I've been playing video games for as long as I can remember. Even though you could say Atari and 5" floppies were before my time, I still found a way to play them and found myself enjoying early on computer games. I remember computer stores which had isles of games that may never resurface or even be remembered. The largest game company for computer games at the time I can even remember would be sierra. Game developers of this time were really just composed of a small team of devs with an idea to create something fun and interesting. Really, all i'm trying to say is that my life I've witnessed an evolution of gaming. Where gaming use to only influence a small sect of people who found computing and gaming interesting, now evolved into something everyone does and is the "norm."
If you think about MTV, a lot of people who grew up in this age too, will say how much the music industry has changed. Where MTV use to play nothing but music, it played a wide variety that almost no one could like it all. by the time I had turned 10 I could be listening to the scatman, fiona apple, jamiroquai, sneaker pimps, bone, 2pac, god lives underwater, nirvana, and just a whole array of different music with it's own character and distinct sound. Over time, the popularity of MTV grew so large that the majority had latched onto this phenomenon, and there was much much more money to be made.(these are my opinions) By the natural process of trial and error with popularity, a formula was formed that music could basically be produced at a rapid pace without ever actually being original and being able to be sold in large quantities. The entire music industry just seems to be changing the cover and title on the book without ever changing the contents. You may take this as an impression that I hate the music industry, but I don't, I'm indifferent towards the entirety of it. It's just a simple phenomenon. What does this have to do with gaming? Everything really.
The online gaming boom began around the year 2000. Game titles like starcraft and counter-strike paved the way for this boom. The insertion of a little program called napster aided in this boom by making the internet important to everyone. More people had a reason not only to have a computer, but to find a place to game on(It is most likely because of napster that the broadband infrastructure began to grow rapidly). I had just gotten my own computer a little bit before this boom was happening. I had my own copy of half-life and was able to download counter-strike in it's beta form. Since then I have watched CS go from beta, to version 1, from when valve bought it, released CS:CZ, released CS:S, and now about to release CS:GO. Counter-strike began as a 3rd party mod created by a man by the handle gooseman. The game was fast paced and required quick aim and wit to carry a score. Sound and aim were critical, you could aim through walls and kill enemies through them without ever actually seeing them with high success rates. As this game has evolved it changed into something nothing like it was, they began to tone the game down for to appeal to a broader audience(sound familiar?). after being bought up by valve, update after update you could see the community get upset. All of these updates in the name of "balance" and "fairness." But what is more fair than if you have the ability that you succeed over the other person...or entire team. after being so "unfair" but being so popular why has it changed so much? From my perspective, I see CS growing more toward popular titles like COD and Battlefield. Although CS doesn't include vehicles, precise aim has become less important, and sound function in CS has been toned down as well. all of these changes for what? Why change the mechanics of a popular titled game? IMHO, FPS have been following closer and closer pattern regarding aiming mechanics and movement, why? because other FPS titles have been running to the bank. Like COD.
Maybe some of you think I've made some radical and unsubstantiated claims. So let me turn the cross-hair on Diablo...or Activion Blizzard. Many people since the announcement have complained about overlapping features from WoW to Diablo. While both sides of the spectrum have made points and expressed their opinion, let me tackle it like this. As the message of this entire post has been pointing towards creating a formula for a product to be sold in masses, This follows that idea. The fact that AB(activision blizzard) wants many overlapping ideas between games follows that concept. To create a working formula for RPGs and titles that vary very little. Imagine how easily it has been for COD to recreate the same game and sell it for even higher revenue despite the fact that it's essentially the same game. If you don't think AB has any intent on just continually releasing the same product take this one Tippl:
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.” http://www.gamasutra...s_An_Excuse.php
Take this one from Kotick:
"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us." http://www.gamasutra...php?story=20984
The idea is to create a formula that works for that specific media. Video games have always been an artform. If you feel as though they haven't affected Diablo just look at Bnet and the auction house system inwhich you can find was largely their idea. We've all heard the arguments from people saying that all Blizzard is worrying about is the "bottom line." Well, thats exactly what kotick has already stated from the beginning:
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
If you feel as though this argument against blizzard has been made before, It's not about blizzard specifically, but gaming in general. In my opinion, the same thing that happend to the music industry is now beginning to happen to the gaming industry. Music is an art, and gaming is an art as well. I'm not against the bottom line, But I'm seeing a trend that has ruined some great games I use to play.
Kotick was interviewed on CNBC, and was asked:
"Where do you think we are, big picture, in the narrative of the way the internet lets us play. Is this just the beginning or have we seen most of what is possible 10-15 years from now." Kotick responded: "we're like in the 1st inning." And he's right, but thats the only expansion I believe we're really going to see on what these big companies have to offer. He was speaking in terms of the technological immersion of play, which is going to be the sideshow for how to keep players coming back to the same product.
But, The End is this. The end of an era where blockbuster type titles came from a close nit group of developers with passion and love of an art form. The beginning is the formulated process of churning out books and videos games 1984 style with only the bottom line in mind. Or is it?
I hated Gabe Newell for how CS has been handled over the years and his steam program only pissed me off more. But Gabe might have made some hope for people like me, with his steam system he has given the independant devoloper a megaphone, and a place to sell his game. The steam system gives any developer to sell his game and get the word out about it to everyone under the steam system. I have bought many indy games through this system. Just to name a few: Torchlight, VVVVVVV, Natural Selection 2, and Machinarium. So maybe there is more hope than is out there, but I'm just putting this idea out there.
I know there are some that may feel that the argument against the "bottom line" is a bad one to make. But it's not so much that it's driven by money, but that, the drive for that money that mechanizes a heart driven media known as art. The art is what suffers. If you take a look at the music industry as a whole, do you enjoy(as gamers ofcourse) what the music industry machine pumps out? Would you like that to be your gaming industry?
By the natural process of trial and error with popularity, a formula was formed that music could basically be produced at a rapid pace without ever actually being original and being able to be sold in large quantities. The entire music industry just seems to be changing the cover and title on the book without ever changing the contents. You may take this as an impression that I hate the music industry, but I don't, I'm indifferent towards the entirety of it. It's just a simple phenomenon. What does this have to do with gaming? Everything really.
I don't think it's anything new that music can be "produced at a rapid pace without ever actually being original and being able to be sold in large quantities". While obviously all our tastes in music are subjective, I'd like to still think that in every era there has been music that is boring and uncreative while at the same time there is always exceptional music that is merely less accessible to you. However, now, that has changed a lot with the internet where yes, the market of music is still flooded with corporate crap (again, that's my opinion), there is actually a greater access to that exceptional music that used to be hard to find. The trick now is not trying to find it by itself, but just sifting through all the garbage until you get to the really good stuff.
As this game has evolved it changed into something nothing like it was, they began to tone the game down for to appeal to a broader audience(sound familiar?). after being bought up by valve, update after update you could see the community get upset. All of these updates in the name of "balance" and "fairness." But what is more fair than if you have the ability that you succeed over the other person...or entire team. after being so "unfair" but being so popular why has it changed so much? From my perspective, I see CS growing more toward popular titles like COD and Battlefield. Although CS doesn't include vehicles, precise aim has become less important, and sound function in CS has been toned down as well. all of these changes for what? Why change the mechanics of a popular titled game? IMHO, FPS have been following closer and closer pattern regarding aiming mechanics and movement, why? because other FPS titles have been running to the bank. Like COD.
Well I sense what you're getting at I think. But is that your biggest qualm with the changes to Counterstrike? The lack of aiming precision? Cause you know how sensitive those millimeters of pixels ought to be!
Maybe some of you think I've made some radical and unsubstantiated claims. So let me turn the cross-hair on Diablo...or Activion Blizzard. Many people since the announcement have complained about overlapping features from WoW to Diablo. While both sides of the spectrum have made points and expressed their opinion, let me tackle it like this. As the message of this entire post has been pointing towards creating a formula for a product to be sold in masses, This follows that idea. The fact that AB(activision blizzard) wants many overlapping ideas between games follows that concept. To create a working formula for RPGs and titles that vary very little. Imagine how easily it has been for COD to recreate the same game and sell it for even higher revenue despite the fact that it's essentially the same game. If you don't think AB has any intent on just continually releasing the same product take this one Tippl:
So, are you taking issue with games streamlining their game mechanics and UI's in order to appeal to a broader audience? Sure, variation is good. And there could definitely be marketing reasons behind decisions to do a thing just like an already existing game. But isn't there a logic to that too? If something works well, then why not implement it? Though I'm not sure what you mean specifically anyway. Is there something about WoW that you feel was just hamfisted into D3? Are there not just a few, but many things about D3 that you feel is either a copout or evidence of a lack of innovation? Again, I only SENSE what you're getting at, but you're still being a bit too vague for me to really understand your arguments.
"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us."
All I can really say is that of many genres in gaming, FPS games are some of the most dumbed-down games of all and any new FPS game tries desperately to distinguish itself from competitors but many of us have caught on that most of it is the same repetitive crap.
The idea is to create a formula that works for that specific media. Video games have always been an artform.
No, not always. I mean, don't act like games have been so exceptional as to always adhere to artistic integrity above all else. Very early on in the gaming industry they have made awful, awful games purely for the sake of money. The gaming industry has never been so pure as to always have been about art. Take the game E.T. for example. Infamous for its shittiness, and this game was made in 1982.
If you feel as though they haven't affected Diablo just look at Bnet and the auction house system inwhich you can find was largely their idea. We've all heard the arguments from people saying that all Blizzard is worrying about is the "bottom line." Well, thats exactly what kotick has already stated from the beginning:
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
If you feel as though this argument against blizzard has been made before, It's not about blizzard specifically, but gaming in general. In my opinion, the same thing that happend to the music industry is now beginning to happen to the gaming industry. Music is an art, and gaming is an art as well. I'm not against the bottom line, But I'm seeing a trend that has ruined some great games I use to play.
Well, a couple of things. As I said before, the gaming industry was never that pure as you'd like to think it was. That said, I will admit, however, that there have been tons of game developers committed to a vision of a game while not even knowing for sure that it would make a profit. Filmmakers have done the same thing throughout time. They stuck to making their movie just as they wanted it and didn't give a crap about profits. They felt their was a story that needed to be told and it was that important to them that they didn't care about making money off it in the end even if they tried. Games, however, can't be directly compared to movies though in my opinion. Partly for the reason that the gaming industry grew much quicker than the film industry ever did and so it faces more an identity crisis than the film industry. I mean, film has been around for over a hundred years. It evolved more with modern society and seriously helped shape it. Games have a large influence on society, granted, but they came so quickly and evolved so quickly that we're still not exactly sure where they fit into society and many people, despite how mainstream games have become, fail to recognize their impact.
Nevertheless, there was a time when people wanted games to be taken more seriously. And now they are. But there is a price to pay for that. So many fail to understand this about any industry. We have greater access to games, and a greater choice of content, but the new reality of the gaming market naturally changes the reality of game development. I mean, speaking of your music example, it's not that different in that sense. There is tons and tons of music out there. And so the music industry has lost money because it is no longer these giant record companies that solely control distribution of that content. We can now get it in so many ways and people can release their own music without even the help of record companies thanks to the digital revolution.
With the gaming industry it was kind of different though. They were never these huge mega corporations. They were small developers like Westwood and Origin. They knew how to make awesome games but they didn't have the marketing power to survive giants like EA and so they were absorbed or absolved. And like I've also said before, video games are REALLY expensive to make. Indie games aside, when you have major games such as Diablo 3, Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, etc, people fail to realize just how expensive these modern games are to produce. And part of their decision making process for what goes into development, unfortunately, must take into account profit returns. That's the new reality. That's the price we've paid for video games being taken more seriously and for having more access and choices to video games. Everyone wants all the best things that come with games being mainstream but fail to acknowledge what we trade off for that.
I think the rating system for games is a great example. Games used to not even have a rating system. A developer could make whatever content they wanted and the worst some stores could do was refuse to carry those games which only made people want the game anymore. Now they carry games of all kinds but put the rating on the box which for some games can seriously affect their sales. Same reason why movies today compromise their content in order to get a PG-13 rating because without it they simply won't make as much money.
But, The End is this. The end of an era where blockbuster type titles came from a close nit group of developers with passion and love of an art form. The beginning is the formulated process of churning out books and videos games 1984 style with only the bottom line in mind. Or is it?
I think you may be a tad cynical. And trust me brother, I'm way cynical in life. I think lots of games still are derived from passion and a love of art. There are tons of new games that I would argue are so well executed and even benefit from the combination of passionate developers and soulless publishers such as EA. Dead Space 2 is one of my recent examples of this. It's simply an incredible game! I love the story (a bit minimalistic, but still totally there to be absorbed), the smooth gameplay, the pacing, the ambiance, the music, the art direction, everything about it is incredibly solid. I've played this game all the way through about six times. I'm just saying that despite everything you're talking about, despite even the compromises developers must make at times, I still think we are seeing some incredible games out there. And from a story perspective, games are becoming a much more immersive way to tell a story, much even to the chagrin of hardcore gamers who bemoan RPG's and their heavy storytelling elements.
with his steam system he has given the independant devoloper a megaphone, and a place to sell his game. The steam system gives any developer to sell his game and get the word out about it to everyone under the steam system. I have bought many indy games through this system. Just to name a few: Torchlight, VVVVVVV, Natural Selection 2, and Machinarium. So maybe there is more hope than is out there, but I'm just putting this idea out there.
Some of the best games I played in 2011 were indie games.
I'll try to keep this short. I've been through this before where discussions like this trudge on for days and pages. Am I saying that "the end" has happened, no. But I am seeing a trend, I think follows that of the music industry. You can take Koticks words and build that argument itself. But then you have the active Blizzard community that still expresses it's desire to create something great. And I agree that it still exists today. You can see how activision is modeling itself to re brand the same product and move it forward trying to do as little work as possible while trying to up sales. It's a good business model, I can't begrudge them that. But I think Kotick is really just more open about his objectives. His is not an outlier opinion or ideology. I think his mentality is becoming the norm, like the music industry. the "soullessness" doesn't happen overnight. I think it may be something that happens when you're playing maybe one of your previously loved titles and it hits you that nothing is as it were(not as though things should stay the same, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at). Many people, not just I, have expressed that focusing on the bottom line is bad for people who love the art involved in games.
Really the argument here isn't "is there a bottom line driven philosophy for games" but the point I'm trying to make is that of the magnitude and reach of that bottom line driven philosophy. We can always argue that everything is driven by the bottom line. I don't think I could argue against that. But it's impact, magnitude, and reach, I think we can argue it's ill effects. by impact I mean it's effect on the games. by magnitude, I mean the ratio of titles that follow that model. and by reach, the number of people who will spend their capital on that which they could have otherwise spent on another game. Perhaps, thats why my point is somewhat elusive or hard to pinpoint. Because I don't think you'll ever know you're going there, until you're already there.
Honestly, I won't lose any sleep if the gaming industry were to fall under the bottom line. I canceled my cable packages and only see TV when at a friends or at work. I don't ever listen to the radio, and have very little music I even do listen to. I don't really have any active video games I really play anymore either. Most of them I play when I'm bored to tears. other than that, when Im running out of things to do, I'm hoping d3 would be released so I can maybe have a case of nostalgia and enjoy a good game.
Kotick's likely to be wrong in the end anyway. Gamers are way less forgiving of bad games than say movie goers are of games. Because games cost a lot more money than seeing a movie and gamers are incredibly opinionated and know how to use the internet. So if Kotick's development philosophy has saved him some money in the short run, I can assure you that's all it's gonna achieve. I mean, when a game is really shitty, you're gonna know about it.
Take Duke Nuke'em Forever. My GOD what a shitty game, right? Well, I haven't even played it to be honest. But I'm so positive it's a shitty game cause despite how unfair people's criticisms on the internet are, there's just no way that THAT many people were being THAT unfair toward the game. It had to be really bad to solicit such horrible reactions. And that kept the game from selling as many copies as it could have. Though the development problems behind Duke Nuke'em might be different than something else Activision may publish, the point is, is if the art suffers and bad games are made, most gamers I think are really only so forgiving. And they also have a ton of choices to shop around so it's not like even Activision or EA has a monopoly on games. Despite how powerful you all think they are, consumers still have a ton of viable choices on how to spend their money on games.
I agree that games are becoming way to, simplified if you will for lack of a better term. They're becoming something more akin to movies than music really. With Music you have a very diverse culture, with movies though everythings just a copy and pasted piece fo shit. I rarely go to the movies anymore simply because they're just shit versions plastered all over my TV with Ad's claiming to be the best new movie ever when really they all suck.
I feel like games have really taken what's made them unique and said "well look at this poor newb he's too stupid to comprehend how to work the system, let's make it so he can" this inevitably causes everyone else to get upset but there's a middle portion that accepts these for the better and then makes the more avid protesters just a simple minority, which in time makes the game cater mroe towards what those newbs want and less what... "smarter" people want, again for lack of a better term.
I also fel like story has become sort of a joke in the industry. This is where they really get to be like movies, over-cliched pieces of shit plot lines, with terrible voice acting and "EXPLOSIONS!, MOAR EXPLOSIONS, EVEN MOAR EXPLOSION!!! I mean tbh, I don't buy games for story simply because there are non to me worth buying. Sure you can say some games have a stellar story, compared to what? CoD? Let's be honest. Most people aren't comparing today's storys to the likes of Diablo 1 and 2 or Warcraft, or Zelda, or MGS. They're comparing them to current games, and frankly most are just crap repackaged version in a different setting. Some games though REALLY STAND OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Fore example, Halo. To be fair It's pretty epic, and pretty cliched but it really is a good story. Black ops is the only CoD game worth any story. It's twists are just WTf's but it really is offset by its SUPER CLICHED EXPLOSIONS AND MAOR EXPLOSIONS fundamentals which I think turns off a lot of people. MGS is by far the most entertaining story I've grown up with that is continuing, along side Diablo. It really has a story, mainly because it's a story only game. Dead Space is something out of this world. It's actually different in a way. It's not some repackaged crap but it's not crap at all either. It's genuinely good.
Now look back and see how many games I've posted about having a good story that I've had experience with, not many huh... How many games were released in between 2008-Present? Shit loads and only a few, very select few shone through to me as quality storyline games. There are probably others I haven't played I'll admit that. But really if that many games are"good" at providing me with an epic story to follow and care for characters then that's pretty sad in my opinion. I mean what Drives a game for me is the story, multiplayer is a huge factor but it's always second to me when coming to story. If a game has no story, no backbone, It's doomed to fail as a "good" game because it doesn't engage you and make you feel for the game. If it's all multiplayer then there's no attachment to your character. There is no character. You're a nameless face shooting at another nameless face with the same exact mindset, loadout and achievements as you. There's nothing there, it's simply just not present. That's the fault of all these games. Nothing is attaching you and making you feel therefore there's this emotional void in between you and the game which doesn't connect the two and you just feel unsatisfied with the experience. and when they "try", if you could even call it a try, at making storylines they turn out to be ABSOLUTE fails because of their overly done dramatics.
In closing, I'd like to say this. Games are good, in their own right. But no game is as engaging as they used to be. You don't go back and play CoD 4, or BF BC1 & 2 because they're simply not good enough games. You don't go and replay the CoD campaign or the newest Supermario game because again they're not the same as they used to be. But what you do go back and play is Diablo 1 and 2, or warcraft, or MGS1 2 3 and 4. Why? They are engaging. There's something there there's emotion and excitement anticipation fear. They connect your emotions to the characters, they tie you into the game. That's what makes a game good in my opinion and that's what I feel games lack these days.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you think about MTV, a lot of people who grew up in this age too, will say how much the music industry has changed. Where MTV use to play nothing but music, it played a wide variety that almost no one could like it all. by the time I had turned 10 I could be listening to the scatman, fiona apple, jamiroquai, sneaker pimps, bone, 2pac, god lives underwater, nirvana, and just a whole array of different music with it's own character and distinct sound. Over time, the popularity of MTV grew so large that the majority had latched onto this phenomenon, and there was much much more money to be made.(these are my opinions) By the natural process of trial and error with popularity, a formula was formed that music could basically be produced at a rapid pace without ever actually being original and being able to be sold in large quantities. The entire music industry just seems to be changing the cover and title on the book without ever changing the contents. You may take this as an impression that I hate the music industry, but I don't, I'm indifferent towards the entirety of it. It's just a simple phenomenon. What does this have to do with gaming? Everything really.
The online gaming boom began around the year 2000. Game titles like starcraft and counter-strike paved the way for this boom. The insertion of a little program called napster aided in this boom by making the internet important to everyone. More people had a reason not only to have a computer, but to find a place to game on(It is most likely because of napster that the broadband infrastructure began to grow rapidly). I had just gotten my own computer a little bit before this boom was happening. I had my own copy of half-life and was able to download counter-strike in it's beta form. Since then I have watched CS go from beta, to version 1, from when valve bought it, released CS:CZ, released CS:S, and now about to release CS:GO. Counter-strike began as a 3rd party mod created by a man by the handle gooseman. The game was fast paced and required quick aim and wit to carry a score. Sound and aim were critical, you could aim through walls and kill enemies through them without ever actually seeing them with high success rates. As this game has evolved it changed into something nothing like it was, they began to tone the game down for to appeal to a broader audience(sound familiar?). after being bought up by valve, update after update you could see the community get upset. All of these updates in the name of "balance" and "fairness." But what is more fair than if you have the ability that you succeed over the other person...or entire team. after being so "unfair" but being so popular why has it changed so much? From my perspective, I see CS growing more toward popular titles like COD and Battlefield. Although CS doesn't include vehicles, precise aim has become less important, and sound function in CS has been toned down as well. all of these changes for what? Why change the mechanics of a popular titled game? IMHO, FPS have been following closer and closer pattern regarding aiming mechanics and movement, why? because other FPS titles have been running to the bank. Like COD.
Maybe some of you think I've made some radical and unsubstantiated claims. So let me turn the cross-hair on Diablo...or Activion Blizzard. Many people since the announcement have complained about overlapping features from WoW to Diablo. While both sides of the spectrum have made points and expressed their opinion, let me tackle it like this. As the message of this entire post has been pointing towards creating a formula for a product to be sold in masses, This follows that idea. The fact that AB(activision blizzard) wants many overlapping ideas between games follows that concept. To create a working formula for RPGs and titles that vary very little. Imagine how easily it has been for COD to recreate the same game and sell it for even higher revenue despite the fact that it's essentially the same game. If you don't think AB has any intent on just continually releasing the same product take this one Tippl:
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”
http://www.gamasutra...s_An_Excuse.php
Take this one from Kotick:
"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us."
http://www.gamasutra...php?story=20984
The idea is to create a formula that works for that specific media. Video games have always been an artform. If you feel as though they haven't affected Diablo just look at Bnet and the auction house system inwhich you can find was largely their idea. We've all heard the arguments from people saying that all Blizzard is worrying about is the "bottom line." Well, thats exactly what kotick has already stated from the beginning:
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
If you feel as though this argument against blizzard has been made before, It's not about blizzard specifically, but gaming in general. In my opinion, the same thing that happend to the music industry is now beginning to happen to the gaming industry. Music is an art, and gaming is an art as well. I'm not against the bottom line, But I'm seeing a trend that has ruined some great games I use to play.
Kotick was interviewed on CNBC, and was asked:
"Where do you think we are, big picture, in the narrative of the way the internet lets us play. Is this just the beginning or have we seen most of what is possible 10-15 years from now." Kotick responded: "we're like in the 1st inning." And he's right, but thats the only expansion I believe we're really going to see on what these big companies have to offer. He was speaking in terms of the technological immersion of play, which is going to be the sideshow for how to keep players coming back to the same product.
But, The End is this. The end of an era where blockbuster type titles came from a close nit group of developers with passion and love of an art form. The beginning is the formulated process of churning out books and videos games 1984 style with only the bottom line in mind. Or is it?
I hated Gabe Newell for how CS has been handled over the years and his steam program only pissed me off more. But Gabe might have made some hope for people like me, with his steam system he has given the independant devoloper a megaphone, and a place to sell his game. The steam system gives any developer to sell his game and get the word out about it to everyone under the steam system. I have bought many indy games through this system. Just to name a few: Torchlight, VVVVVVV, Natural Selection 2, and Machinarium. So maybe there is more hope than is out there, but I'm just putting this idea out there.
I know there are some that may feel that the argument against the "bottom line" is a bad one to make. But it's not so much that it's driven by money, but that, the drive for that money that mechanizes a heart driven media known as art. The art is what suffers. If you take a look at the music industry as a whole, do you enjoy(as gamers ofcourse) what the music industry machine pumps out? Would you like that to be your gaming industry?
/rant
I don't think it's anything new that music can be "produced at a rapid pace without ever actually being original and being able to be sold in large quantities". While obviously all our tastes in music are subjective, I'd like to still think that in every era there has been music that is boring and uncreative while at the same time there is always exceptional music that is merely less accessible to you. However, now, that has changed a lot with the internet where yes, the market of music is still flooded with corporate crap (again, that's my opinion), there is actually a greater access to that exceptional music that used to be hard to find. The trick now is not trying to find it by itself, but just sifting through all the garbage until you get to the really good stuff.
Well I sense what you're getting at I think. But is that your biggest qualm with the changes to Counterstrike? The lack of aiming precision? Cause you know how sensitive those millimeters of pixels ought to be!
So, are you taking issue with games streamlining their game mechanics and UI's in order to appeal to a broader audience? Sure, variation is good. And there could definitely be marketing reasons behind decisions to do a thing just like an already existing game. But isn't there a logic to that too? If something works well, then why not implement it? Though I'm not sure what you mean specifically anyway. Is there something about WoW that you feel was just hamfisted into D3? Are there not just a few, but many things about D3 that you feel is either a copout or evidence of a lack of innovation? Again, I only SENSE what you're getting at, but you're still being a bit too vague for me to really understand your arguments.
All I can really say is that of many genres in gaming, FPS games are some of the most dumbed-down games of all and any new FPS game tries desperately to distinguish itself from competitors but many of us have caught on that most of it is the same repetitive crap.
No, not always. I mean, don't act like games have been so exceptional as to always adhere to artistic integrity above all else. Very early on in the gaming industry they have made awful, awful games purely for the sake of money. The gaming industry has never been so pure as to always have been about art. Take the game E.T. for example. Infamous for its shittiness, and this game was made in 1982.
Well, a couple of things. As I said before, the gaming industry was never that pure as you'd like to think it was. That said, I will admit, however, that there have been tons of game developers committed to a vision of a game while not even knowing for sure that it would make a profit. Filmmakers have done the same thing throughout time. They stuck to making their movie just as they wanted it and didn't give a crap about profits. They felt their was a story that needed to be told and it was that important to them that they didn't care about making money off it in the end even if they tried. Games, however, can't be directly compared to movies though in my opinion. Partly for the reason that the gaming industry grew much quicker than the film industry ever did and so it faces more an identity crisis than the film industry. I mean, film has been around for over a hundred years. It evolved more with modern society and seriously helped shape it. Games have a large influence on society, granted, but they came so quickly and evolved so quickly that we're still not exactly sure where they fit into society and many people, despite how mainstream games have become, fail to recognize their impact.
Nevertheless, there was a time when people wanted games to be taken more seriously. And now they are. But there is a price to pay for that. So many fail to understand this about any industry. We have greater access to games, and a greater choice of content, but the new reality of the gaming market naturally changes the reality of game development. I mean, speaking of your music example, it's not that different in that sense. There is tons and tons of music out there. And so the music industry has lost money because it is no longer these giant record companies that solely control distribution of that content. We can now get it in so many ways and people can release their own music without even the help of record companies thanks to the digital revolution.
With the gaming industry it was kind of different though. They were never these huge mega corporations. They were small developers like Westwood and Origin. They knew how to make awesome games but they didn't have the marketing power to survive giants like EA and so they were absorbed or absolved. And like I've also said before, video games are REALLY expensive to make. Indie games aside, when you have major games such as Diablo 3, Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, etc, people fail to realize just how expensive these modern games are to produce. And part of their decision making process for what goes into development, unfortunately, must take into account profit returns. That's the new reality. That's the price we've paid for video games being taken more seriously and for having more access and choices to video games. Everyone wants all the best things that come with games being mainstream but fail to acknowledge what we trade off for that.
I think the rating system for games is a great example. Games used to not even have a rating system. A developer could make whatever content they wanted and the worst some stores could do was refuse to carry those games which only made people want the game anymore. Now they carry games of all kinds but put the rating on the box which for some games can seriously affect their sales. Same reason why movies today compromise their content in order to get a PG-13 rating because without it they simply won't make as much money.
I think you may be a tad cynical. And trust me brother, I'm way cynical in life. I think lots of games still are derived from passion and a love of art. There are tons of new games that I would argue are so well executed and even benefit from the combination of passionate developers and soulless publishers such as EA. Dead Space 2 is one of my recent examples of this. It's simply an incredible game! I love the story (a bit minimalistic, but still totally there to be absorbed), the smooth gameplay, the pacing, the ambiance, the music, the art direction, everything about it is incredibly solid. I've played this game all the way through about six times. I'm just saying that despite everything you're talking about, despite even the compromises developers must make at times, I still think we are seeing some incredible games out there. And from a story perspective, games are becoming a much more immersive way to tell a story, much even to the chagrin of hardcore gamers who bemoan RPG's and their heavy storytelling elements.
Some of the best games I played in 2011 were indie games.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94711-Bobby-Kotick-Wants-to-Take-the-Fun-Out-of-Making-Games
"But the real bomb dropped, from a gamer's perspective at least, when he touted the company's intense focus on the bottom line above all else, noting that the company's employee incentive program "really rewards profit and nothing else."
Really the argument here isn't "is there a bottom line driven philosophy for games" but the point I'm trying to make is that of the magnitude and reach of that bottom line driven philosophy. We can always argue that everything is driven by the bottom line. I don't think I could argue against that. But it's impact, magnitude, and reach, I think we can argue it's ill effects. by impact I mean it's effect on the games. by magnitude, I mean the ratio of titles that follow that model. and by reach, the number of people who will spend their capital on that which they could have otherwise spent on another game. Perhaps, thats why my point is somewhat elusive or hard to pinpoint. Because I don't think you'll ever know you're going there, until you're already there.
Honestly, I won't lose any sleep if the gaming industry were to fall under the bottom line. I canceled my cable packages and only see TV when at a friends or at work. I don't ever listen to the radio, and have very little music I even do listen to. I don't really have any active video games I really play anymore either. Most of them I play when I'm bored to tears. other than that, when Im running out of things to do, I'm hoping d3 would be released so I can maybe have a case of nostalgia and enjoy a good game.
Take Duke Nuke'em Forever. My GOD what a shitty game, right? Well, I haven't even played it to be honest. But I'm so positive it's a shitty game cause despite how unfair people's criticisms on the internet are, there's just no way that THAT many people were being THAT unfair toward the game. It had to be really bad to solicit such horrible reactions. And that kept the game from selling as many copies as it could have. Though the development problems behind Duke Nuke'em might be different than something else Activision may publish, the point is, is if the art suffers and bad games are made, most gamers I think are really only so forgiving. And they also have a ton of choices to shop around so it's not like even Activision or EA has a monopoly on games. Despite how powerful you all think they are, consumers still have a ton of viable choices on how to spend their money on games.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I feel like games have really taken what's made them unique and said "well look at this poor newb he's too stupid to comprehend how to work the system, let's make it so he can" this inevitably causes everyone else to get upset but there's a middle portion that accepts these for the better and then makes the more avid protesters just a simple minority, which in time makes the game cater mroe towards what those newbs want and less what... "smarter" people want, again for lack of a better term.
I also fel like story has become sort of a joke in the industry. This is where they really get to be like movies, over-cliched pieces of shit plot lines, with terrible voice acting and "EXPLOSIONS!, MOAR EXPLOSIONS, EVEN MOAR EXPLOSION!!! I mean tbh, I don't buy games for story simply because there are non to me worth buying. Sure you can say some games have a stellar story, compared to what? CoD? Let's be honest. Most people aren't comparing today's storys to the likes of Diablo 1 and 2 or Warcraft, or Zelda, or MGS. They're comparing them to current games, and frankly most are just crap repackaged version in a different setting. Some games though REALLY STAND OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Fore example, Halo. To be fair It's pretty epic, and pretty cliched but it really is a good story. Black ops is the only CoD game worth any story. It's twists are just WTf's but it really is offset by its SUPER CLICHED EXPLOSIONS AND MAOR EXPLOSIONS fundamentals which I think turns off a lot of people. MGS is by far the most entertaining story I've grown up with that is continuing, along side Diablo. It really has a story, mainly because it's a story only game. Dead Space is something out of this world. It's actually different in a way. It's not some repackaged crap but it's not crap at all either. It's genuinely good.
Now look back and see how many games I've posted about having a good story that I've had experience with, not many huh... How many games were released in between 2008-Present? Shit loads and only a few, very select few shone through to me as quality storyline games. There are probably others I haven't played I'll admit that. But really if that many games are"good" at providing me with an epic story to follow and care for characters then that's pretty sad in my opinion. I mean what Drives a game for me is the story, multiplayer is a huge factor but it's always second to me when coming to story. If a game has no story, no backbone, It's doomed to fail as a "good" game because it doesn't engage you and make you feel for the game. If it's all multiplayer then there's no attachment to your character. There is no character. You're a nameless face shooting at another nameless face with the same exact mindset, loadout and achievements as you. There's nothing there, it's simply just not present. That's the fault of all these games. Nothing is attaching you and making you feel therefore there's this emotional void in between you and the game which doesn't connect the two and you just feel unsatisfied with the experience. and when they "try", if you could even call it a try, at making storylines they turn out to be ABSOLUTE fails because of their overly done dramatics.
In closing, I'd like to say this. Games are good, in their own right. But no game is as engaging as they used to be. You don't go back and play CoD 4, or BF BC1 & 2 because they're simply not good enough games. You don't go and replay the CoD campaign or the newest Supermario game because again they're not the same as they used to be. But what you do go back and play is Diablo 1 and 2, or warcraft, or MGS1 2 3 and 4. Why? They are engaging. There's something there there's emotion and excitement anticipation fear. They connect your emotions to the characters, they tie you into the game. That's what makes a game good in my opinion and that's what I feel games lack these days.