Dvorak Trashes Modern Gaming Industry
04-29-05, 10:23 AM
#1
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dvorak Trashes Modern Gaming Industry
Pulled from slashdot:
You think this guy is on Nintendo's Payroll or what? 
(He does knock Nintendo in the article though).
I think we are headed to a critical juncture in gaming, I see more and more people (myself included) that have grown tired of the same formula. Sure, there is still a need for the types of games we have today, but shouldn't there be something more by now then simply better graphics and "improved story lines?"
Don't get me wrong, Half-life 2 is a great game and deserves to exist as it is a great example of its genre. But there are so many other FPS games that are just plain crap. It's like in nearly every gaming category, there is a flood on medicore games. Couldn't those resources be spent on delivering new gaming experiences instead?
Ah, but here is the problem... RISK. Nobody likes it, and no buddy wants to try and grow a pair and actually expand the market in new directions. Why have risk when you simply keep doing what you know "works". But then again, there are over 6 billion people out there, so perhaps there is enough room for growth and eventually some day this will all be moot because we will naturally move into new areas.
My only complaint is, as a gamer of 18 years I am often left wanting more then simply prettier graphics and better "environmet interaction". But again, perhaps its my own fault and I'm just out growing games and what they will ever be.
"John C. Dvorak recently posted a PCMag.com rant trashing the gaming industry , predicting a complete market-meltdown in the near future. Titled 'Doom 4: End of the Game Industry?', it was interesting to see how the 3D Realms Forums reacted to the article. He claims that 'games have hardly changed since the invention of the first-person shooter.' His kids have obviously showed him too much Halo 2, and not enough Half-Life 2." From the article: "The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?"
(He does knock Nintendo in the article though). I think we are headed to a critical juncture in gaming, I see more and more people (myself included) that have grown tired of the same formula. Sure, there is still a need for the types of games we have today, but shouldn't there be something more by now then simply better graphics and "improved story lines?"
Don't get me wrong, Half-life 2 is a great game and deserves to exist as it is a great example of its genre. But there are so many other FPS games that are just plain crap. It's like in nearly every gaming category, there is a flood on medicore games. Couldn't those resources be spent on delivering new gaming experiences instead?
Ah, but here is the problem... RISK. Nobody likes it, and no buddy wants to try and grow a pair and actually expand the market in new directions. Why have risk when you simply keep doing what you know "works". But then again, there are over 6 billion people out there, so perhaps there is enough room for growth and eventually some day this will all be moot because we will naturally move into new areas.
My only complaint is, as a gamer of 18 years I am often left wanting more then simply prettier graphics and better "environmet interaction". But again, perhaps its my own fault and I'm just out growing games and what they will ever be.
Last edited by jeffdsmith; 04-29-05 at 11:15 AM.
04-29-05, 10:25 AM
#2
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the article for the link impaired (It's a lot easier to read in the link above though):
Am I the only one who expects a collapse of the gaming business soon? Does anyone else think that it is overdue? It has happened before, and I can't see how people will keep shelling out $50 or so for a video game when the games have hardly changed since the invention of the first-person shooter.
I complain to my kids about this, and they insist that things have changed markedly. They show me examples, and all I see are tweaks and weirder, mostly stupid weapons.
I'm not the only one who thinks there's a problem. When Nintendo president Satoru Iwata spoke at this year's Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, he discussed the lack of new game ideas. He saw the same things that I see: There are four or five simple game categories and nothing really new or different.
The categories are shooters, puzzles and mazes, adventure games, sports games, and simulations. That's it. Most of today's hottest games are combinations of two or three of these categories, with a storyline added to keep the players from being bored stiff. When my kids show me a game, I usually say that it's nothing but the same old running-jumping-kicking-shooting with a new background. They leave in a huff.
Iwata mentioned that in almost all the big games, the so-called boss characters are all beginning to be pretty much the same: big, creepy monsters. If you want to see exactly how inane this is, go out and rent the brain-dead Paul Verhoeven film, Starship Troopers. The movie stank so bad that nothing came of it after its release. It's essentially a video game turned into a movie—all the elements are there, including an idiotic "boss" that is just some huge flabby bug—and it shows you just how lame these games actually are.
Iwata then showed us a couple of supposedly new (but in fact, rather old) ideas— two concept games that will be released later this year for the incredibly popular Nintendo DS handheld game machine. One is a pet dog that "lives" inside the machine. You can train this dog with voice commands, and you can literally pet the thing on the touch-sensitive screen.
Virtual-pet software has come and gone on the PC over the years, so except for the voice commands, this is nothing new. It's also quite similar to the once-popular Tamagotchi gizmo that was all the rage in Japan.
When two wireless DS machines run this app, the dogs can visit each other in one of the machines. Someone just needs to do a patch to get them to fight and kill each other, or mate and have puppies, for this idea really to catch on: "Only Available on the Nintendo DS-XXX!"
The other idea that Iwata presented is music-making software that creates tunes on the DS. This sort of thing appeared on the Macintosh years ago—and even resulted in a weird toy guitar called the Jaminator—so this is nothing new, either. The game scene is resorting to faddish ideas from years ago to try to appear original. I'm surprised they haven't come out with Pet Rock software yet.
None of this will save a doomed industry. The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?
That time is drawing near. We are already getting pre-hype for the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 2, as well as the new Nintendo. All this will do is make the visuals more lifelike and the blood and gore more realistic and nauseating. While the kids who are used to this "progress" may not be put off by it, newcomers may be repulsed and skip these new generations of machines altogether.
If that doesn't flatten the market, the never-ending need to satisfy the demanding full-time game-player should do it. Some of today's games are ridiculously hard to play—unless gaming is your so-called life—and so daunting to casual players that they will quickly reject them. Who needs to devote themselves to a game just to play it once in a while? I'll take Spider Solitaire instead.
I really can't imagine this scene continuing as it is for much longer. I suspect that the next generation of machines will be the last—or at least the last in the current boom market. It will be downhill from there.
I complain to my kids about this, and they insist that things have changed markedly. They show me examples, and all I see are tweaks and weirder, mostly stupid weapons.
I'm not the only one who thinks there's a problem. When Nintendo president Satoru Iwata spoke at this year's Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, he discussed the lack of new game ideas. He saw the same things that I see: There are four or five simple game categories and nothing really new or different.
The categories are shooters, puzzles and mazes, adventure games, sports games, and simulations. That's it. Most of today's hottest games are combinations of two or three of these categories, with a storyline added to keep the players from being bored stiff. When my kids show me a game, I usually say that it's nothing but the same old running-jumping-kicking-shooting with a new background. They leave in a huff.
Iwata mentioned that in almost all the big games, the so-called boss characters are all beginning to be pretty much the same: big, creepy monsters. If you want to see exactly how inane this is, go out and rent the brain-dead Paul Verhoeven film, Starship Troopers. The movie stank so bad that nothing came of it after its release. It's essentially a video game turned into a movie—all the elements are there, including an idiotic "boss" that is just some huge flabby bug—and it shows you just how lame these games actually are.
Iwata then showed us a couple of supposedly new (but in fact, rather old) ideas— two concept games that will be released later this year for the incredibly popular Nintendo DS handheld game machine. One is a pet dog that "lives" inside the machine. You can train this dog with voice commands, and you can literally pet the thing on the touch-sensitive screen.
Virtual-pet software has come and gone on the PC over the years, so except for the voice commands, this is nothing new. It's also quite similar to the once-popular Tamagotchi gizmo that was all the rage in Japan.
When two wireless DS machines run this app, the dogs can visit each other in one of the machines. Someone just needs to do a patch to get them to fight and kill each other, or mate and have puppies, for this idea really to catch on: "Only Available on the Nintendo DS-XXX!"
The other idea that Iwata presented is music-making software that creates tunes on the DS. This sort of thing appeared on the Macintosh years ago—and even resulted in a weird toy guitar called the Jaminator—so this is nothing new, either. The game scene is resorting to faddish ideas from years ago to try to appear original. I'm surprised they haven't come out with Pet Rock software yet.
None of this will save a doomed industry. The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?
That time is drawing near. We are already getting pre-hype for the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 2, as well as the new Nintendo. All this will do is make the visuals more lifelike and the blood and gore more realistic and nauseating. While the kids who are used to this "progress" may not be put off by it, newcomers may be repulsed and skip these new generations of machines altogether.
If that doesn't flatten the market, the never-ending need to satisfy the demanding full-time game-player should do it. Some of today's games are ridiculously hard to play—unless gaming is your so-called life—and so daunting to casual players that they will quickly reject them. Who needs to devote themselves to a game just to play it once in a while? I'll take Spider Solitaire instead.
I really can't imagine this scene continuing as it is for much longer. I suspect that the next generation of machines will be the last—or at least the last in the current boom market. It will be downhill from there.
04-29-05, 10:36 AM
#3
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jeffdsmith
No buddy likes it, and no buddy wants to try and grow a pair and actually expand the market in new directions.
Anyway, we're still a long, long ways away from photorealism, people like experiencing the same thing over and over (e.g., Zelda), and Dvorak has been a pompous ass since he first got his name in print.
04-29-05, 10:37 AM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My buddy takes risks.... 
He stole that from me! Bastard!
I think a lot of people miss the advances in gaming that go on behind the pretty graphics. AI gets better, environments get more complex, there is so much going on behind the scenes that just gets taken for granted because people are too busy looking at the pretty graphics. The simple fact is, all the coding in the background are making these games just as good as the graphics that they are pumping out. The next generation means better AI, better simulation, and more complex environements. Not just better graphics.
When two wireless DS machines run this app, the dogs can visit each other in one of the machines. Someone just needs to do a patch to get them to fight and kill each other, or mate and have puppies, for this idea really to catch on: "Only Available on the Nintendo DS-XXX!"
I think a lot of people miss the advances in gaming that go on behind the pretty graphics. AI gets better, environments get more complex, there is so much going on behind the scenes that just gets taken for granted because people are too busy looking at the pretty graphics. The simple fact is, all the coding in the background are making these games just as good as the graphics that they are pumping out. The next generation means better AI, better simulation, and more complex environements. Not just better graphics.
04-29-05, 10:40 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I knew it had been a while since a "the industry is doomed!" article came around...
Yes, while the most popular games tend to be the most "samey", that's true for most mediums. However, the author seems to be making the claim that the only thing available nowadays is Halo and other various FPS titles, with no original ideas being made, which is just plain wrong.
There's plenty of original stuff out there, you just need to look for it. Games like (and this is purely a "top of my head" kind of thing...) Cubivore, Frequency and Amplitude, ICO, Katamari Damacy, Super Monkey Ball, etc are all interesting and different titles that have come out in the past few years.
However, a case could definitely be made for a stagnation in certain genres, especially FPSes. To me, too many FPS titles feel like the same game with different levels. Any third person title can really have a main character that moves around differently. Mario moves nothing like Link, who moves nothing like Dante, who moves entirely different from Ratchet, etc. However, every FPS out there is the standard WASD/Freelook controls, with jumping/shooting/reloading buttons thrown in. There's very few first-person titles that really give your character a different "feel" than other ones, which makes them all feel a bit stale after a while.
I should mention that I haven't kept up with the PC gaming scene at all recently, so I have no idea if recent FPS titles like Half-Life 2 have remedied this at all.
Also, I really don't quite get where he's coming from with this...
If anything, the market is catering more and more towards the casual gamer. Sure, there's the occasional super-hard title like Ninja Gaiden or DMC, but games really are a whole lot easier nowadays than they used to be.
Yes, while the most popular games tend to be the most "samey", that's true for most mediums. However, the author seems to be making the claim that the only thing available nowadays is Halo and other various FPS titles, with no original ideas being made, which is just plain wrong.
There's plenty of original stuff out there, you just need to look for it. Games like (and this is purely a "top of my head" kind of thing...) Cubivore, Frequency and Amplitude, ICO, Katamari Damacy, Super Monkey Ball, etc are all interesting and different titles that have come out in the past few years.
However, a case could definitely be made for a stagnation in certain genres, especially FPSes. To me, too many FPS titles feel like the same game with different levels. Any third person title can really have a main character that moves around differently. Mario moves nothing like Link, who moves nothing like Dante, who moves entirely different from Ratchet, etc. However, every FPS out there is the standard WASD/Freelook controls, with jumping/shooting/reloading buttons thrown in. There's very few first-person titles that really give your character a different "feel" than other ones, which makes them all feel a bit stale after a while.
I should mention that I haven't kept up with the PC gaming scene at all recently, so I have no idea if recent FPS titles like Half-Life 2 have remedied this at all.
Also, I really don't quite get where he's coming from with this...
If that doesn't flatten the market, the never-ending need to satisfy the demanding full-time game-player should do it. Some of today's games are ridiculously hard to play—unless gaming is your so-called life—and so daunting to casual players that they will quickly reject them. Who needs to devote themselves to a game just to play it once in a while? I'll take Spider Solitaire instead.
04-29-05, 10:49 AM
#6
DVD Talk Legend
I don't even know what to say to this guy who if he's not exaggerating from the article is judging the game based on what his kid's show him instead of playing the games himself. I have read his articles before, and he just comes across as an angry guy who whines and bitches and acts superior to the rest of us. Aren't there basically supposed to be only 5 different types of movies or plots? You know "man vs man" "man vs machine." Yet we still have hundreds of books and movies a year for quite a while now, and people always seem to find stuff they like. Besides even if we get bored of it all while we get older, there's always a new generation where the stuff is new to them.
04-29-05, 11:04 AM
#7
DVD Talk Hero
"Innovation" is not what the masses buy. The masses buy graphics, they buy hype. When the industry crashed previously (post atari, pre NES), it had nowhere near the fan support it has now, games were primitive (so I guess innovation was easier to come by), etc., etc. We have a whole generation of adults that grew up playing the NES. Sure, some of us get bored of the same games over and over and over. But my parents will probably never get into videogames like I am, and my kids probably will be.
But bring out a new Madden with new rosters and slight tweaks, maybe improved graphics, and the masses eat it up. Heck, develop a spongebob squarepants game built on a PS1 graphics engine, and kids will clamor to buy it. Will it last indefinitely? Probably not. But there are enough people in the industry with an eye for developing the newest and latest thing, that I doubt things will get stale enough to turn off EVERYONE.
There was a time when shooters were dominant, than 2-d fighters, then 3-d fighters, then FPS's, then GTA-type games, etc. Something else will catch on.
About Nintendogs not being innovative, because it's been done on the PC numerous times: well, it's on a portable gaming system with touch control. Maybe it's not an entirely new concept, but what does he expect? Was the iPod such a revolution? It was a portable device that played downloadable music: we had that before, though capacity was smaller.
But bring out a new Madden with new rosters and slight tweaks, maybe improved graphics, and the masses eat it up. Heck, develop a spongebob squarepants game built on a PS1 graphics engine, and kids will clamor to buy it. Will it last indefinitely? Probably not. But there are enough people in the industry with an eye for developing the newest and latest thing, that I doubt things will get stale enough to turn off EVERYONE.
There was a time when shooters were dominant, than 2-d fighters, then 3-d fighters, then FPS's, then GTA-type games, etc. Something else will catch on.
About Nintendogs not being innovative, because it's been done on the PC numerous times: well, it's on a portable gaming system with touch control. Maybe it's not an entirely new concept, but what does he expect? Was the iPod such a revolution? It was a portable device that played downloadable music: we had that before, though capacity was smaller.
04-29-05, 11:07 AM
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The first thing that popped into my head after reading this article was how the same could be said of the film industry. There are a few genres with a large number of similar movies. But, there are still plenty of new movies that almost every moviegoer can enjoy. I think that there are a large number of video games for almost every type of gamer. It also seems that the author doesn't remember when people would plop down $70+ for Street Fighter and other games.
04-29-05, 11:18 AM
#9
Retired
I doubt the industry is doomed.
I think the people like me and Jeff that are getting sick of the same games with a new coat of paint are just eventually going to have to give up and move on to new hobbies.
I already have for the most part. Games used to take up most of my free time. Now working out, sports, movies and music are all ahead of gaming, and it's an odd week if I spend more than 1-5 hours gaming. As I've said repeatedly, this coming gen is the game industry's last chance to rekindle my interest.
I'm not buying any consoles at launch, I'll keep and eye on games if I see a few innovative titles on a console I'll pick that one up and see what happens. If that doesnt' rock my world, or I don't see enough interesting games to even warrant picking up a console, then I'm finally done with gaming (and you guys are finally free of my posts.)
I think the people like me and Jeff that are getting sick of the same games with a new coat of paint are just eventually going to have to give up and move on to new hobbies.
I already have for the most part. Games used to take up most of my free time. Now working out, sports, movies and music are all ahead of gaming, and it's an odd week if I spend more than 1-5 hours gaming. As I've said repeatedly, this coming gen is the game industry's last chance to rekindle my interest.
I'm not buying any consoles at launch, I'll keep and eye on games if I see a few innovative titles on a console I'll pick that one up and see what happens. If that doesnt' rock my world, or I don't see enough interesting games to even warrant picking up a console, then I'm finally done with gaming (and you guys are finally free of my posts.)
04-29-05, 11:21 AM
#10
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fixed my error, thats what I get for not sleeping in 37 hours.
Anyway, for those familiar with the Game crash post Atari, the modern market is amazingly similar. Over production of medicore games, forcing quick reduction in game prices, overstocking, etc. Not saying its identical, its not. But it def. getting closer to that then farther away.
Dvorak is actually a really nice guy, I head the plessure of meeting him once and is known for his "prolific views" of the computer industry. He is often spot on. For example he predicted the surgence of HD and flashed based mp3's, Apple rise, and MS decline in market share over 7 years ago.
And yes JoshD, I noticed he stole your idea too.
Anyway, for those familiar with the Game crash post Atari, the modern market is amazingly similar. Over production of medicore games, forcing quick reduction in game prices, overstocking, etc. Not saying its identical, its not. But it def. getting closer to that then farther away.
Dvorak is actually a really nice guy, I head the plessure of meeting him once and is known for his "prolific views" of the computer industry. He is often spot on. For example he predicted the surgence of HD and flashed based mp3's, Apple rise, and MS decline in market share over 7 years ago.
And yes JoshD, I noticed he stole your idea too.
04-29-05, 11:26 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jeffdsmith
fixed my error, thats what I get for not sleeping in 37 hours.
Anyway, for those familiar with the Game crash post Atari, the modern market is amazingly similar. Over production of medicore games, forcing quick reduction in game prices, overstocking, etc. Not saying its identical, its not. But it def. getting closer to that then farther away.
Anyway, for those familiar with the Game crash post Atari, the modern market is amazingly similar. Over production of medicore games, forcing quick reduction in game prices, overstocking, etc. Not saying its identical, its not. But it def. getting closer to that then farther away.
04-29-05, 11:38 AM
#12
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xVladx
I think what's a lot more troublesome than people making too many mediocre games is how many truly innovative and unique games sell horribly, while the newest Madden/GTA/Sims breaks records. While the more mainstream titles are all good in their own right, the more times a new and interesting game fails to make a profit, the less likely a publisher is to take a chance, which may lead to fewer and fewer interesting games in the future.
What I think some people may be missing with this thread is the idea of growth. Without continued market growth you can result in collapse, its very rare that an industry can expand rapidly and then level out on its own.
What Dvorak is addressing is the growth problem, currently the market has been expanding well in the west. (shrinking in the east). How do we keep it from reverting? Surely you can argue that improved graphics, AI, and environments will fuel growth, and I agree, but only to a point.
How can gaming reach new people?
04-29-05, 11:39 AM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r L@n|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls
Anyway, we're still a long, long ways away from photorealism...
Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls
...people like experiencing the same thing over and over (e.g., Zelda)...
The evidence that Dvorak is on the wrong track is obvious: Hollywood has been risk-averse and out of ideas for a decade, yet they continue to do very well.
As for old-school gamers (like me) who grew up with Space Invaders and Pac-Man: Most of us learned long ago that graphics are nice, but only part of the equation. Star Control II is still one of the best games of all time, even with pre-SNES 2D graphics. The real value is in the experience, and there are still new experiences to be found. (case in point: Introversion's games - Uplink and Darwinia.) So we're less likely to play Final Fantasy XXXVIII than a new game by an independent developer.
- David Stein
Last edited by sfsdfd; 04-29-05 at 11:45 AM.
04-29-05, 11:48 AM
#14
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The film industry has substained some growth through the explosion of home video, first VHS and now DVD. Movie's make more money in DVD sales then they do box office sales.
Video games do not have this avenue to expand to, their good is already sold at the direct consumer level.
This is the difference. Yes the film industry is still around, but look at their original profit avenue, it has shrunk. And with it, much movie house and publisher consolidation. Its because they found a new avenue to make money that it still does well, not because people are necessarily watching movies that hadn't before.
edit: I'm going to bed now. I can't type worth a darn.
Video games do not have this avenue to expand to, their good is already sold at the direct consumer level.
This is the difference. Yes the film industry is still around, but look at their original profit avenue, it has shrunk. And with it, much movie house and publisher consolidation. Its because they found a new avenue to make money that it still does well, not because people are necessarily watching movies that hadn't before.
edit: I'm going to bed now. I can't type worth a darn.
Last edited by jeffdsmith; 04-29-05 at 11:50 AM.
04-29-05, 11:48 AM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xVladx
I think what's a lot more troublesome than people making too many mediocre games is how many truly innovative and unique games sell horribly, while the newest Madden/GTA/Sims breaks records. While the more mainstream titles are all good in their own right, the more times a new and interesting game fails to make a profit, the less likely a publisher is to take a chance, which may lead to fewer and fewer interesting games in the future.
04-29-05, 12:13 PM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r L@n|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jeffdsmith
The film industry has substained some growth through the explosion of home video, first VHS and now DVD. Movie's make more money in DVD sales then they do box office sales.
Video games do not have this avenue to expand to, their good is already sold at the direct consumer level.
Video games do not have this avenue to expand to, their good is already sold at the direct consumer level.
(As a minor point, the videogame market certainly has room for growth - the handheld market, even without the new the cellphone-gaming market, has grown tremendously over the last several years. And I believe that online gaming is still in its infancy - looking back in ten years, we'll consider Diablo and World Of Warcraft astoundingly primitive.)
- David Stein
04-29-05, 12:20 PM
#17
Retired
Originally Posted by sfsdfd
Surprisingly, the public is not (yet) tired of seeing extraordinarily derivative works in movie theaters. Why should videogames be different?
Good point. For me I guess its:
1. Movies are much cheaper than games.
2. Movies require a 2 hour time investmant, games have to hold my interest for much longer periods of time--- 10-40 hours.
3. Stories and characters are much more important in movies. A similar movie with a different plot and characters can keep my interest. With games, the gameplay is most important, and games with the same gameplay but new stories/characters aren't holding my interest much anymore.
But obviously number 3 isn't true of most gamers, and like I said, people like me are probably just out of luck.
04-29-05, 12:49 PM
#18
DVD Talk Hero
Yie Ar Kungfu! Now that was a fighting game!
And are videogames declining in the East? Any decline in console sales can probably be attributed to people being consumed by the latest cell phone games over there, no?
When I was young, we would bring the Atari out every few months to play, but the games wouldn't hold my interest for that long. Not that the games were bad: I still enjoy Pacman, Space Invaders, etc., but they were so repetitive, and I'd prefer reading comics or books, or playing with toys. Now, videogames (and tv) are replacing all of those things for kids. And it's rare if I go a week without playing some type of videogame.
And are videogames declining in the East? Any decline in console sales can probably be attributed to people being consumed by the latest cell phone games over there, no?
When I was young, we would bring the Atari out every few months to play, but the games wouldn't hold my interest for that long. Not that the games were bad: I still enjoy Pacman, Space Invaders, etc., but they were so repetitive, and I'd prefer reading comics or books, or playing with toys. Now, videogames (and tv) are replacing all of those things for kids. And it's rare if I go a week without playing some type of videogame.
04-29-05, 12:52 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since everyone else has pretty much touched on the movie comparison, (which I whole-heartedly agree with), I'll mention something else that bothers me. It's almost contradictory to say that everything's the same and then go and say that games are too hard. It's like saying all the new movies are all the same blow up everything, kill everyone, type shit, but don't give me Lost in Translation either cause that makes my head hurt. It's because people are too stupid to learn something new that we keep getting so much mass-market drivel. Stop and think about some of the best moments you've had watching a movie or playing a game. Now, what do you think about? For me it's the challenges I've overcome, whether it be figuring out a mystery or dissecting a complex scene in a movie. In games it's getting past that tough boss that wasn't cheap, but instead a genuine challenge. That puzzle in Prince of Persia or Zelda that had me stumped for days. How about figuring out what the hell is going on in the Metal Gear universe? Sneaking by two human opponents and snapping their necks in Splinter Cell?
The true beauty of videogames is that it's all mediums in one. Whereas in books and movies you are reading about someone else's adventure, in videogames you live the adventure. You become the quarterback in Madden. That's you that just won the NBA championship. You are a swift spy sneaking around snapping necks. That's you stealing cars and killing cops. Would you ever do that in real life? For 99% of us the answer is no.
Take what this idiot said and switch it around. The videogame industry has taken off and will NEVER look back. Who the hell is gonna go see Star Wars and NOT wanna come home and be a jedi themselves? Our kids will still (hopefully) read books and watch movies, but when it comes to the experience a well made videogame can provide, nothing comes close. NOTHING.
The true beauty of videogames is that it's all mediums in one. Whereas in books and movies you are reading about someone else's adventure, in videogames you live the adventure. You become the quarterback in Madden. That's you that just won the NBA championship. You are a swift spy sneaking around snapping necks. That's you stealing cars and killing cops. Would you ever do that in real life? For 99% of us the answer is no.
Take what this idiot said and switch it around. The videogame industry has taken off and will NEVER look back. Who the hell is gonna go see Star Wars and NOT wanna come home and be a jedi themselves? Our kids will still (hopefully) read books and watch movies, but when it comes to the experience a well made videogame can provide, nothing comes close. NOTHING.
04-29-05, 12:57 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SteelgearX
Since everyone else has pretty much touched on the movie comparison, (which I whole-heartedly agree with), I'll mention something else that bothers me. It's almost contradictory to say that everything's the same and then go and say that games are too hard. It's like saying all the new movies are all the same blow up everything, kill everyone, type shit, but don't give me Lost in Translation either cause that makes my head hurt. It's because people are too stupid to learn something new that we keep getting so much mass-market drivel. Stop and think about some of the best moments you've had watching a movie or playing a game. Now, what do you think about? For me it's the challenges I've overcome, whether it be figuring out a mystery or dissecting a complex scene in a movie. In games it's getting past that tough boss that wasn't cheap, but instead a genuine challenge. That puzzle in Prince of Persia or Zelda that had me stumped for days. How about figuring out what the hell is going on in the Metal Gear universe? Sneaking by two human opponents and snapping their necks in Splinter Cell?
The true beauty of videogames is that it's all mediums in one. Whereas in books and movies you are reading about someone else's adventure, in videogames you live the adventure. You become the quarterback in Madden. That's you that just won the NBA championship. You are a swift spy sneaking around snapping necks. That's you stealing cars and killing cops. Would you ever do that in real life? For 99% of us the answer is no.
Take what this idiot said and switch it around. The videogame industry has taken off and will NEVER look back. Who the hell is gonna go see Star Wars and NOT wanna come home and be a jedi themselves? Our kids will still (hopefully) read books and watch movies, but when it comes to the experience a well made videogame can provide, nothing comes close. NOTHING.
The true beauty of videogames is that it's all mediums in one. Whereas in books and movies you are reading about someone else's adventure, in videogames you live the adventure. You become the quarterback in Madden. That's you that just won the NBA championship. You are a swift spy sneaking around snapping necks. That's you stealing cars and killing cops. Would you ever do that in real life? For 99% of us the answer is no.
Take what this idiot said and switch it around. The videogame industry has taken off and will NEVER look back. Who the hell is gonna go see Star Wars and NOT wanna come home and be a jedi themselves? Our kids will still (hopefully) read books and watch movies, but when it comes to the experience a well made videogame can provide, nothing comes close. NOTHING.
04-29-05, 01:01 PM
#21
DVD Talk Hero
The problem with how "hard" games are these days:
There are games that are genuinely hard to play. But then, we always had those (Battletoads, original Ninja Gaidens, etc.) Part of the "problem" is that games are so much more advanced now, and there are umpteen buttons on the controller, that few games are truly "pick up and play" for the average non-gamer. But as Dvorak is coming from the computer world, I'd say that most computer games have even more keys to play with, and are much less intuitive than using a controller.
A separate problem is that, with the coming of the internet and stuff like gamefaqs.com and strategy guides, no matter how hard a puzzle is, you can find the answer to it in a couple of minutes. So what do developers do? They make things that are impossible for the non-strategy-guide-using player to find. RPGs are the worst at this, especially the ones that don't let you go back and redo things. The way you get some items are so obscure, I'm unsure how the guy that writes the first FAQ on it ever found out how to do it.
There are games that are genuinely hard to play. But then, we always had those (Battletoads, original Ninja Gaidens, etc.) Part of the "problem" is that games are so much more advanced now, and there are umpteen buttons on the controller, that few games are truly "pick up and play" for the average non-gamer. But as Dvorak is coming from the computer world, I'd say that most computer games have even more keys to play with, and are much less intuitive than using a controller.
A separate problem is that, with the coming of the internet and stuff like gamefaqs.com and strategy guides, no matter how hard a puzzle is, you can find the answer to it in a couple of minutes. So what do developers do? They make things that are impossible for the non-strategy-guide-using player to find. RPGs are the worst at this, especially the ones that don't let you go back and redo things. The way you get some items are so obscure, I'm unsure how the guy that writes the first FAQ on it ever found out how to do it.
04-29-05, 01:21 PM
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r L@n|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
1. Movies are much cheaper than games.
2. Movies require a 2 hour time investmant, games have to hold my interest for much longer periods of time--- 10-40 hours.
2. Movies require a 2 hour time investmant, games have to hold my interest for much longer periods of time--- 10-40 hours.
I understand your point: games must hold one's attention span for a much longer time. But it's not equivalent - watching a 20-hour movie isn't the same as playing a videogame for 20 hours. Even a small amount of interactivity (interspersed with the story) considerably improves long-participation tolerance. And the kinds of interactivity that fuel today's games... well, it just doesn't get old. I've probably head-shot well over 1,000 opponents in Unreal games, and it still holds my interest.
Originally Posted by al_bundy
With games, the gameplay is most important, and games with the same gameplay but new stories/characters aren't holding my interest much anymore.
It's the same with videogames. If you really, deeply enjoy the game, you don't need tons of changes to sustain its fun factor. Look how many people still play CounterStrike - or better still, Netrek - without any real variation.
- David Stein
04-29-05, 01:36 PM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r L@n|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SteelgearX
It's because people are too stupid to learn something new that we keep getting so much mass-market drivel.
The difficulty presented in modern videogames doesn't require more thought or imagination to resolve. The solutiosn simply require more trial-and-error work, or maybe the discipline to save more often. I don't consider those to be rewarding experiences.
Originally Posted by SteelgearX
Stop and think about some of the best moments you've had watching a movie or playing a game. Now, what do you think about? For me it's the challenges I've overcome, whether it be figuring out a mystery or dissecting a complex scene in a movie.
Originally Posted by SteelgearX
Whereas in books and movies you are reading about someone else's adventure, in videogames you live the adventure.
But this concept is completely untrue for adventures. The experience is not, "what can I use to solve this puzzle?" but rather, "how did the developers wnat me to solve this puzzle?" In other words, in almost every case, a locked door is a suggestion that the key is hidden somewhere very nearby. It's not really a physical object that you might be able to finesse, force, bomb, lockpick, drill through, or simply knock on, based on whatever resources you have on hand.
Originally Posted by SteelgearX
Our kids will still (hopefully) read books and watch movies, but when it comes to the experience a well made videogame can provide, nothing comes close. NOTHING.
- David Stein
04-29-05, 02:36 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely agree with the sports comparison. Good point, that. I'll never get tired of playing or watching basketball... and all they do is run up and down the court shooting a ball through a hoop. Over... and over... and you get the point.
04-29-05, 02:51 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sfsdfd
That's true, but it's not really related to the comments - by experienced gamers - about games being too hard.
The difficulty presented in modern videogames doesn't require more thought or imagination to resolve. The solutiosn simply require more trial-and-error work, or maybe the discipline to save more often. I don't consider those to be rewarding experiences.
Sure, and that's great. Figuring out how to reach the top levels of a tomb in Tomb Raider is duly and naturally rewarding. OTOH, managing to get by six zombies with two bullets instead of three bullets is the worst kind of drudgery. The Resident Evil games and their ilk are terrible at this.
You can certainly apply that concept to sports games (except for those that let you replay games that you lost), and probably to competitive FPS/RTS games.
But this concept is completely untrue for adventures. The experience is not, "what can I use to solve this puzzle?" but rather, "how did the developers wnat me to solve this puzzle?" In other words, in almost every case, a locked door is a suggestion that the key is hidden somewhere very nearby. It's not really a physical object that you might be able to finesse, force, bomb, lockpick, drill through, or simply knock on, based on whatever resources you have on hand.
I think you need to get out of the house more often.
- David Stein
The difficulty presented in modern videogames doesn't require more thought or imagination to resolve. The solutiosn simply require more trial-and-error work, or maybe the discipline to save more often. I don't consider those to be rewarding experiences.
Sure, and that's great. Figuring out how to reach the top levels of a tomb in Tomb Raider is duly and naturally rewarding. OTOH, managing to get by six zombies with two bullets instead of three bullets is the worst kind of drudgery. The Resident Evil games and their ilk are terrible at this.
You can certainly apply that concept to sports games (except for those that let you replay games that you lost), and probably to competitive FPS/RTS games.
But this concept is completely untrue for adventures. The experience is not, "what can I use to solve this puzzle?" but rather, "how did the developers wnat me to solve this puzzle?" In other words, in almost every case, a locked door is a suggestion that the key is hidden somewhere very nearby. It's not really a physical object that you might be able to finesse, force, bomb, lockpick, drill through, or simply knock on, based on whatever resources you have on hand.
I think you need to get out of the house more often.
- David Stein
While I'm extremely flattered that you took the time to read and respond to my dumb post, I don't see how my last statement has anything to do with getting out more. I don't appreciate you attacking me personally because you don't agree with me. I consider myself a fairly balanced person and get out enough, thank you. My hobby is videogames and is no better or worse than sports, politics, cars or anyone else's hobbies.
Thanks for your concern though.