Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

One of the few topics I actually like, and am somewhat knowledgeable about.

Continuing from my college thread, to Neruz:

Now, Neruz, I'm not saying people should stop trying to make a living here, I'm saying that in order for the video game community to become better, it's leaders have to be better as well. You say that the community is just full of idiots, and isn't worth the effort to try to make it better. While I won't say that the community isn't full of idiots, I will say that just giving up before trying will never change anything. Now, what I'm thinking is that, if you want the culture to become more... cultured, then those that make games should also strive to treat it's respective fanbases better, and actually put more effort into treating the medium with more respect than just a money machine.

[Earthquake Damage]

Keep your artistic viewpoints to yourself.  Surely you don't want to ruin a perfectly good cash cow with silly things like depth and quality, do you?

[Chutney]

Making new or fancy gameplay is best left to the indie developers, who aren't losing much, rather than the big corporations who can be completely destroyed if people don't like their games.

Or spend the money on something useful and worthwhile, like robotics or artificial intelligence or simulation. Sure AI and simulation are used in video games but generally not very well and it's not really advancing the field ever.

[JoshuaFH]

It's not as though the big companies have never diverged from the norm before. The cash cows that dominate the markets were originally new ideas. Things have just gotten out of hand is all.

[Chutney]

They were new ideas when the video game industry was a much younger industry, and, like a baby, allowed a little more flex room in learning it's boundaries. it's cool to let your baby bumble around and put little nicknacks in their mouth, that's how they learn, but if they keep doing that when they're 18, then you (as a parent) are not going to accept that as much.
The sad thing is, the video game industry is still very young, except it seems to have matured very quickly.

Besides, gamers don't want new stuff, they want Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and Halo ODST and Final Fantasy 13 and Bioware RPG 6.
Why risk your money with something new when you can buy something you know works, right?

[JoshuaFH]

The analogy doesn't work as much when you're talking about a large group of people participating in something that doesn't 'age' than it just changes with the time.

Also, I wouldn't say that the industry is 'mature' at all. I look at any facet of the industry, official and unofficial, and it's all grating jabber with only a few specks of real meaning in any of it.

Placing the responsibility to innovate on the shoulders of the indy crowd is a low risk, yes, but also very low reward. You make it sound like once a company becomes so big, it becomes permanently stuck in it's rut, having grown far too big to actually move and it just has to perform the same trick over and over just to survive.

I'm not of the mindset that there's no room for change. There's plenty of room, it's just a Lorax Scenario, where you have to care a whole lot if you actually want anything to change.

[sonerohi]

I actually wrote a small essay on the video-game industry recently. The trouble with big coorporations is that they have to guard their income, the games. Releasing demos and trials open them up to people stealing their work, which they can't let happen. Letting people in on the design process lets people copy their work, so they can't get feedback from the community as they go. Thus, they just have to throw a game out and hope it works if they're trying a new concept. Otherwise, they throw out eyecandy5 and grind a profit out of the demographic selected.

With indie developers, they're able to, instead of hunting down a group and mercilessly exploiting their likes and dislikes with old concepts, draw their own market. They can let the players have more of a look at the game before it's released, and usually even incorporate what the potential players want to see.

Think of it like trying to get groundwater. The corporation picks it's spot and ruthlessly drills the ground in one spot til it finds water, then draws from their all that they can. The indie developer digs a small hole, waits, and if the water rises to fill the hole, he drinks what he needs and takes care of the area. If it doesn't rise, he fills it back up and tries again elsewhere.

[JoshuaFH]

Yeah Soner, what I'm ultimately trying to say is that companies aren't really at fault, it's just that the world and system they got shoehorned into isn't the best for any of the parties involved. What I'm trying to get at is that there doesn't seem to be enough people identifying that this is the problem and trying to get it changed.

[Aqizzar]

Get it changed to what then?  A market that magically rewards creativity no matter how much people like or dislike it?  I'm not even entirely sure what your complaint is, except that a lot of people don't share your tastes in what makes a good game.  How exactly is people identifying with that problem supposed to change the market forces of people buying what they like anyway?

[JoshuaFH]

This whole thing got started with me not liking the fact that FF really is taking the hyperbole of the past and slowly making it into reality with each coming sequal. I said that they should stop and just make new things, and then bam, discussion.

To answer you though Aqizzar, I remember reading a blog somewhere, Grassroots gamer was what I think it was, that had some really touching ideas. I should really dig up the article in question.

[Chutney]

The analogy doesn't work as much when you're talking about a large group of people participating in something that doesn't 'age' than it just changes with the time.

changing over time = maturing/aging, in the context of an artform(I er, guess is what it is). Just like the literature, movie, painting, etc industries have matured, so too has the video game industry.

You make it sound like once a company becomes so big, it becomes permanently stuck in it's rut, having grown far too big to actually move and it just has to perform the same trick over and over just to survive.

essentially, this is true. Companies get good at doing one thing, and as the costs of making video games go up, they can afford to take less and less risks. They try something new, spend 50 million dollars making it, and the game only makes 10,000$. They just lost over 49 million dollars making a video game, of all things. And in the face of our current economy, that is a pretty big blow

note:i meant to reply much earlier but i was fascinated by programming, sorry I didn't hit reply earlier. I'm not sure if the post is done either, I think I had a bit more to say but this seems to make enough sense to post as is

edit: a video game company is like a person with aspbergers(i went through like 4 disorders trying to find the right name for the one im thinking of so correct me if im using the wrong one). they normally develop one thing that they excel at. that is there element. anything that is not their element really freaks them out and they get nervous, possibly breaking down.
lets say Squenix here. Their thing is making pretty generic jrpgs. They tried changing that up with Dragon Quest 9 and were a little nervous, and when nobody liked it they changed it back to the generic Dragon Quest formula.
The Dragon quest 9 before the change looked really, really good too.

Also they tried it with FF12 but apparently nobody liked that one. In fact, I think we had a thread about it on here before and you, chaoticjosh were making the argument that just because they tried to change doesn't mean they made a good decision.
which is completely contrary to what you're saying here in this thread.
I might have you confused with someone else (maybe zchris? but idk how I'd make that mistake)

[sonerohi]

Aspergers is indeed the disorder you are thinking of. Not quite that extreme in most cases, it's more of a desire for constant reassurance when departing from a familiar routine until they adapt to the new schedule. Also, a crazy high % of savants have Aspergers.

[JoshuaFH]

Found the guy, his name was actually Grassroots Gamemaster, and he's actually in the gaming industry, unlike me, and pissed off about it.

Article:

http://grassrootsgamemaster.blogspot.com/2008/02/way-forward-for-lottery-ticket.html

In the article, he mentions a guy named Sirlin. He's a game designer and hardcore gamer as well, a pretty cool one at that.

EDIT: Oh wait, Chut modified his message, then Soner responded to that, and I thought he was posting in the wrong thread.

[JoshuaFH]

The analogy doesn't work as much when you're talking about a large group of people participating in something that doesn't 'age' than it just changes with the time.

changing over time = maturing/aging, in the context of an artform(I er, guess is what it is). Just like the literature, movie, painting, etc industries have matured, so too has the video game industry.

You make it sound like once a company becomes so big, it becomes permanently stuck in it's rut, having grown far too big to actually move and it just has to perform the same trick over and over just to survive.

essentially, this is true. Companies get good at doing one thing, and as the costs of making video games go up, they can afford to take less and less risks. They try something new, spend 50 million dollars making it, and the game only makes 10,000$. They just lost over 49 million dollars making a video game, of all things. And in the face of our current economy, that is a pretty big blow

note:i meant to reply much earlier but i was fascinated by programming, sorry I didn't hit reply earlier. I'm not sure if the post is done either, I think I had a bit more to say but this seems to make enough sense to post as is

edit: a video game company is like a person with aspbergers(i went through like 4 disorders trying to find the right name for the one im thinking of so correct me if im using the wrong one). they normally develop one thing that they excel at. that is there element. anything that is not their element really freaks them out and they get nervous, possibly breaking down.
lets say Squenix here. Their thing is making pretty generic jrpgs. They tried changing that up with Dragon Quest 9 and were a little nervous, and when nobody liked it they changed it back to the generic Dragon Quest formula.
The Dragon quest 9 before the change looked really, really good too.

Also they tried it with FF12 but apparently nobody liked that one. In fact, I think we had a thread about it on here before and you, chaoticjosh were making the argument that just because they tried to change doesn't mean they made a good decision.
which is completely contrary to what you're saying here in this thread.
I might have you confused with someone else (maybe zchris? but idk how I'd make that mistake)

I'm trying to remember that discussion Chutney, but remember that people are allowed to change their minds. If you could find it for me, I'd happily address any dissimilarities between my position then and my position now.

[Chutney]

http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=40497.0
this is the thread. Basically what I was trying to say in it, but communicated poorly, is kinda what I'm saying in this thread. Eh. Whatever. It's not really the same to anyone but me, who reads my posts and can decipher the "deep hidden meanings".

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

to sum up how I thought the thread was going
me: well they changed it up, you gotta commend them for that
you: the game still sucked regardless
me: but
everyone else: game sucked
me: oh.

none of this, however, changes that my textbook for "Fundamentals of Game Design and Development", ie CS229, says (and this is like an industry standard textbook, it's widely used by a lot of universities/colleges/etc) "Avoid innovation."

edit: the point of that textbook bit is I believe the industry is purposely stagnating itself for some more sinister purpose
edit2: possibly to redirect funding to robotics, AI, and simulation R&D