really put it all into words like you have, but it's good to know that their are still some proper gamers out there that think the same as myself.
I think the post I quoted basically sums up the whole situation, there are way too many casual gamers nowadays, and I think gaming is becoming too popular for it's own good, I reckon this is largely due to the PS2. For some reason it seems to sell by the truckload, but take the GC for example, it has some of the most original, fun and quirky games out there, but because these casual gamers can't understand half these games, they just ignore them, which is a tragedy really.
The same goes for the X-Box, PGR2 is easily one of the best racers ever created, but nonsense like NFSU outsells it because casual gamers are easily amused by sticking some parts onto a car, but if they had any sense at all, they would realise that the actual racing itself is well below average.
I said this earlier today in another topic, but I'm actually quite glad that the GC and X-Box aren't as popular as the PS2, as these casual gamers would attract the same nonsense that appears on the PS2 and we would get endless movie tie-ins, and blatant cash-ins. The X-Box, and especially the GC are a great source of brilliant, original games like Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, Halo, PGR2, Harvest Moon, Super Monkey Ball and many others.
Maybe this is why the GC and X-Box don't sell as well as the PS2, it's not the lack of brilliant games, it's the lack of poor titles that the casuals apparently love so much. As you say, casuals far outnumber the dedicated gamer so they will head off to the shops and buy their PS2's because they are simply oblivious to the higher quality titles that can be found elsewhere. Wheras a more initiated gamer will probably head off and buy a GC, and get laughed at for buying the 'kiddies console'.
Which is another thing that annoys me, if someone had to actually sit down and play titles like Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin etc, then they would quickly change their opinions. These games may look kiddy but there certainly isn't anything kiddy about them, some of the GC titles are deceptivaly involving and would certainly provide a casual with more than a challenge.
I think that eventually there will come a time when gaming becomes too popular and games developers will just churn out endless cash-ins for all consoles in order to please "Joe", as you put it, and eventually the more dedicated gamers like myself will just grow tired of rubbish releases. So while the new era of gamers carry on buying the below average nonsense that'll be released, we will all just stick to our older consoles and become the new batch of retro gamers.
yep, its a concenring topic which could be debated for hours. i think one of the main reasons for the PS2s popularity is as you say the amount of p*ss poor movie tie ins and rubbish cartoon spin offs that appeal to fans of the movies.
The PS2 is also very attractive to casual gamers simply because of the shere volume of games that are available for it! Annoying parents look to buy a console for their kid for chris**tmas an they go s**traight for what they think is bigges**t and bes**t! they do very little research into what their kid might like and jus**t buy a PS2 becuase it has the larges**t shelf space in the shop they went into.
It is also amazing how little good quality titles come out for the GBA any more in relation to the ammount of sh*t that is shovelled on to the shelves each week! I have been considerabbly put off by the GBA (even though I own one) due to the endless clutter of mary kate and ashley, jimmy newtron, rugrats, shrek, powerpuff girls, barby, wild thornberries, and various other disney cash in titles that take up 75% of the GBAs shelf space. There has been no thought put int othese games at all and there all basically replicas of each other as you take on the role of the main charcter colletcing various coins and poo to save the day! But it sells! somehow this trash is appealing to people!! It annoys to have to wade through piles of garbage to find a decent game such as goldensun or advance wars. The gba is now jus**t a marketting tool for movie makers to make more money out of their recycled boring films.
If I had my way, games based on kids movies would be banned. (full s**top)
The PS2 is also very attractive to casual gamers simply because of the shere volume of games that are available for it! Annoying parents look to buy a console for their kid for chris**tmas an they go s**traight for what they think is bigges**t and bes**t! they do very little research into what their kid might like and jus**t buy a PS2 becuase it has the larges**t shelf space in the shop they went into.
It is also amazing how little good quality titles come out for the GBA any more in relation to the ammount of sh*t that is shovelled on to the shelves each week! I have been considerabbly put off by the GBA (even though I own one) due to the endless clutter of mary kate and ashley, jimmy newtron, rugrats, shrek, powerpuff girls, barby, wild thornberries, and various other disney cash in titles that take up 75% of the GBAs shelf space. There has been no thought put int othese games at all and there all basically replicas of each other as you take on the role of the main charcter colletcing various coins and poo to save the day! But it sells! somehow this trash is appealing to people!! It annoys to have to wade through piles of garbage to find a decent game such as goldensun or advance wars. The gba is now jus**t a marketting tool for movie makers to make more money out of their recycled boring films.
If I had my way, games based on kids movies would be banned. (full s**top)
Hmmm...
Innovation is always risky, but it brings up the biggest success.
The biggest franchises and gaming phenomenoms usually started with something innoative.
Even Fifa was probably the first game to accurately capture the "just like on TV" experience of the beautiful game.
And where they're sucesses, they're BIG sucesses.
Pokémon, Goldeneye, Doom, Mario, Donkey Kong (the original), GTA 3 (the idea of bringing a city to life and just doing what they hell you like...).
No matter what industry you go into, there's the safies that stick to tried and tested formulae (EA) and you get the more imaginative companies trying to expand ideas onto the next big thing (Nintendo and Sega).
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.
That's why I like movies that critics have flamed.
Who cares if it's been done to death, it's still new to me! :-)
Innovation is always risky, but it brings up the biggest success.
The biggest franchises and gaming phenomenoms usually started with something innoative.
Even Fifa was probably the first game to accurately capture the "just like on TV" experience of the beautiful game.
And where they're sucesses, they're BIG sucesses.
Pokémon, Goldeneye, Doom, Mario, Donkey Kong (the original), GTA 3 (the idea of bringing a city to life and just doing what they hell you like...).
No matter what industry you go into, there's the safies that stick to tried and tested formulae (EA) and you get the more imaginative companies trying to expand ideas onto the next big thing (Nintendo and Sega).
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.
That's why I like movies that critics have flamed.
Who cares if it's been done to death, it's still new to me! :-)
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.
Dont mean to detract from the conversation but had to bring it up..
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.
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, still each to their own. But I can see your point so far that at least we learn from innovation rather than retreading the mucky path of movie tie-ins etc.
Tough cookie this one, after all the softcore market does pay the developers wages...
Dont mean to detract from the conversation but had to bring it up..
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.
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, still each to their own. But I can see your point so far that at least we learn from innovation rather than retreading the mucky path of movie tie-ins etc.
Tough cookie this one, after all the softcore market does pay the developers wages...
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.
Dont mean to detract from the conversation but had to bring it up..
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.
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, still each to their own. But I can see your point so far that at least we learn from innovation rather than retreading the mucky path of movie tie-ins etc.
Tough cookie this one, after all the softcore market does pay the developers wages...
Dont mean to detract from the conversation but had to bring it up..
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.
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, still each to their own. But I can see your point so far that at least we learn from innovation rather than retreading the mucky path of movie tie-ins etc.
Tough cookie this one, after all the softcore market does pay the developers wages...
Yikes.
Four replies since I last checked.
I'm tired now, but I'll read 'em soon :-D.
Four replies since I last checked.
I'm tired now, but I'll read 'em soon :-D.
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.
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.
Page: