| Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
| Life after the Video Game Crash |
| racketboy - Mar 12, 2004 |
| 1 | 2 | Next |
 |
racketboy | Mar 12, 2004 | |
| Read it... | |||
|
racketboy | Mar 12, 2004 | ||
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  | |||
|
CrazyGoon | Mar 13, 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||
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. 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: Remember man -- it's only a game!! 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! That's a funny quote :lol: 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. 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 | ||||||||||||||
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
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!  )
It's sounds like he's saying it here: and here: <!--QuoteBegin-l ordofduct@Mar 13, 2004 @ 06:34 AM then everything else you comment goes to show you your think about what the hardcore gamer wants.[/quote] Yeah, your right.... but then that means that games are currently being marketed to the 'average' gamer, rather than the 'hardcore' gamer. Or perhaps it's still being marketed towards the 'hardcore' gamer, only the 'hardcore' gamer has become 'soft' with all the fancy graphics and special effects... | ||||||||||||||||
 |
Quadriflax | Mar 13, 2004 | ||
I know. That's my point. This only adds to the problem. I'm still bitter. | ||||
|
M3d10n | Mar 13, 2004 | |
| Geez, I wholehearted agree with the article. I'm relieved to see that more people out there are also feeling the upcoming mega-earthquake in their bones. While I do play classic stuff, while I love replaying old stuff, and don't care at all about graphics, like most on this board, we are a minority, you can't argue that. We cannot ensure the industry's survival, as it is. Look at the Dreamcast. Was it capable of surviving when the consumer base ran away, and all that was left were the loyal and the hardcore Sega fans? The industry of today depends on huge masses of non-hardcore gamers, and for those games are just another kind enternainment out from many they can choose from. They don't play nor see the games as we, hardcore games, do. Games must fight for attention time against movies, TV, internet chatting etc. Of course there'll always be those kids who will fall in love with gaming and keep it in their hearts until their adulthood, but those are obviously a minority. That's why, as mentioned in the article, the GBA is insanely popular, and mobile gaming is growning constantly. They make the gaming experience less demanding, since you don't need to be at home in front of your TV to play the games. Portable games are simplier and shorter than most (nowadays') console games, and even if you have a long game, it's often designed so you can shut it down and continue later if you need to. I'm pretty sure the next generation will receive a deep blow. Nintendo is already trying to create alternative plans, but only time will tell if they'll work or not. Let's see if the Playstation brand will survive when the kids get presented to the same games again with slightly prettier graphics, which most of them will not even be able to tell the difference anyway. And to finalize... PC gaming has been in much worse state for quite a while. PC games nowaday don't sell a fraction of console games, and the PC gaming industry is doing a constant series of wrongs, one after another. Add this to the total uncertainity of the PC market (there are billion PCs out there - but how many of them are used for gaming? And how many of them are used for "hardcore" gaming - playing the newest games by the time they are released?). | |||
 |
ExCyber | Mar 13, 2004 | |||||
Not likely. PCs are more expensive (in terms of both money and time), more error-prone, and provide an effectively narrower range of games than consoles. I say "effectively narrower" because while there are plenty of PC games out there, you're going to have some trouble finding anything other than the current crop of FPS/RTS/simulation fare at your local retailer. I think you're oversimplifying the argument. I agree that a crash is likely, but not for exactly the same reasons. I'd argue that there are basically two ways for a new console to be a success: 1) Replace a console with serious graphics/sound limitations 2) Allow new kinds of games to be made Genesis and Dreamcast are examples of approach 1, while Atari 2600 and Saturn are examples of approach 2. However, we are now at a point where the next console generation doesn't promise new kinds of game experiences, and added graphical detail probably wouldn't be appreciated by most consumers. I think the assumption in the article that most deserves scrutiny is the idea that consoles naturally obsolete even if they're not replaced. The original Game Boy had been around in various mildly-differing forms for around 10 years before GBA replaced it. I seem to recall that NES actually had a pretty good run into the early 1990s before SNES was really affordable. If we assume that people don't inherently need new consoles, producing a new generation when people don't want it could still cause a crash because it would heavily fragment the industry in addition to hitting it with the usual launch costs... | |||||||
|
racketboy | Mar 13, 2004 | ||
You make some really good points here. Which leads me to this question (which I kinda know the answer to)... Why do these companies still racing to release a "next-gen" system? Now PS2, I can understand replacing since it's getting a little dated. But GC and XBox still have some good capabilities. Wouldn't it be better to go for the long-haul and build your existing customer base than try to start from scratch? ESPECIALLY if you don't plan on having backward capability. I think that's one big point where Sony has made it's killing. Same with Nintendo and the Gameboy. | ||||
|
mal | Mar 13, 2004 | ||
IMHO it's precisely because Sony are coming out with the PS3 that Nintendo and Microsoft feel the need to push forward with new consoles. | ||||
|
racketboy | Mar 13, 2004 | |
| but it looks like the same [marketing] mistakes that Sega made with the Saturn and Dreamcast. | |||
|
Quadriflax | Mar 14, 2004 | ||
Why would anyone actually learn from history? It's not like you can repeat it...  People are stupid. They'll buy a PS3 because it's the next one after 2. MS and Nintendo know this. If they wait, they'll be in the same spot they're in now: trying to dethrone a king. But if they come out at the same time, they might have a better chance. Then again, like Sega, they could just be shooting themeselves in the foot. I'm thinking the latter is more likely for all the argued reasons above. Then some one will come out of nowhere and topple Sony's empire, just like they did to Sega, and Sega did to Nintendo, and Nintendo did to Atari. | ||||
|
slinga | Mar 14, 2004 | ||
I think your missing the whole point of the article. The author is saying that people aren't stupid, and that if they don't see a reason (better graphics, better games, etc) they won't be buying the new systems. Why buy a PS3 if there's only a minimal graphic upgrade over PS2? | ||||
 |
it290 | Mar 14, 2004 | |
| That's a good analysis, but as much as I hate to say it (because personally, I think it's ridiculous), the key to victory seems to rely on two things: 1> hype and 2> having a killer feature/app. Sony had a crazy amount of hype built up for the PS2 launch, and personally I'd only attribute 30%-40% (still a large number, probably on the high side) to fanboyism, the rest was pure marketing muscle. Microsoft has always seemed to lack great advertising (most of their ads are merely 'passable'), but they definitely have the money to outdo Sony in that category if they really wanted to. Nintendo, meanwhile, has to get by mostly on their technology and first-party titles (and a decent amount of fanboyism, much smaller than Sony's following however). The other thing that I think really pushed the PS2 to the top was the OOTB DVD capability. I know a lot of people who don't even really like games who bought one for that reason. The timing just happened to be right, DVD was starting to penetrate more and more of the market when the PS2 launch happened. That was the killer feature for the PS2. If someone can come up with something of that order of magnitude and be the first to include it in their console, they're almost guaranteed excellent sales IMO. I don't think that's likely to happen for a while, however, since DVD was the biggest revolution in home entertainment electronics since the advent of the CD (despite the format's problems). | |||
|
racketboy | Mar 14, 2004 | |
| I think this next one will be the last home console for Nintendo -- actually I'm quite surprised they are going past the Gamecube. At least Microsft has the money to seriously compete | |||
| 1 | 2 | Next |