There are a few problems with gaming today. Mobile games are becoming a big platform and driving down expectations of the price of software. Console gaming is dominated by a few titles that are re-released every year with few changes, yet still sell in record numbers. PC Gaming is losing it's way, often having to make do with console ports and incredibly restrictive DRM.

How many 'classic' games would get attention if they were released in today's market? How do we make gaming great and varied again? How do little guys get noticed when huge publishers control the market?

Feel free to add any burning issues I've missed, or just vent if you want to get things off your chest.

_________________
10 PRINT "Bad Monkey ";
20 GOTO 10

I am afraid, the answer is "not".
I would think the situation is much like the music industry. Big commercial companies decide what gets attention of the general public.

The solution may be in the social media. With my game, someone links to it from Reddit, and we have a 1000 hits, even though the game was not more than just hills and a path.
Making a video of placing shops gave 1000 views of the blog in 3 days.

Thus the fans do find you, even if you don't do much advertising.
In my case, the game itself is of course very well known and still highly popular, which probably has a huge influence.
I don't know what happens if you make a really original game.

_________________
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT, dev blog, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net

The PC needs some sortof hyper successfull proprietary game. As much as we all love to hate on Blizzard, they are a beacon in that regard with the Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft franchises all being hugely successfull. Even moreso now with the rise of eSports.

But we need more than that. Like you said, the consoles have those 2 studios (Infinity Ward/Treyarch?) cranking out CoD games at record speeds with thier "CoD Maker '95" software. PC needs more games to make the consoles jealous. Sadly, RTS (aside from Starcraft) is a dying genre. We have MMO's, but is that enough?

As for the little guys, part of the problem is that there's just so freakin' many of them. Greenlight illustrates that well. You get say, 5000 indie devs all competing but they're only competing with eachother, the larger publishers couldn't care less what's going on in the indie scene.

How do indie devs get noticed? That's hard to answer. Not with innovation alone - tons of brilliant, high quality, original games get completely ignored all the time. Occaisionally some indie dev does something like Super Meat Boy or Minecraft and reminds the industry that indie games still matter.

Not enough though. Hopefully Valve's "Steam Box" plan works out and PC gaming becomes dominant again.

_________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
"Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment." -Jonah Orion
http://tankzgame.blogspot.com

PC games arent dying, have you checked the steam releases list? Doesn't look to me like it is.

However, AAA games tend to be made either exclusively for consoles, or if they're multiplatform they get a usually bad port.
The last game that was console exclusive that i wanted to play was probably brutal legend.
Everything else? Meh. Half-assed, non-creative gamedesign paired with too much budged. Those can stay on the console for all i care

There have been a lot of stellar PC releases and there's more to be released.

_________________
Long pork is people!

wzl's burrow

Probably a combination of

• indie developers going for quantity over quality, as it is unwise for a small (unknown) developer to put all their eggs into one basket.
  
• game development becoming more accessible, such that we now have a surplus of games. Under the laws of supply and demand that causes prices to fall.
  
• consumerism, steering customers towards disposable (cheap) experiences.

And therein lay the reason why! They re-release the same few titles every year because they sell in record numbers.

Familiarity counts for something. If a customer knows the franchise inside out, then they know what they can expect from a sequel: A familiar experience with new and improved graphics and story.

in contrast with indie developers, the large publishers have the security of their brand, and of franchises/IP they own. So it's safer for them to re-use their IP over and over. Developing new IP is a big risk for them, as statistically only about 10% generate profit, 30% break even, and 60% make a loss. They can hardly present those kind of expectations to their shareholders.




As a percentage of the market, probably much less, because the market has changed since the golden age. Computing was once the domain of abstract thinkers, whereas now it is mainstream, where consumers prefer to entertain their senses, rather than their minds. So nowadays we see emphasis on realism over subtlety, and methodicalness over complexity.

_________________
I ain't pushing no moon buttons.

I think social networking will help a lot(and already has) with indie game development. Only 10 years ago you'd go to just a handful of websites for reviews, or buy one of the rare game magazines. Now you have forums, small website communities (not to mention the influence of reddit and twitter) voicing their oppinions. A game that's exceptional, even if it's an open source project, will get the deserved attention.(for example games like Slender, Amnesia, Dwarf Fortress, Little Inferno, etc..)

Of course this is only for a very small fraction of the indie games out there, but that's true of any artistic medium. Only the very best musicians, painters, writers get to make money from their passion. And even then I'd say it's easier in gaming.
Also the tools and documentation for game development is getting a lot better, more accessible. With platforms like UDK, Unity and the tons of libraries out there it's getting easier for a small group of people to get out a unique game within a reasonable time frame.
All in all I'd say gaming is not doomed, perhaps just in a bit of a slump. What I'm most looking forward to is the new type of interfaces that are bound to hit the market. We've only scratched the surface with things like the Wii-mote, Kinect and TrackIR.

What the hell does innovation mean?


Eh, interesting. I think I predicted something like this happening -- one time on another community in the past -- though it was a lame discussion because everyone just denounced it with no consideration.

_________________
What most people don't understand is what I like to explain as a thing that I understand.

It's an interesting idea. However, just because more people are coding, it doesn't mean that more marketable games are available. IMO, the positive result of more people getting their ideas into code should be more diverse and innovative gaming in general as ideas are shared around. However, as discussed above, the opposite seems to be happening due to the big boys playing it safe.

_________________
10 PRINT "Bad Monkey ";
20 GOTO 10

While true, there are also a lot of free games being produced. From GGJ and LudumDare alone, there are 10000 games produced each year. Even if you skim the top 1% quality from those, you still have on average two new games per week to play. Add to this the myriad games uploaded to sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds. With all these free options, a small commercial developer cannot realistically charge much money for small games they release. tl;dr - Free alternatives help to drive down prices.




Perhaps there are. Again, if you look at things like GGJ and LudumDare, you will see lots of innovation. But it's rare to see innovation in a commercial setting. I feel that innovation is a small corner of the market. Mainstream consists by and large of what is tried and tested.

Part of the reason for that I've given above: that mainstream audiences prefer to entertain their senses, rather than their minds. Innovation doesn't fit with that; familiar/established genres do.



Perhaps a more profound question we can ponder is why do some genres become commercially popular while others fail to?

IMO, play and learning have a lot of overlaps. No coincidence that established genres tend to be associated with certain skills. eg, FPS games train spatial orientation, agile thinking, and predicting other players strengths and weaknesses from their behaviour.

This learning portion gives games in established genres a broader identity. The trouble with a lot of innovative games is that they can lack this property: They present new mechanics, but not provide much skill honing. I feel it's largely this skill honing that makes play feel worthwhile, and rewarding... and maybe that is what people pay money for?

_________________
I ain't pushing no moon buttons.

*Someone* steps in and manages to hit the bells just right to popularize them. I don't think there's any special characteristics that enable genres to automatically become popular, but they might have some special elements that eventually get harnessed by some Steve-the-4-legged-cheese-lovin-sailor-from-Neptune and finally go boom-boom (*Pie Man laughs in awkwardness behind monitor*). Still, I don't think the phenomenon of popularity is inherent to any genre. Of course there are elements that may fit the taste of the masses better than others, but still, I have the opinion that a magician needs to ring a few bells first i.e. solid execution. Really, a lot of this "innovation" is almost silly because it seems to defer small-developers from other important qualities. To elaborate, I mean they don't manifest the great ideas they have in a way that is graspable to common taste, or they just turn half-assed "good" ideas into crappy games...


Yep, but that's just one part of execution. There may be more golden bells people are missing, or they may be completely different. It really depends on the premise of the "innovation."

I hate that word: 'innovation.'
Turd-head imagination.

_________________
What most people don't understand is what I like to explain as a thing that I understand.

Innovation and Realism, both terms used in game dev pitches and each more terrible than the other.

Sure you can innovate on gamedesign, everyone does, tweak a mechanic, add a value to a formula to introduce a new mechanic, do something whacky, do the same as others with another coat of paint. Every game is innovating, some more, some less. More importantly is, though, to build a genuine game experience. Do whatever you want, puzzle, platformer, fps, its ALL been done to some extent. Mix em up, blend them, eat them, excrete, filter and make a game out of it. Doesn't matter which it is, just make it GOOD. Mario clone 65 or the-next-braid should be equally valued if they're executed in an original way. Sure, innovation is nice and opens new doors, but doesn't necessarily makes for better games. Innovation. A word that truly angers me, almost as much as Realism.

And realism, nah, i don't wanna get started on this. You know how it is anyways.

/me passes the ranting stick to the next person

_________________
Long pork is people!

wzl's burrow

To add my something to this pot, I think the more popular genres are the ones that you don't have to think much and stay safe in a gaming world you're already familiar with. I have this experience with a friend of mine, he asked me if I have any good game for him to play, so I showed him Mass Effect 3 (surely, a good game with great story and good graphics), well, after few minutes his first question was "when do I shoot?". This made me thinking, if its the same with "modern" games. Even with enough advertisements and unique game mechanics, a "modern" gamer wants to shoot, to race and to fight as soon as possible. It think this might be given by the aggressive and hectic nature of recent lifestyle. So people don't really feel like to solve puzzles, jump around on platforms and read a miles long story (no matter how good), they want to release some steam and get back to life. And obviously, if they find a few hours for them selves to relax, they won't really go looking for a game but rather look on all the advertisements of AAA games and play those.

_________________
Did you ever wonder, how time works?

Excellent ranting as always, wzl. Braid really wasn't that innovative. I find games like that all the time. Braid was pretty boring for me, so I find it odd that it is probably the most successful time-control puzzle game yet. As many statements are, this is quite assertive: "Innovation" is almost just a matter of awareness; a reward for whoever strikes open the publicity gate first. Braid wasn't the frontier at all, it merely represented it.


BUT I don't give a f*** for what the mainstream is. I make games that I want to play.
P.S. Mass Effect sucks ass.


Pardon me, I'm just enjoying myself. Don't take my remarks above personally.

_________________
What most people don't understand is what I like to explain as a thing that I understand.

Yeah, it appears major games tend to get somewhat casual, or they maybe try to be more entertaining in every moment, even if those moments wont last for long. If i'm hyped for a game i really want to sink in, learn the backstory, talk to everyone until i know every single line of dialog. Last time that happened was with deus ex human revolution. Those are truly great gaming moments for me.

However, i've had the same happening to me aswell. Baldurs gate. Friends find it awesome. Yet the beginning feels so dragged out and cumbersome that i lost interest very quickly, plus i'm not a huge fan of the fantasy genre. I still want to play it some time, but i really have to feel in the mood to get started on it. Same with planescape torment. Took me 3 tries to actually get out of the morgue and realize what the game is about (although i haven't played through it, but still find it awesome from what i've seen). I don't know if it is bad pacing or general lack of initial interest or maybe even intolerance that drives this behavior.

_________________
Long pork is people!

wzl's burrow

weezl, but wasn't my blatancy interesting too!?





I just remember the checkpoint system thingy breaking too often. I did not like that game. I thought it had a lame story; or at least as far as I played, it was pretty lame.


You should play 'Submachine.' It has some amazing backstory cheese cakes to behold. The puzzles are fairly fun as well.


I experienced that when I played 'Skyrim' and 'Deus Ex something.'

_________________
What most people don't understand is what I like to explain as a thing that I understand.

Innovative realism!

(Don't mind me, just passin' through...)

_________________
What most people don't understand about "enlightenment" is that it is not an end-goal; but where you find yourself just before taking a new "first step."

Me neither, but the truth is mainstream is called mainstream for a reason, you won't be able to sell an idea that people don't like. (even tho this is only a problem if you actually want to make some money of your ideas, I personally don't really care that much, just pointing out the reason why even great indie games gets overlooked by wast majority of todays gamers)


Well, i guess i am kind of RPG and Sci-fi guy, that might be why i liked it in the first place

_________________
Did you ever wonder, how time works?

Well nothing to add, except, work on your manners good sir. No need to use foul language over this



Well, that's part of the equation isn't it. I love near future scenarios. Especially if they're well written. They've put a lot of research into the story and the crisis that was happening will maybe at some point we be facing. I just find it fascinating.

_________________
Long pork is people!

wzl's burrow

Wow, you were considerate enough to respond... thank you. I don't think anybody realized that I was parodying an attitude that I frequently encounter around game-developers and consider abnormally blatant. Of course, that is what the mainstream is. You summed up the honest truth very well. Good job.


Yes, that's the game: blatancy. Just read this again:


Meh... I was trying to implicitly make a point. Now have you caught on yet?


I don't think many people will want to add robot arms to themselves, unless they are human-like and look sexy.
I find the Cyberpunk genre mostly unrealistic. Of course something similar is bound to happen in the future, but... not exactly how cyberpunk forecasts it. I find human augmentation very interesting too, so my problem lies at the cyberpunk genre. I find it a dull conception of such a future scenario.


Yay!

_________________
What most people don't understand is what I like to explain as a thing that I understand.

Wrong! Mass Effect was awesome! Shooting stuff, space, conversation pie. Dammit, it had everything!

In the context of gaming and AAA gaming in particular, innovative means playing something that doesn't feel like a retexture of a game I've played several times before. Portal feels like an excellent example of something that was unique. But games don't have to re-invent the wheel with every release to impress me. It would just be nice if they mixed and matched a bit at least, instead of taking the same worn out stereotypes and game mechanics and rehashing them.


Cyberpunk 2077 reference? By the way, in case you haven't noticed: sarcasm doesn't transmit well in text.

_________________
Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve