The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yeah yet again it is another long and probably most will find it boring but now that you are here then why not give it a read and see for yourself if it was worth it. Probably me just ranting on but we all do it and I feel it is about time somebody addressed this on here.
I study computer science at university and a large part of the course is learning to develop software and the legal and professional issues associated with that. Games as you all know are a form of software, also a form of entertainment medium just like films and television but gaming never seems to get the respect from ordinary people it really deserves. Sure those who love it know what it means to them but to those who know very little on it they seem to regard it as being something it certainly isn't.
For example all the fuss about games being violent and influencing children to do violent things, firstly games don't make people violent, violent people make games an excuse and secondly it is the responsibility of any parent to ensure that the games their child plays is suitable and they are happy with them playing it. The second is a big problem in society as people don't fully understand just how realistic and life like a game can be these days, games that contain scenes intended for adults shouldn't be played by children unless they fully understand that what the see is only a game and should not be copied.
Why is the gaming industry treated differently than the movie or TV industries? The only real main difference is that gaming is interactive. One problem I can see is that in the past gaming was seen as a kiddie thing and many may still share this view. If they have no knowledge at all in the industry today then they may feel that any game is suitable for a child and when a violent game gets bad publicity they automatically jump onto the bandwagon to criticise this game although they have very little knowledge on the subject.
My next point is about the developers, ok so creating the software is their job but do they really get enough praise and thanks for what they do, sure sometimes they fail to release it on time but bare in mind most of the times the person who sets the initial date probably has no input into the game or experience in programming games so they can't really plan how long the whole thing will take. But if you think about this seriously, most can think of their favourite movie directors or music bands or actors but with games most seem to remember characters for the games and the developers name but that's all they care to know (apart from the supreme hardcore gamers out there).
This may just be my opinion but I see creating games more like creating music or a form of art but it seems these days as though it is like creating a product to sell to a mass market, only the programmers really see it as art anymore which in some ways annoys me. Most game developers create games for the enjoyment of seeing the end product, the publishers probably mostly do it for the money.
There is a lot of problems these days to find programmers with the ability to make a high standard of games, firstly because gaming seems to have a kiddie image to most, secondly to do well you need to have some kind of interest in it and thirdly the money. Most software developers and programmers could leave Uni and start earning at around £30 000 a year and more, game programmers seem to be lucky to earn just over half that amount so unless something is done the number of programmers interested in designing games could go down and down until very few remain.
Writing software of any kind is very difficult as any programmers out there will know. Creating games is just as hard and PC game programmers have a very hard job as the hardware is constantly changing so they have to plan to match the hardware that is out when the game is released.
What annoys me is that the publisher 9 times out of ten will get the credit for the creation of a game when all they really do is finalise the release date and make sure it is on the shelf when it is released so people can buy it. If this happened in the music or film industry then the likes of Steven Spielberg wouldn't receive credit for movies, it would be the likes of Universal, paramount etc that would. Instead of the artist getting the credit they deserve for writing and performing the song it would be the producer and record label who would get the credit. It doesn't seem fair but that is what seems to happen in the gaming industry. A lot of the Microsoft games are not written at all by Microsoft but by various other developers yet it always seems to be Microsoft who get the credit (or slating). So why is this allowed to happen in the gaming industry? I think that the developers should get more credit and that way maybe get the respect they deserve, that way maybe more will try get into it and the standard of game could reach a new level as the experience and knowledge will increase.
The developers of any game are extremely important, they are like chefs, they take all the ideas and write the suitable code to implement the idea and turn it into a game in the same way a chef turns ingredients into a full meal. Without them there would be no games. How many of you actually consider what the programmers had to do to make your favourite game? Ok I realise that there is a lot more to any game than the programmers such as the story writers, music, publishers, sponsors etc but you have to admit the developers part is huge and shouldn't go as un-noticed as it does.
When creating any type of software it is best to, when you can use pre-written software as long as it is useful and not out of date. This happens a lot in the gaming industry with sequels to games. Example of this is Fifa by EA, but it is worth pointing out that Fifa games have been around since earlier consoles like the SNES and Megadrive and some of the original code will still be used today. Maybe it is time the code is changed and updated to match today's standards and to get the best out of the hardware available.
My last point is one that may interest those of you who like to think about what we may see in the future. I have been reading into peoples expectations of what PC hardware will be like in the future. One thing shocked me, in 30 years a desktop PC will have the processing and storage ability of every human brain on the planet. It may seem far fetched but with the way things are advancing at the moment it could be seen earlier than that. I thought to myself what this could mean for the gaming industry and there are hundreds of possibilities. Games could be close to perfection. Imagine a game like GTA3, every single person in the level could behave differently each having a unique lifestyle to themselves. They would go about their daily lives and all react differently to what you do. Also the choices for details, length of the game, character emotions and moral decisions etc. There would probably be no restrictions on what to include and what they can't include in terms of fitting it onto a disk so developers could get everything they wanted and a few little extras. Also what will the graphics, storage mediums, gameplay, music etc of games be like then? Games like this may seem like a dream to most of us but one day they will be a reality. I'm just hoping that my love for gaming lasts long enough so I can experience it.
This is all my opinion and I am sure some will have different views. If you have read it and have an opinion of some kind on it then please reply.
I study computer science at university and a large part of the course is learning to develop software and the legal and professional issues associated with that. Games as you all know are a form of software, also a form of entertainment medium just like films and television but gaming never seems to get the respect from ordinary people it really deserves. Sure those who love it know what it means to them but to those who know very little on it they seem to regard it as being something it certainly isn't.
For example all the fuss about games being violent and influencing children to do violent things, firstly games don't make people violent, violent people make games an excuse and secondly it is the responsibility of any parent to ensure that the games their child plays is suitable and they are happy with them playing it. The second is a big problem in society as people don't fully understand just how realistic and life like a game can be these days, games that contain scenes intended for adults shouldn't be played by children unless they fully understand that what the see is only a game and should not be copied.
Why is the gaming industry treated differently than the movie or TV industries? The only real main difference is that gaming is interactive. One problem I can see is that in the past gaming was seen as a kiddie thing and many may still share this view. If they have no knowledge at all in the industry today then they may feel that any game is suitable for a child and when a violent game gets bad publicity they automatically jump onto the bandwagon to criticise this game although they have very little knowledge on the subject.
My next point is about the developers, ok so creating the software is their job but do they really get enough praise and thanks for what they do, sure sometimes they fail to release it on time but bare in mind most of the times the person who sets the initial date probably has no input into the game or experience in programming games so they can't really plan how long the whole thing will take. But if you think about this seriously, most can think of their favourite movie directors or music bands or actors but with games most seem to remember characters for the games and the developers name but that's all they care to know (apart from the supreme hardcore gamers out there).
This may just be my opinion but I see creating games more like creating music or a form of art but it seems these days as though it is like creating a product to sell to a mass market, only the programmers really see it as art anymore which in some ways annoys me. Most game developers create games for the enjoyment of seeing the end product, the publishers probably mostly do it for the money.
There is a lot of problems these days to find programmers with the ability to make a high standard of games, firstly because gaming seems to have a kiddie image to most, secondly to do well you need to have some kind of interest in it and thirdly the money. Most software developers and programmers could leave Uni and start earning at around £30 000 a year and more, game programmers seem to be lucky to earn just over half that amount so unless something is done the number of programmers interested in designing games could go down and down until very few remain.
Writing software of any kind is very difficult as any programmers out there will know. Creating games is just as hard and PC game programmers have a very hard job as the hardware is constantly changing so they have to plan to match the hardware that is out when the game is released.
What annoys me is that the publisher 9 times out of ten will get the credit for the creation of a game when all they really do is finalise the release date and make sure it is on the shelf when it is released so people can buy it. If this happened in the music or film industry then the likes of Steven Spielberg wouldn't receive credit for movies, it would be the likes of Universal, paramount etc that would. Instead of the artist getting the credit they deserve for writing and performing the song it would be the producer and record label who would get the credit. It doesn't seem fair but that is what seems to happen in the gaming industry. A lot of the Microsoft games are not written at all by Microsoft but by various other developers yet it always seems to be Microsoft who get the credit (or slating). So why is this allowed to happen in the gaming industry? I think that the developers should get more credit and that way maybe get the respect they deserve, that way maybe more will try get into it and the standard of game could reach a new level as the experience and knowledge will increase.
The developers of any game are extremely important, they are like chefs, they take all the ideas and write the suitable code to implement the idea and turn it into a game in the same way a chef turns ingredients into a full meal. Without them there would be no games. How many of you actually consider what the programmers had to do to make your favourite game? Ok I realise that there is a lot more to any game than the programmers such as the story writers, music, publishers, sponsors etc but you have to admit the developers part is huge and shouldn't go as un-noticed as it does.
When creating any type of software it is best to, when you can use pre-written software as long as it is useful and not out of date. This happens a lot in the gaming industry with sequels to games. Example of this is Fifa by EA, but it is worth pointing out that Fifa games have been around since earlier consoles like the SNES and Megadrive and some of the original code will still be used today. Maybe it is time the code is changed and updated to match today's standards and to get the best out of the hardware available.
My last point is one that may interest those of you who like to think about what we may see in the future. I have been reading into peoples expectations of what PC hardware will be like in the future. One thing shocked me, in 30 years a desktop PC will have the processing and storage ability of every human brain on the planet. It may seem far fetched but with the way things are advancing at the moment it could be seen earlier than that. I thought to myself what this could mean for the gaming industry and there are hundreds of possibilities. Games could be close to perfection. Imagine a game like GTA3, every single person in the level could behave differently each having a unique lifestyle to themselves. They would go about their daily lives and all react differently to what you do. Also the choices for details, length of the game, character emotions and moral decisions etc. There would probably be no restrictions on what to include and what they can't include in terms of fitting it onto a disk so developers could get everything they wanted and a few little extras. Also what will the graphics, storage mediums, gameplay, music etc of games be like then? Games like this may seem like a dream to most of us but one day they will be a reality. I'm just hoping that my love for gaming lasts long enough so I can experience it.
This is all my opinion and I am sure some will have different views. If you have read it and have an opinion of some kind on it then please reply.
Good post this one (no, not this one, that one, down there, well maybe this one read it and find out, now look what you've made me do I'll never get out of these brackets.
Anyway, I'll start with the Games are like TV bit. Yes indeed games and TV programmes are more similar than games and films. Perhaps this is because of the episodic qualities of most games (Max Payne was divided into three) but just in the way that chapters in books are often ignored when comparing books to films the seperation of missions could also be ignored when comparing games to films. So perhaps games and films have greater similarities than we expect, for example, both end when they're done. What I mean by that is that in a film you see the characters introduced, the storyline appearing, development of plot and character, eventually twists and finally resolution at which point the credits roll. In a game you get an introduction to the story, you play through the levels, you often get some degree of plot and development depending on the type of game and then you will often see a twist (often discovering you were working for the bad guys to start with) and in the end you complete the game and once again the credits start to roll. So really perhaps the comparison of games to film is not as inaccurate as it is often claimed to be. Of course it doesn't really matter what you want to compare a game to because games are a form of entertainment in their own right and deserve credit as such. So just as you say Games are Games, forget films.
I suspect that the whole topic of people using games as a scapegoat has been done too much and these suspicions are only increased by Pb's statement that it has been done to death. Still I think that perhaps we gamers are just very defensive, there are those who try to target violent films as a cause of social deprivation too and yet we often use the argument that people never complain about films. Of course it is rarely given much attention these days what with film being such a well established industry that is supported in almost every home and so the media prefers to concentrate on complaints against games because there are many people who still do not understand the gaming world and this is easily exploited. The media does like to use people's lack of knowledge against them and often tries to manipulate truths to support a side who would morally be considered in the wrong. Perhaps the biggest problem is the way that hypocracy is so easily conveyed by the media and what they tell us isn't always the whole truth. The American's foreign policy would be a good example, not to mention the goings on in Israel but really the media isn't the topic here so I'll move on.
The point about credit to developers is an interesting one but perhaps a little misguided. It is true that most people have a favorite band or whatever but some people couldn't name every member of the band and if we're talking about a band the size of a developing team then we may often be required to remember more than just 4 or 5 names. Developers, then, are often remembered only by the name of their company and while certain individuals may stand out in the company it will be the name that people will remember most. A lot of games have introduction screens (which lot's of people skip through) that show the name and logo of the developers but also shown is the publishers name and logo. Of course publishers perhaps do deserve some credit, they are responsible for ensuring that we get games and quite often provide funding for the development of games even if they don't contribute too much to the actual development of the game itself. The problem is that so many people contribute, in one way or another, to the development of a game that it is hard to specifically say who is responsible for what. I think most individuals within development teams are happy if gamers remember them by the name of their company or perhaps just if they remember the game they made. After all most developers are out to make the most entertaining games they can and so when they see that people are enjoying the game that they put so much effort into they are happy that their job has been done. I think Interplay's slogan says it best "By Gamers, For Gamers". With games becoming more and more popular, especially through the ever increasing number of consoles, developers may find there is more demand for their talents and so perhaps one day developers will be paid extortionate amounts of money so that they will work on a game for one company who wants the best in the same way as people involved in film do today. Of course I'm against all of that personally and hopefully Developers will continue to get honest wages for honest work rather than dishonest wages for honest work like actors often do. The thing is that developers do get paid and as the companies expand they can become their own publishers as other companies have done and even perhaps hire their own outside developers and so help the industry along. The fact is that developers as individuals will always be employees and just as we don't appreciate every individual involved in the making of our cars so be they working for Microsoft, Grey Matter or Id it wont make a difference, we probably still wont be able to learn and remember every name involved in the making of our favorite games. Really though I think that most gamers are aware of all the work that goes into games (except gamers who are too young to blame) and know that credit is due to everyone who appears on the credits at the end, the fact that they don't remember individual names doesn't take anything away from the fact that they will likely appreciate the hard work that went into a game and the end result.
Ah, yes the future of gaming, the eternal question of hardware development. Well every day things change, sometimes for the better other times for the worse. At the moment developments in hardware are a great thing and really do improve the quality of games that developers are able to produce. When someone originally came up with the idea of running up a tower to rescue a lady in distress from a giant ape I doubt they had images in their mind that were at all like the original Donkey Kong. As technology progresses games will look and play more like the idea they are based on and so we can look forward to games only getting bigger, better and more like what we can imagine. Boundries move back and we move forward, perhaps one day we will fall off the cliff but maybe, just maybe, there's a bridge.
Oh and)
Anyway, I'll start with the Games are like TV bit. Yes indeed games and TV programmes are more similar than games and films. Perhaps this is because of the episodic qualities of most games (Max Payne was divided into three) but just in the way that chapters in books are often ignored when comparing books to films the seperation of missions could also be ignored when comparing games to films. So perhaps games and films have greater similarities than we expect, for example, both end when they're done. What I mean by that is that in a film you see the characters introduced, the storyline appearing, development of plot and character, eventually twists and finally resolution at which point the credits roll. In a game you get an introduction to the story, you play through the levels, you often get some degree of plot and development depending on the type of game and then you will often see a twist (often discovering you were working for the bad guys to start with) and in the end you complete the game and once again the credits start to roll. So really perhaps the comparison of games to film is not as inaccurate as it is often claimed to be. Of course it doesn't really matter what you want to compare a game to because games are a form of entertainment in their own right and deserve credit as such. So just as you say Games are Games, forget films.
I suspect that the whole topic of people using games as a scapegoat has been done too much and these suspicions are only increased by Pb's statement that it has been done to death. Still I think that perhaps we gamers are just very defensive, there are those who try to target violent films as a cause of social deprivation too and yet we often use the argument that people never complain about films. Of course it is rarely given much attention these days what with film being such a well established industry that is supported in almost every home and so the media prefers to concentrate on complaints against games because there are many people who still do not understand the gaming world and this is easily exploited. The media does like to use people's lack of knowledge against them and often tries to manipulate truths to support a side who would morally be considered in the wrong. Perhaps the biggest problem is the way that hypocracy is so easily conveyed by the media and what they tell us isn't always the whole truth. The American's foreign policy would be a good example, not to mention the goings on in Israel but really the media isn't the topic here so I'll move on.
The point about credit to developers is an interesting one but perhaps a little misguided. It is true that most people have a favorite band or whatever but some people couldn't name every member of the band and if we're talking about a band the size of a developing team then we may often be required to remember more than just 4 or 5 names. Developers, then, are often remembered only by the name of their company and while certain individuals may stand out in the company it will be the name that people will remember most. A lot of games have introduction screens (which lot's of people skip through) that show the name and logo of the developers but also shown is the publishers name and logo. Of course publishers perhaps do deserve some credit, they are responsible for ensuring that we get games and quite often provide funding for the development of games even if they don't contribute too much to the actual development of the game itself. The problem is that so many people contribute, in one way or another, to the development of a game that it is hard to specifically say who is responsible for what. I think most individuals within development teams are happy if gamers remember them by the name of their company or perhaps just if they remember the game they made. After all most developers are out to make the most entertaining games they can and so when they see that people are enjoying the game that they put so much effort into they are happy that their job has been done. I think Interplay's slogan says it best "By Gamers, For Gamers". With games becoming more and more popular, especially through the ever increasing number of consoles, developers may find there is more demand for their talents and so perhaps one day developers will be paid extortionate amounts of money so that they will work on a game for one company who wants the best in the same way as people involved in film do today. Of course I'm against all of that personally and hopefully Developers will continue to get honest wages for honest work rather than dishonest wages for honest work like actors often do. The thing is that developers do get paid and as the companies expand they can become their own publishers as other companies have done and even perhaps hire their own outside developers and so help the industry along. The fact is that developers as individuals will always be employees and just as we don't appreciate every individual involved in the making of our cars so be they working for Microsoft, Grey Matter or Id it wont make a difference, we probably still wont be able to learn and remember every name involved in the making of our favorite games. Really though I think that most gamers are aware of all the work that goes into games (except gamers who are too young to blame) and know that credit is due to everyone who appears on the credits at the end, the fact that they don't remember individual names doesn't take anything away from the fact that they will likely appreciate the hard work that went into a game and the end result.
Ah, yes the future of gaming, the eternal question of hardware development. Well every day things change, sometimes for the better other times for the worse. At the moment developments in hardware are a great thing and really do improve the quality of games that developers are able to produce. When someone originally came up with the idea of running up a tower to rescue a lady in distress from a giant ape I doubt they had images in their mind that were at all like the original Donkey Kong. As technology progresses games will look and play more like the idea they are based on and so we can look forward to games only getting bigger, better and more like what we can imagine. Boundries move back and we move forward, perhaps one day we will fall off the cliff but maybe, just maybe, there's a bridge.
Oh and)
Games are definitely like TV in many ways, but the pontential for it to move the other way - games to films - is enormous. We've already seen Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat(s), Mario Bros, Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider. I know that Resident Evil is in the workds. I see Metal Gear Solid and Command and Conquer as having the biggest movie potential, although were Bruce Lee still alive he would have made to best Lan Di in a Shemmue movie.
It wasn't boring at all, although for a minute there I thought you were going to ramble on about censorship (which has been done to death here!) Still, some goo points raised here.
I see gaming as more like TV than movies. Think about it, television programmes are made by usually faceless people who toil on scripts, costumes, sets etc and get little thanks for it unless their series becomes really famous, and then they might get a half hour of praise on their own channel or in a TV specialist magazine. Who takes most of the credit for the programme? Well the channel usually. It's the same with games, a really good game will sometimes cause the creator to get a spot on a tv show about gaming and most definetely an interview in gaming magazines, but as you say, it's mostly the publisher who gets all the praise.
So a long running series of famous games, like Mario for instance, can be compared with something similar, like Dr Who or Eastenders, where a lot of fans can watch or read interviews with the creator and learn more about their favorite character or game through videos and articles.
Should it be any different? Well perhaps games are trying to be films in the look and feel of them, but they really are more akin to television programmes and have the same sort of fan base. In my eyes at least.
I see gaming as more like TV than movies. Think about it, television programmes are made by usually faceless people who toil on scripts, costumes, sets etc and get little thanks for it unless their series becomes really famous, and then they might get a half hour of praise on their own channel or in a TV specialist magazine. Who takes most of the credit for the programme? Well the channel usually. It's the same with games, a really good game will sometimes cause the creator to get a spot on a tv show about gaming and most definetely an interview in gaming magazines, but as you say, it's mostly the publisher who gets all the praise.
So a long running series of famous games, like Mario for instance, can be compared with something similar, like Dr Who or Eastenders, where a lot of fans can watch or read interviews with the creator and learn more about their favorite character or game through videos and articles.
Should it be any different? Well perhaps games are trying to be films in the look and feel of them, but they really are more akin to television programmes and have the same sort of fan base. In my eyes at least.
Yeah yet again it is another long and probably most will find it boring but now that you are here then why not give it a read and see for yourself if it was worth it. Probably me just ranting on but we all do it and I feel it is about time somebody addressed this on here.
I study computer science at university and a large part of the course is learning to develop software and the legal and professional issues associated with that. Games as you all know are a form of software, also a form of entertainment medium just like films and television but gaming never seems to get the respect from ordinary people it really deserves. Sure those who love it know what it means to them but to those who know very little on it they seem to regard it as being something it certainly isn't.
For example all the fuss about games being violent and influencing children to do violent things, firstly games don't make people violent, violent people make games an excuse and secondly it is the responsibility of any parent to ensure that the games their child plays is suitable and they are happy with them playing it. The second is a big problem in society as people don't fully understand just how realistic and life like a game can be these days, games that contain scenes intended for adults shouldn't be played by children unless they fully understand that what the see is only a game and should not be copied.
Why is the gaming industry treated differently than the movie or TV industries? The only real main difference is that gaming is interactive. One problem I can see is that in the past gaming was seen as a kiddie thing and many may still share this view. If they have no knowledge at all in the industry today then they may feel that any game is suitable for a child and when a violent game gets bad publicity they automatically jump onto the bandwagon to criticise this game although they have very little knowledge on the subject.
My next point is about the developers, ok so creating the software is their job but do they really get enough praise and thanks for what they do, sure sometimes they fail to release it on time but bare in mind most of the times the person who sets the initial date probably has no input into the game or experience in programming games so they can't really plan how long the whole thing will take. But if you think about this seriously, most can think of their favourite movie directors or music bands or actors but with games most seem to remember characters for the games and the developers name but that's all they care to know (apart from the supreme hardcore gamers out there).
This may just be my opinion but I see creating games more like creating music or a form of art but it seems these days as though it is like creating a product to sell to a mass market, only the programmers really see it as art anymore which in some ways annoys me. Most game developers create games for the enjoyment of seeing the end product, the publishers probably mostly do it for the money.
There is a lot of problems these days to find programmers with the ability to make a high standard of games, firstly because gaming seems to have a kiddie image to most, secondly to do well you need to have some kind of interest in it and thirdly the money. Most software developers and programmers could leave Uni and start earning at around £30 000 a year and more, game programmers seem to be lucky to earn just over half that amount so unless something is done the number of programmers interested in designing games could go down and down until very few remain.
Writing software of any kind is very difficult as any programmers out there will know. Creating games is just as hard and PC game programmers have a very hard job as the hardware is constantly changing so they have to plan to match the hardware that is out when the game is released.
What annoys me is that the publisher 9 times out of ten will get the credit for the creation of a game when all they really do is finalise the release date and make sure it is on the shelf when it is released so people can buy it. If this happened in the music or film industry then the likes of Steven Spielberg wouldn't receive credit for movies, it would be the likes of Universal, paramount etc that would. Instead of the artist getting the credit they deserve for writing and performing the song it would be the producer and record label who would get the credit. It doesn't seem fair but that is what seems to happen in the gaming industry. A lot of the Microsoft games are not written at all by Microsoft but by various other developers yet it always seems to be Microsoft who get the credit (or slating). So why is this allowed to happen in the gaming industry? I think that the developers should get more credit and that way maybe get the respect they deserve, that way maybe more will try get into it and the standard of game could reach a new level as the experience and knowledge will increase.
The developers of any game are extremely important, they are like chefs, they take all the ideas and write the suitable code to implement the idea and turn it into a game in the same way a chef turns ingredients into a full meal. Without them there would be no games. How many of you actually consider what the programmers had to do to make your favourite game? Ok I realise that there is a lot more to any game than the programmers such as the story writers, music, publishers, sponsors etc but you have to admit the developers part is huge and shouldn't go as un-noticed as it does.
When creating any type of software it is best to, when you can use pre-written software as long as it is useful and not out of date. This happens a lot in the gaming industry with sequels to games. Example of this is Fifa by EA, but it is worth pointing out that Fifa games have been around since earlier consoles like the SNES and Megadrive and some of the original code will still be used today. Maybe it is time the code is changed and updated to match today's standards and to get the best out of the hardware available.
My last point is one that may interest those of you who like to think about what we may see in the future. I have been reading into peoples expectations of what PC hardware will be like in the future. One thing shocked me, in 30 years a desktop PC will have the processing and storage ability of every human brain on the planet. It may seem far fetched but with the way things are advancing at the moment it could be seen earlier than that. I thought to myself what this could mean for the gaming industry and there are hundreds of possibilities. Games could be close to perfection. Imagine a game like GTA3, every single person in the level could behave differently each having a unique lifestyle to themselves. They would go about their daily lives and all react differently to what you do. Also the choices for details, length of the game, character emotions and moral decisions etc. There would probably be no restrictions on what to include and what they can't include in terms of fitting it onto a disk so developers could get everything they wanted and a few little extras. Also what will the graphics, storage mediums, gameplay, music etc of games be like then? Games like this may seem like a dream to most of us but one day they will be a reality. I'm just hoping that my love for gaming lasts long enough so I can experience it.
This is all my opinion and I am sure some will have different views. If you have read it and have an opinion of some kind on it then please reply.
I study computer science at university and a large part of the course is learning to develop software and the legal and professional issues associated with that. Games as you all know are a form of software, also a form of entertainment medium just like films and television but gaming never seems to get the respect from ordinary people it really deserves. Sure those who love it know what it means to them but to those who know very little on it they seem to regard it as being something it certainly isn't.
For example all the fuss about games being violent and influencing children to do violent things, firstly games don't make people violent, violent people make games an excuse and secondly it is the responsibility of any parent to ensure that the games their child plays is suitable and they are happy with them playing it. The second is a big problem in society as people don't fully understand just how realistic and life like a game can be these days, games that contain scenes intended for adults shouldn't be played by children unless they fully understand that what the see is only a game and should not be copied.
Why is the gaming industry treated differently than the movie or TV industries? The only real main difference is that gaming is interactive. One problem I can see is that in the past gaming was seen as a kiddie thing and many may still share this view. If they have no knowledge at all in the industry today then they may feel that any game is suitable for a child and when a violent game gets bad publicity they automatically jump onto the bandwagon to criticise this game although they have very little knowledge on the subject.
My next point is about the developers, ok so creating the software is their job but do they really get enough praise and thanks for what they do, sure sometimes they fail to release it on time but bare in mind most of the times the person who sets the initial date probably has no input into the game or experience in programming games so they can't really plan how long the whole thing will take. But if you think about this seriously, most can think of their favourite movie directors or music bands or actors but with games most seem to remember characters for the games and the developers name but that's all they care to know (apart from the supreme hardcore gamers out there).
This may just be my opinion but I see creating games more like creating music or a form of art but it seems these days as though it is like creating a product to sell to a mass market, only the programmers really see it as art anymore which in some ways annoys me. Most game developers create games for the enjoyment of seeing the end product, the publishers probably mostly do it for the money.
There is a lot of problems these days to find programmers with the ability to make a high standard of games, firstly because gaming seems to have a kiddie image to most, secondly to do well you need to have some kind of interest in it and thirdly the money. Most software developers and programmers could leave Uni and start earning at around £30 000 a year and more, game programmers seem to be lucky to earn just over half that amount so unless something is done the number of programmers interested in designing games could go down and down until very few remain.
Writing software of any kind is very difficult as any programmers out there will know. Creating games is just as hard and PC game programmers have a very hard job as the hardware is constantly changing so they have to plan to match the hardware that is out when the game is released.
What annoys me is that the publisher 9 times out of ten will get the credit for the creation of a game when all they really do is finalise the release date and make sure it is on the shelf when it is released so people can buy it. If this happened in the music or film industry then the likes of Steven Spielberg wouldn't receive credit for movies, it would be the likes of Universal, paramount etc that would. Instead of the artist getting the credit they deserve for writing and performing the song it would be the producer and record label who would get the credit. It doesn't seem fair but that is what seems to happen in the gaming industry. A lot of the Microsoft games are not written at all by Microsoft but by various other developers yet it always seems to be Microsoft who get the credit (or slating). So why is this allowed to happen in the gaming industry? I think that the developers should get more credit and that way maybe get the respect they deserve, that way maybe more will try get into it and the standard of game could reach a new level as the experience and knowledge will increase.
The developers of any game are extremely important, they are like chefs, they take all the ideas and write the suitable code to implement the idea and turn it into a game in the same way a chef turns ingredients into a full meal. Without them there would be no games. How many of you actually consider what the programmers had to do to make your favourite game? Ok I realise that there is a lot more to any game than the programmers such as the story writers, music, publishers, sponsors etc but you have to admit the developers part is huge and shouldn't go as un-noticed as it does.
When creating any type of software it is best to, when you can use pre-written software as long as it is useful and not out of date. This happens a lot in the gaming industry with sequels to games. Example of this is Fifa by EA, but it is worth pointing out that Fifa games have been around since earlier consoles like the SNES and Megadrive and some of the original code will still be used today. Maybe it is time the code is changed and updated to match today's standards and to get the best out of the hardware available.
My last point is one that may interest those of you who like to think about what we may see in the future. I have been reading into peoples expectations of what PC hardware will be like in the future. One thing shocked me, in 30 years a desktop PC will have the processing and storage ability of every human brain on the planet. It may seem far fetched but with the way things are advancing at the moment it could be seen earlier than that. I thought to myself what this could mean for the gaming industry and there are hundreds of possibilities. Games could be close to perfection. Imagine a game like GTA3, every single person in the level could behave differently each having a unique lifestyle to themselves. They would go about their daily lives and all react differently to what you do. Also the choices for details, length of the game, character emotions and moral decisions etc. There would probably be no restrictions on what to include and what they can't include in terms of fitting it onto a disk so developers could get everything they wanted and a few little extras. Also what will the graphics, storage mediums, gameplay, music etc of games be like then? Games like this may seem like a dream to most of us but one day they will be a reality. I'm just hoping that my love for gaming lasts long enough so I can experience it.
This is all my opinion and I am sure some will have different views. If you have read it and have an opinion of some kind on it then please reply.