HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
Life after the Video Game Crash
racketboy - Mar 12, 2004

 1  2  Next> 

 racketboy Mar 12, 2004
Read it...

 Quadriflax Mar 12, 2004
That basically sums it up nicely. Video games are going to tank in the next few years. This is why more unique games like Sam & Max 2 are so important. Like any good book or movie, adventure games rely more on good writing and story telling than the latest and greatest graphics. Sure, the motions are the same, but also like a good book they're fun to revisit. I don't play Doom anymore, but I will play the first Sam & Max every once in a while. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone really plans for the long run anymore. All people care about is this month's bottom line so their stock can go up a few cents. Then again, in the long run we're all dead.... thanks John Maynard Keynes.

 racketboy Mar 12, 2004

  
	
	
Originally posted by Quadriflax@Mar 12, 2004 @ 11:00 PM

This is why more unique games like Sam & Max 2 are so important.


Unfortunately Sam & Max 2 was just recently canned

 muffinman943 Mar 12, 2004
hmmm, makes me wonder.... will this finally be a chance for PC gaming??

 slinga Mar 12, 2004
Wow, I've had many of these same sentiments for a long time.

 CrazyGoon Mar 12, 2004
That was a wicked article! I'll be back to add my 2 cents later

 Mask of Destiny Mar 12, 2004
I'm not going to pick through this article and find all the errors, but there's a rather obvious one near the beginning.


  
	
	
The same went for the Next Big Thing, the aforementioned NES. Even with the enormous number of games (Metroid delayed my discovering girls for a for a good 18 months), the gaming experience itself couldn't keep our interest for more than a few years. Interest in gaming only picked up again when new, fancier systems arrived, offering a new and novel experience thanks to prettier graphics and character animation. And yet those systems (the Sega Genesis and later the SNES), as great as they were, eventually were retired to closets and attics and the sandy carpets of the Pakistani black market.


The NES was doing great even in its later years. That's why Nintendo was sitting on its behind instead of working on a replacement. It wasn't until competitors made the next version of their machines that they were forced to move on. The periodic release of new hardware is about competition.

 CrazyGoon Mar 13, 2004

  
	
	
A plan was hatched to just roll out a new machine every five years, spending half a billion dollars in development each time, moving from colored blocks to 2D figures to cartoonish 3D to realistic 3D.

Which brings us to today. We've now advanced from realistic 3D to slightly prettier 3D and... even slightlier prettier 3D with slightly better reflection effects and slightly better animated water ripples and - oh, look! This game has the most realistic fog yet!


Heh, I don't call today's computer graphics realistic. But other people seem to think so. IMO, I don't think that computer graphics will ever be realistic (ie, look like film rather than animation), and as the author of the article has pointed out, I don't think many graphical advancements are going to be made that stand out from today's game graphics.


  
	
	
We're on a technological plateau.


Agreed.

But the main flaw in this guys prediction is that he has based it all upon graphics. He basically says: since the graphical improvements are minimal, the videogame industry will crash. I know I don't play a game because of it's graphics. Same would go for most of you, I would think. I play a game for the gameplay. Then sound. Then graphics. Yep, I would rather play a fun game with good sound (ie, not ambient mp3 soundtracks with no melodies to hum along with) and poor graphics, than a fun game with better graphics and boring sound.

The author of the article states that the gaming industry is linked to the movie industry - being that games are becoming more like an interactive movie. Yeah, I can see what he is saying when I look at FMV's for today's games, but when he brings in Star Wars and GTA, he sounds more like a guy who's mixed fantasy with reality:


  
	
	
So consoles are left to butter their bread with the latter, with the immersion-type games, with the Final Fantasies and Grand Theft Autos and FPS's, games that put you in a movie. The competition here, then, is Hollywood. When teens are in the mood for a mobster story, the game industry hopes you'll be in the mood to play one rather than watch one.


Remember man -- it's only a game!!


  
	
	
What do the old ones have to offer once the experience has been memorized?


Nothing. But nothing beats coming back to the 'old favorites' (eg, doom), even if you've played in countless times. And remember -- newer isn't always better!


  
	
	
But the gaming industry is still growing, you foppish wide-brimmed asshat.


That's a funny quote :lol:


  
	
	
Literally. I'll pop in a DVD because a movie only requires two hours from my busy schedule of work and home repairs and chasing kids off my lawn. Getting to the end of a video game, however, requires hours upon hours of play. Not because the story is hours long, mind you, but because getting through each scene requires practice and repetition and repetition and repetition, all in the hopes of seeing that exploding Death Star cutscene at the end.


Whoops, he's gone off track here. Games these days require hours upon hours of play? Sure... moreso if your playing a game which has hours upon hours of FMV :devil But does he expect toady's games should be no longer than 2 hours? :looney Erm, sorry but games are supposed to be long and challenging. The second a game is clocked, it's replay value drops a tonne. Getting through each scene requires practice and 3x repitition? Sure, if the game is half-decent. But if he actually remember what it took to pass a 'game of old', then he would realise that today's games require much less skill/ practice/ repetition to pass.


  
	
	
The three companies hired to do the graphics processors for the machines are, in order, ATI, ATI and ATI.


If this is true, then let me just say that the games on each system are going to be bland (meaning they are all going to look alike)

And he makes a bit of fun at the people who think that online play, or a multifunction console are going to save the industry...

...once again outruling the only thing that can save the industry - gameplay. Fun games. Back to the basics. Less of the functions and commands (as Hiroshi Yamauchi said in the interview. ). The theory that I have come to believe of why games today are less fun is because developers are putting too much time into making the games look pretty, rather than making the games fun to play.

//my $0.02

 lordofduct Mar 13, 2004
umm.... you know you confused alot of what he said all to convey your opinion of the matter. 2 cents are supposed to be a rebuttle and not a bland spat about how your right and hes not crazygoon.

such as the thing about games and movies, you mention the time part, he says himself that the time must be long or the game is not worth the 50 bones shelled out for it. he also doesnt say the gaming industry is linked to it, he says people are attempting to do it, which causes problems in the gaming industry.

then everything else you comment goes to show you your think about what the hardcore gamer wants. me, you and probably everyone on this site. but what about the average gamer out there... they like sweet graphics and ambient realistic sounds, and shy from old school games in disgust. "how did you play that" i here from young kids who never even seen a nes or genesis... shit they never even heard of sms nevermind a turbographix 16... this is the point of his essay, hardcore gamers like areselves and himself as he proclaims are not going to be able to support a corporation statistically.

but i still hope it doesnt happen... me love my gamey wamies don't i...

 CrazyGoon Mar 13, 2004

  
	
	
Originally posted by lordofduct+Mar 13, 2004 @ 06:34 AM-->
QUOTE(lordofduct @ Mar 13, 2004 @ 06:34 AM)
umm.... you know you confused alot of what he said all to convey your opinion of the matter. 2 cents are supposed to be a rebuttle and not a bland spat about how your right and hes not crazygoon.[/b]



Don't forget that my post was just my opinion, nothing more. Oh yeah, and it's supposed to be easily readable and provoke thoughts and responses too, but that's just an added bonus


  
	
	
Originally posted by lordofduct@Mar 13, 2004 @ 06:34 AM

such as the thing about games and movies, you mention the time part, he says himself that the time must be long or the game is not worth the 50 bones shelled out for it.


Yes, I know he said that, but I was just making fun of what he said in the quote I selected which sounded like he would rather watch a 2 hour DVD than play a 40 hour game. But yeah, he might not have been speaking for himself, but rather for the 'average gamer' who finds the time to play the long 40 hour games. (hehe, the average gamer find the time, but the hardcore gamer can't! )


  
	
	
Originally posted by lordofduct@Mar 13, 2004 @ 06:34 AM

he also doesnt say the gaming industry is linked to it, he says people are attempting to do it, which causes problems in the gaming industry.


It's sounds like he's saying it here:


  
	
	
Our culture is married to the cinema. Gaming is a series of flings with continually younger, prettier partners.


and here:


  
	
	
Games try to trump that [cinima] with interactivity, letting you control the outcome.