The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
End of an age, or just humor?
Lordkilgar
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
Hey, I'm an avid gamer, and I generally believe that much as we think things get worse over time, the only thing that really happens is they change.
That said, I just read this article And it has me wondering. Are we reaching the end of the golden age of gaming? Is what's coming going to be a watering down, where the only truly engaging things are going to be low budget or indie developed side-liners that get no attention outside their niche?
Now, I admit that Cracked obviously exaggerates things to the point of absurdity for humor's sake, but of late... I really have felt that gaming has been this way.
Now, I'm not saying Gaming is on it's way out, I couldn't make that call even if I thought it was true. But we do seem to be on the cusp of a fundamental breakdown, that, regardless of how well it turns out, will see gaming changed in a profound way.
With comics, TV, and movies, I find that I am most drawn to the things that do not fit the mold, and are often the half finished under appreciated things that can't sustain their budget.
Is this what is going to happen with gaming? My choices between angry birds and farmville (reality television) or cookie cutter FPS games (generic action movie)?
Have we reached the end of that time, when a concept is still new enough that it begged experimentation, risk, and pushing the limits of what it can do? Perhaps we've been here for a while. I certainly remember loving some games from my youth, and being sad that nothing like it exists now. I still play Master of Orion 2, and the only thing I can find like it now seems to be Civilzation IV (not V), which I consider equally golden.
So I ask you, as generally intelligent gamers, as clever people that have a passion for the hobby, the lifestyle, and even the industry. What do you think of this article? Is it hogwash? Is it exaggerating a minor truth? Is it highlighting something dread to come? or perhaps just a portent of the only inevitability, change itself?
It certainly resonated with me, but I am fallible, and my opinion is my own. What is your's?
P.S. In case the link doesn't work, this is the full address http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/
That said, I just read this article And it has me wondering. Are we reaching the end of the golden age of gaming? Is what's coming going to be a watering down, where the only truly engaging things are going to be low budget or indie developed side-liners that get no attention outside their niche?
Now, I admit that Cracked obviously exaggerates things to the point of absurdity for humor's sake, but of late... I really have felt that gaming has been this way.
Now, I'm not saying Gaming is on it's way out, I couldn't make that call even if I thought it was true. But we do seem to be on the cusp of a fundamental breakdown, that, regardless of how well it turns out, will see gaming changed in a profound way.
With comics, TV, and movies, I find that I am most drawn to the things that do not fit the mold, and are often the half finished under appreciated things that can't sustain their budget.
Is this what is going to happen with gaming? My choices between angry birds and farmville (reality television) or cookie cutter FPS games (generic action movie)?
Have we reached the end of that time, when a concept is still new enough that it begged experimentation, risk, and pushing the limits of what it can do? Perhaps we've been here for a while. I certainly remember loving some games from my youth, and being sad that nothing like it exists now. I still play Master of Orion 2, and the only thing I can find like it now seems to be Civilzation IV (not V), which I consider equally golden.
So I ask you, as generally intelligent gamers, as clever people that have a passion for the hobby, the lifestyle, and even the industry. What do you think of this article? Is it hogwash? Is it exaggerating a minor truth? Is it highlighting something dread to come? or perhaps just a portent of the only inevitability, change itself?
It certainly resonated with me, but I am fallible, and my opinion is my own. What is your's?
P.S. In case the link doesn't work, this is the full address http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/
Lordkilgar on
0
Posts
Whereas PC gaming, you just start programming and put up a website. When you have a truly creative project, it is hard to measure the metrics of its success, so the more `base cost' (and cap on potential earnings) there is, the less likely it is to be viable to start.
I think that for as long as people keep using computers that are not locked into one corporate provider, there will be an avenue for bust-out hits, but that the increasing domination of consoles as game venues, and the resulting tendency of companies to design games for consoles, is where the real `problem' is - across any industry, a product with a high cost of production usually means `play it safe'.
Sure there will be less MEGA triple A games, but in my opinion we're on the verge of a gaming golden age that makes the SNES era look bad. Think about it: In not so much longer, processor technology will be such that near photorealistic gaming will be possible on every platform. In 5 years the cheapest laptop at best buy will easily be fast enough to handle current next-gen graphics.
Exaggerating a minor truth IMO. If you define "games" as "AAA games with lots of advertising" then the long-term trend is homogenization, but if you define games as "all games released" then the long-term trend is (IMO) towards more variety and imagination.
a) About video games, and absolutely nothing else (he used to write about all sorts of things).
b) About how the video game industry is DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
c) Completely lacking anything that contradicts his point, no matter how glaringly obvious.
In David Wong's world, sequels are automatically terrible, LA Noire isn't a 'real game', and Portal apparently doesn't exist.
Fortunately, the golden age of pretty graphics rages on.
Theres no vision of the future of gaming? What?
I'd say in 15 years we are going to have full VR gaming. The screens are going to be a pair of glasses that incorporate motion tracking of the head and the hands. You will be able to look around a game by moving your head.
Everything will be projected through the glasses to the space in front of you. You want tactile response? You will have gloves that simulate touching objects by creating pressure dynamically. Theres your controller by motion tracking your hands. You might not be touching anything but air, but your hands will be touching a controller that only you can see and you will be feeling that controller as if it were really there.
I mean half of this technology is being created right. fucking. now. In 15 years? Who knows.
References
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2gk5GT-kEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOG_Op1Ex-o
I always wondered how a fully immersive VR would approach walking. If it's going to be holding an invisible controller, you might as well just have a controller
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
While I'm hardly a gaming fanatic, I'm involved in the industry, and man, it's fine now and it's going to continue to be fine for the foreseeable future. I'd be MUCH more concerned about literature and the fine arts, as literacy is a perpetual issue and there are so many things people would rather do than to become educated enough to fully understand an extremely complex work.
I can see both sides.
In one hand, a controller might be necessary.
But, if a custom controller can be simulated well enough that you can manipulate it and be given a tactile response well enough in that simulation then that would be better. Essentially a controller that can be customized on the fly to the specific application or game.
Imagine like a large joystick simulated on your screen. You reach your hand out and the glove allows you to feel when you are touching the joystick. You move your hand and the image moves with it and the glove increases the pressure to show what direction the joystick is being pushed in.
When you think about motion capture as well as the ability to project an image that appears in the world in front of you plus tactile response.... well... that's like 50% of the matrix without being a cyborg.
1) Video games have vast differences in mechanics, art style, design, story (or lack thereof) across the multitude of genres (adventure, action, rpg, rpg/action/adventure hybrid, etc.);
2) The above differences are often influenced by different hardware, software, and interface limitations; and
3) Different countries experienced the above two elements in different ways (the UK was hot for the Commodore 64, FMTOWNS existed in Japan, PC Gaming had ups and downs across the entire world, etc.).
For these reasons its nearly impossible to quantify and label a specific time frame in gaming history as the "Golden Age." Instead, I would propose a method that would implement the above three elements, using certain games we would consider milestones in their genre, to determine certain "Ages" of games.
For example, on the PC, there have perhaps at least two golden ages of RPGs. The "First Golden Age of PC RPGs" probably lasted from the mid 1980's until 1993, covering the time between the release of Ultima IV and Ultima VII Part Two, the entire SSI Gold Box catalog, Wasteland, and the later Wizardry's. The "Second Golden Age of PC RPGs" begins from the publication of Fallout in 1997, includes Balder's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape Torment, Diablo 2 and Icewind Dale and probably ends sometime in the mid 2000s.
Not everyone will agree on a golden age. But I think we can all agree that the entertainment medium of video games has had multiple golden ages throughout the past 20-30 years and I see no indication that it is going anywhere from here.
The basis of the article that we have reached our creative end is completely silly. That's is like saying... oh, well books are coming to an end. We have pretty much written everything entertaining in the universe that can be written.
As far as mediums of entertainment such as video games, books, movies, etc I think that the only way that they will "die" is when they are replaced by a better medium. If we start seeing some new form of entertainment open up then maybe it will be time to get worried.
I think that will probably be when we can all go out surfing on a solar flare or cruising with some buddies to smoke hash behind a nebula, though.
So... maybe that is what the article is referencing?
We have had so many golden ages that we simply cannot keep producing enough Great Game Designer heroes to produce more?
It's all clear now! We must begin Hagia Sophia construction immediately!
His thesis seems to be "all these screens of zoomed in gunsights are pretty similar looking, guys"
well, fucking duh
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Thing is, what defines a non-mainstream player? I mean, a typical PAer's account on steam could have games that range from MW2 to AI Wars, and while Angry Birds is getting too much attention, I can't say I didn't enjoy it, its a fun game.
People who feel that gaming is at an end, in my experience, are going what through what I call gaming menopause.
I know a guy who would firmly say that the best part of series X is the one he started with; best Final Fantasy? well 7 of course, Best metal gear? well the first solid, best FPS? Why thats easy the first Halo.
Same people think about the good old days of Vanila WoW and how the game became too easy now, and loot is just crap; forgeting all the while the times they waited on Scholomance's door hoping a dude with a key will pass them by.
People who are crippled by nostalgia.
I didn't think LA Noire was that great a game really, but what they tried to do is pretty remarkable compared to the games of yesteryear. Bioware has done fantastic stuff with RPGs lately. Then there's the Wii (and the other hardware companies' motion control stuff), which is finally beginning to realize the goal nintendo had with the power glove and the running mat thing 20 years ago, and somehow the author turns it into more evidence that games are stagnating.
Apparently games are dying because there's no innovation... because all the new, innovative tech sucks. :rotate:
The FPS genre is pretty stagnant (with some exceptions but still) but I don't know if that's because nobody's thinking about anything new as it is that those games have found the formula everybody likes.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
The days of John Carmack and John Romero are over. You need hundreds of people and tons of money to do what they did in 1992 now. The future of gaming is bleak only because for any game to be made, an audience has to be guaranteed, which promotes less originality and shittier games. And being an entrepreneur in gaming is impossible, the only option is to hope to be hired by a great company after making your own little projects.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
And hey, I'm a fan of Cracked. I think a bunch of what shows up on their site is funny stuff. But I don't take it seriously.
Really, because when I look at say... Minecraft, I see one person doing what they did
Games like Minecraft or the bajillion small developer, relatively cheap games you find on Steam, XBLA or any such service is why I am not worried by all the big developers all doing the same thing over and over again.
When the big guys leave a section of the market to all compete in the same narrow niche of games, the little guys come out of the woodwork and take up the space the big ones left behind.
We also have plenty of medium size old developers, making those interesting games that aren't just another brown FPS, who are still around. Developers like say Paradox, CD Projekt and such.
We still have tons of interesting, fun, varied games getting made, you just have to go elsewhere than the local gaming stores "top 10" display to find them, but they are there, reasonably priced and good.
Was about to say. They're pretty funny, unless you have any knowledge at all about what they're covering.
Me, I just want more well written adventure games.
You know I just got LA Noire and was pleasantly surprised to find out that it's pretty much a modern take on the adventure genre. With its success we might see more stuff like that.
We will be screwed if Sony, Microsoft and Apple are the arbiters of what is or is not distributed.
Ugh. Eff that. I'm not going to "suit up" to play video games. Hell, I don't even want to stand up - when I have the rare whole weekend to put into a game, I often play for several hours at a time, and I'd like to not end the experience disoriented or tired, thanks.
Now you can buy little arcade games that can be made by tens, instead of hundreds/thousands of people on Live Arcade, which only needs to be hosted on the console provider's servers, or Steam, or whatever. No more $60 price point necessary just to break even, no more supply chain nightmare. Now, the door is open for smaller developers to release a smaller game for $10 or $15 and still make money. You no longer need a sweeping 75-hour epic Final Fantasy padded adventure; your game can last all of 6 hours and at $15, no one will care.
In short, the big devs will still make very well-crafted but bland games, but other people will still make smaller, more innovative/niche games largely without fear of being stomped out by the big guys.
You would do well to listen to these guys: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits
Two of my favorite games this generation are Bayonetta and Vanquish, otherwise known as "Good DMC" and "Good Gears of War". Within reasonably staid concepts you can craft something really amazing if you're putting your mind to it.
Commercial pressure should do to video games more or less exactly what we see in movies. We will get very little innovation - recycling ideas is less risky - in games that are expensive to develop. We will also get a very mixed bag of cheaply developed games, some of which will suck and some of which will be good, where the majority of risks will be taken.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'm not sure why you think the big boys focusing on PC games will help indie developers. If anything it's the opposite. Less competition means more focus on indie titles as they come out.
People aren't gonna find those titles as easily if they aren't using a PC for gaming generally, though. The enthusiast market's never going to go away, but the mass market might.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat