| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Red Carpet Executive Member
"The future of the gaming industry" , posted Sun 7 Mar 15:47
Gentlemen, we have reached a point of infertility in the gaming industry. Games rely far too much on familiarity and concept, with technology as the feet that move it forward. We entrust to our "systems", our consoles that add to us our apparent experiences, and we look for a physical newness rather than a psychological one. Better graphics. Better sound. Better controls. Better interface.
The basic idea of graphic detail becomes too specific in that you have to be able to see very closely in order to distinguish sophisticated details. Because of this the idea that adding more polys and effects and whatnots will advance the experience of gaming is supremely flawed. It applies similarly to the other senses... sound to hear, controls and interface to the touch.
This expansive mass is not necessary. In order to understand where gaming needs to go to advance, one has to understand two things:
1) The innocence of the player.
2) The expandability of a concept.
These are the basics of creating an endearing game without need of sophisticated technology or impotent logic.
The innocence of the player is first and foremost the priority in game design. When one is a child and learning things, looking at the world around is enough to instill a sense of wonder, of grace in innocence. Experiencing something for the first time is the primary beacon for fascination, and the primary indication that originality exists. It is not important to draw on existing realities, such as real physics, or real details, or real atmosphere, but to create something that exists to be experienced in innocence.
Second, the expandability of a concept lends itself to exploration of a thing or idea. When learning to run, is it just running you are learning, or is that the beginning of a journey that will take you to learn to run faster, farther, with more endurance, trajectory, expanding the importance with not just footwear but also from within yourself? Certainly a game is no different, in that when it offers a concept, it should not simply add specifics to that but that which can CONTROL those specifics, and thus a wider experience can be had.
It is important to shed technology as it is in order to create a new experience. It is important to remember that which drives and motivates rather than that which has purported to do so in the past. This, gentlemen, is how we will give gaming its future... we must not depend on the next iteration of technology to do this for us.
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
"Re(2):The future of the gaming industry" , posted Sun 7 Mar 21:26
I admit to not fully understanding the topic, but after playing Phantom Brave, Ninja Gaiden, and now SMT3: Maniacs, I disagree with the stagnantation. Sure, all three games are related to previous titles, but that is the fault of a cosumer culture who will always buy the sequal of a mediocre game over the first game in a new series no matter how good it is. All three of these games do things I've never seen anywhere else and all three are immensely satisfying.
If you've been playing nothing but crappy games, you should also realize there was also a ton of those during the NES era. Videogames have improved to such a degree though that I can't even play the 'good' games from that era since they seem too simplistic to me now.
The industry has always been in a state of stagnantation ever since the NES days, though. One needs to look at all the Platforming Mario clones and shooters to see that designers were more than willing to milk a concept until they bled it dry back in the NES days. We just notice it more these days thanks to web hype, videogame maagazine, and the marketing machine the industry has built.
Actually, I'd agree with Amma. The state of the modern industry is better than the older one. We still have producers and game makers that are willing to push the envelope and try new things, and as long as that happens we'll have new and intriguing games. And the doujin game industry is growing in power and in polish, if one is willing to filter through it and find the true gems....
I disagree with him on older games, though. While some haven't aged well (the first FF and DQ), others are still fun to play. Simplisitic doesn't mean bad, sometimes it's the key to a game (Though simplicity itself doesn't lead to a good game either...).
Separated at Birth?
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
"Re(4):The future of the gaming industry" , posted Sun 7 Mar 22:48
If you don't think games have evolved, all you have to do is play Space Invaders and immediately after playing Shikigami no Shiro 2 on extreme mode. If you don't notice the difference, order some corrective lenses. :p
Oh, I'm not saying we haven't evolved, or that we aren't evolving. I'm just saying there has also been an equal amount of stagnanation in the industry going with the evolution.
Much like the rock industry (which bled the Mersey beat to death in the 1960's till the Beatles mercfully killed it with Rubber Soul/Revolver/Sgt. peppers) and Movies, the game industry has evolution followed by companies catching up and copying that evolution till it stagnates and dies. And then we have a new evolution and the cycle repeats itself.
We saw it with Platform games in the 8 bit and 16 bit era, shooters in the sane era, Fighters, Survival Horror, and now with GTA3 clones (And I suspect a soon to be coming Ninja game boom as well).
Separated at Birth?
"Re(6):The future of the gaming industry" , posted Sun 7 Mar 23:57:
One thing about the gaming industry that I think is a crime is that licensed games SUCK. Talk about squandered potential. This phenomenon is a perfect example of the "industry" part of the gaming industry ruining something for everyone.
For instance, all too often, a great anime will be made into a crappy PS1 fighter and/or a GBA RPG, neither of which leave Japan (with good reason). These games are made with the simple notion in mind that a certain number of people will buy the game because of its name, so there's no reason to put any money or effort into making it a good game.
Think about it: say SNK, Sammy, or Capcom made a kickass 2D fighter with all the characters from Naruto. They already have signiture moves, fighting styles, and character design. If a serious company put as much effort into the game as they would any other non-licensed fighter, then you could result in a great game, that, as a bonus, caters to fans of the series by letting them play as their already beloved characters.
Now I know I'm not the first person to notice this and think it's a crime, but it's just a shame is all. I also know that there are exceptions to every rule. But I think if someone would truly put forth the effort on a noteworthy title, it could result in a good enough game to draw in so many sales that others would have to pay attention.
After Ninjas there will be games about Pirates.
One can only hope.
[this message was edited by Grahf on Sun 7 Mar 23:58]
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
"Re(3):The future of..." , posted Mon 8 Mar 01:14:
Let's see... Two month ago, I discovered and played to death GS3 and Siren, who got on me more than any game in the last 5 years. And speaking of series, the whole point in making a series is to experiment and make a game better than it used to be (when you're not a company like Capcom and you don't do DMC2. But DMC2 was actually a nightmare and didn't existed, so I'm cool with it). Sometimes it fails badly (Saga Frontier, all Samurai Spirits games between Musouken and the PS1 one) and sometimes it makes an astonishing thing that wouldn't have been possible if the game had been made from scratch (SS0 and the upcoming SS0S, Front Mission 4th, SMT3 Maniax, and so on)(and U:Saga, but it would need a whole 300 pages report to explain).
And then, we get Siren, who comes out of nowhere, go through what we thought were the limit of the media, and instantly shows us how wonderful a videogame can be. This is the kind of game that doesn't happen every year, and it's the kind of games that instantly make the other games feel 10 years older.
Speaking of which, I never was a nostalgic freak (except for Romancing Sa.Ga 2 and 3)(And Rudora no Hiho)(and Super Aleste)(And Boulder Dash)(OK, so, maybe a little). Anyways, I always though the first Zelda was one of those games that would never age. But then, a few days ago, I stepped on a time attack of the game that allowed me to see it again from the beginning. And... Oh my god.
I don't understand how I could had fun to try to burn every single tree and to bomb every single rock instead of playing outside with my stupid friends. Or read James Joyce's Ulysses over and over and over. The game aged badly, which means games in general evolved, and I'm fairly confident that in 10, 15 years, I will look back at Card Fighters 2 or Siren and ask myself what was entertaining in those games.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there are as many crappy games as before, as many good games, and as few kamige as before. Polygons didn't change the industry, didn't raped creators from their ideas and didn't gave them more. Things are what they used to be, only... more evolved.
But then, some people seem to dig the apocalyptic crap of "things will never be as good as they were". I guess the "Mappo age" theory has its charm, and I begin to understand why those "end of the time" talks were so popular through History.
[this message was edited by Iggy on Mon 8 Mar 01:31]