The state of the games industry

Other Games
1

I actually posted the following message on another forum, but nonetheless felt like sharing it with everyone here:

I kept the November 1998 204 issue of Computer And Video Games in which the magazine interviewed Capcom’s General Manager, Noritaka Funamizu. When he was asked if the arcade business would come to an end due to the fact consoles are becoming more and more powerful, his response was surprising to say the least:

“No, that’s not the reason. The problem is that the ‘game era’ has gone. The days when people really loved playing computer games has ended. Nowadays, there are many other forms of entertainment, and computer games are just one of them. This is mainly because of Sony. Because of the widespread Playstation market, the way people think about games has changed. Sony has created a new era of light users who consider games to be just an everyday form of general entertainment - nothing special. This is both a good thing and a bad thing…”

Was Mr Funamizu of Capcom right? If games are merely reflecting what mainstream gamers in general want, then why don’t games companies just publish porn? Hell, it’s what we all want.

Seriously, the spirit of gaming has been lost somewhere along the line because all games companies fix their sights on now is how much money they can squeeze into their bank accounts. What’s wrong with that you ask? Nothing of course, only there should be more to making games than making money. That’s Camelot’s philosophy: we make games, not money. What the hell is so inherently bad about that, I ask you?

Interplay’s old philosophy before the French company Titus devoured it alive was: “By gamers, for gamers”. Sure, Interplay once focused on the niche market of PC RPGs, but they gave the gamers belonging to that market what they wanted, and now the company has become all but a flickering shadow of what it once was. One more gentle gush of wind will help Interplay on its path to oblivion. Interplay was consumed by a company that held a very different philosophy.

Mainstream games are the way to the future and nothing can stand in their way. When I attempted to put myself into the mind of a mainstream gamer I found myself wanting to buy whatever everyone else was. Lol. Mainstream games can be fun, but popular mainstream games aren’t necessarily popular merely by virtue of their greatness. By that logic, all great games should sell by the truckload. Would anyone be so kind as to illuminate the truth for me? Can anyone provide an answer to the mind-boggling question of why great games go unnoticed by mainstream gamers even when they are advertised? Could it be because these gamers only buy whatever’s popular at the time? Being popular doesn’t automatically mean a game is awesome beyond words, or does it?

So, what’s your opinion on the games industry? One day I hope to meet people who actually love making games for the sake of it, however unlikely that may be.

2

I’ve been saying this for years, but the general snap-back is “The Saturn owner can’t get over how his machine got pwned”.

Video games have always been about money. Otherwise, why were so many crappy games released?

3

But money, and only money? For many people, making games is more than about making money. Ask the guy who created Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, or Mr Funamizu.

The Saturn was a success in Japan and its fate outside of Japan was well-deserved (the initial asking price was ridiculous, not to mention the fact it wasn’t even launched with any quality titles). You can thank Bernie Stoler for ensuring that many great Japanese Saturn RPGs remained stuck in Japan, and for the Working Designs debacle (way to go Bernie!). Whoever hired that guy needs to be shot.

4

Well yes, I think the so called “light gamers” are growing by the million, but I don’t agree that the “gamer era” has gone.Jut look at the gamer communities around the world and see how mnay casual gamers are there.

5

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]But money, and only money? For many people, making games is more than about making money. Ask the guy who created Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, or Mr Funamizu.

The Saturn was a success in Japan and its fate outside of Japan was well-deserved (the initial asking price was ridiculous, not to mention the fact it wasn’t even launched with any quality titles). You can thank Bernie Stoler for ensuring that many great Japanese Saturn RPGs remained stuck in Japan, and for the Working Designs debacle (way to go Bernie!). Whoever hired that guy needs to be shot.[/quote]

Spot on mate. SOA should have been shot. It was thier screw up (the 32X) that cost SEGA. Bernie was a Tw8t.

Also these days the likes of RAIZING and Tecnosoft, Compile are gone. Which is a lose to us all.

The good days are long gone

6

Someone pointed something out to me the other day:

If you walk into a video games store it’s guaranteed that 99% of the games found on the shelves will be sequels, clones or liscenced games (you can’t go wrong with a liscenced game can you EA?), the vast majority of which are nothing short of shit.

Square-Enix apparently knows how to make great RPGs, when in fact all it knows how to do is make mainstream RPGs. Of course, this fact has spawned many Square-wannabe companies who seek to pollute the RPG genre with their own brand of crap.

Where would we be now without Bethesda (the creators of the awesome Morrowind) or BioWare?

7

Softcore gamers rule the industry now. Face it: hardcore gamers are on the verge of extinction. LMAO.

8

The only time I’d pity Mr Stolar is if he was thrown to a mob of angry Sega fans.

Before working for Sega he used to work for Sony, which somehow, isn’t surprising.

9

EA: the only games company which can make a game ALL THREE of the above at the same time.

10

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]

Softcore gamers rule the industry now. Face it: hardcore gamers are on the verge of extinction. LMAO.[/quote]

I dont’ consider myself an hardcore gamer.

And I know at least a billion people like me…

11

There is admittedly a practical reason for that. There’s less risk involved. There are people out there who will by a game just because it’s associated with something else. How many of us would buy a new Panzer game just because it’s Panzer? Maybe not everyone at this forum would do it, but I think there are enough here that even if the game got mixed reviews they’d still go out and buy it.

While Panzer’s not mainstream, there are other series that are and operate on the same principle. Consumers are already aware of these franchises, whether they are based on previously existing games or movies, and so it’s less of a risk for a company to make the same quality of game. Why make an original game when you can make a franchise one of the same quality that comes with a built-in audience?

Admittedly there’s a good many franchise and knock-off games that do suck, but as long as the profits outway the costs the system works. A company may have a better chance of surviving by releasing a bunch of so-so low-risk games that rely heavily on a license rather than sinking all their hopes on one really new and innovative title (which may or may not catch on). THQ is one of the largest publishers out there and they made their name off of their wrestling and Nickolodeon titles.

I know Morrowind was good, but Bethesda also released Pirates of the Caribbean to mixed reviews (which would probably put it in your “vast majority of which are nothing short of shit” category and it’s a licensed title on top of it). I’m not saying Bethesda is bad, but they probably did PoC out of practical concerns. Most people who work in the business of designing games are gamers and like innovation, but money is very tight in the industry. The more games cost to make, the harder it is to make anything that doesn’t have a “guarenteed” return.

12

the games i really like are the ones with immense depth and intense action! like VOOT, GV, and bangai-o! i’m so hardcore it hurts! XD well actually it really does when i see how poorly those games sold :frowning:

i still like other not-so-hardcore games, but i think i play them to a hardcore extent… i had about 2000 hours in PSO v1… yeah, i know :frowning:

rune lai, did you play pirates of the carribean? i really liked it. it reminded me of this old genesis game called starflight (except that was in space and stuff) but the game is really fun once you get a ways in. it’s starts being about going out onto the open seas, finding another vessel and trying to take them on. maybe it’ll just be a little dingy with some nice cargo to sell, but maybe it’ll be a giant dreadnaught class flagship with two corvettes flanking it… what do you do? are you foolhardy enough to try and sink some of the ships to even odds? are you suddenly “overcome with nausea” and retreat from battle? or did you have too much rum at the last port and decide to board the ships?

the only problem was that i have one of those thomson DVD drives on my xbox and it caused the save files to corrupt after a while :frowning: but i’m definately going to get this game again when i get a new xbox.

EDIT- oh yeah, what i was going to say about PoC before i got so worked up reminiscing about my pirate days was:

it was actually supposed to be the sequel to an old bethesda game called sea dogs. but really late into the development they signed the deal with disney to change the title. the only other change in the game that i know of is that the ghost ship (which was already going to be in the game) was renamed “the black pearl”. there was no johnny depp or orlando bloom… so i don’t know if that has any bearing on the licensed game definition but the licensing of the title was purely a comercial move.

13

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]Mainstream games are the way to the future and nothing can stand in their way. When I attempted to put myself into the mind of a mainstream gamer I found myself wanting to buy whatever everyone else was. Lol. Mainstream games can be fun, but popular mainstream games aren’t necessarily popular merely by virtue of their greatness. By that logic, all great games should sell by the truckload. Would anyone be so kind as to illuminate the truth for me? Can anyone provide an answer to the mind-boggling question of why great games go unnoticed by mainstream gamers even when they are advertised? Could it be because these gamers only buy whatever’s popular at the time? Being popular doesn’t automatically mean a game is awesome beyond words, or does it?
[/quote]

Good question. I personally find it has a lot to do with what is “popular”. RPGs are generally seen as geeky and boring excpet Final Fantasy, which isn’t really an RPG but a glorified film. Grand Theftt Auto is a good game, don’t get me wrong, but I like it because of the freedom and the geameplay. To your mainstream agmer the fact that the magazines have said its cool and your friends have siad its cool compulsively makes you by it.

Another thing sells: sequels. Even hardcore gamers are not immune from this as is shown by petitions for new sequels of RPGs. And finally how violent, or how viloenty it is percived to be, or how much some idoit have tried to censure it all help games to sell.

This is what I belive lead to the fialure of the Gamecube in the West and the sucess of FPS which aere actually quite hardcore (to PC gamers) and were often asscoiated wit your Carmack style geek until games like Halflife made it cool.

But do not forget this: the games that in the West are considered “hardcore” are or were mainstream in Japan.#

Thats how I see it anyway.

14

Pirates of the Caribbean was a good game, just let down by awful controls.

15

Consumer awareness is no excuse for the release of mediocre titles. Games developed under a movie liscence are often rushed so that their release dates coincide with the airing of a movie (sometimes of the same name). Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness was no doubt the worst game in the series mainly because it was bugged to hell as a result of its short development time. Is that justifiable in any sense of the word, even if such a game does earn a publisher the profits it is oh-so desparate to acquire? Absolutely not.

One of the reasons Morrowind was so undeniably good, even if a vast majority of gamers today are frightened away from a game by the mere thought of exploration, was due to the fact it was in development for so long. The two expansion packs remedied the shortage of huge, distinct dungeons, and so made one of the best RPGs in recent times even better. I still wish I could dual wield though…

16

If only all games sold on merit alone.

17

I was actually writing a very, very long response to this thread, but then forgot what I was writing about.

However, my point was this: “great” games are overlooked because they aren’t culturally relevant. Before, games were just games. Technological exercises in Pavlovian psychology. Their cultural relevance hardly mattered in the US, as they were just novelty toys.

However, as pointed out, when Sony brought gaming to the masses, it grew beyond that. It became as dynamic a part of pop culture as movies and TV. The masses aren’t interested in games about thousands of missiles flying at a robot trying to collect giant space fruit, they want something they can understand.

The success that FF has is, of course, primarily due to the pretty eye-candy that the games offer, but beyond the initial appeal, they have lasting appeal with the audience because of the audience’s ability to relate to the actual story. Aside from the fantasy/sci-fi backdrop, the stories are almost coming-of-age stories that many teenagers (supposedly) can identify with.

Which is also why military games are extremely popular. There has always been an obsession with military in the US, and the current trend in games is just a reflection of that. Even the stealth genre is just an extrapolation of that… (I believe the Army’s slogan is the perfect explanation of that: “An Amry of One”).

GTA needs no explanation.

It’s for this exact same reason why you don’t see movies like Big Fish doing blockbuster sales, yet something like Armageddon does.

It’s all about cultural reference.

18

I didn’t play it myself, but I know someone who worked on it, which is how I heard about all the reviews. (Game companies do pay attention to them, or at least their employees do.) The impression I got was that it had some promise, but didn’t live up to it. I know it was originally intended to be Sea Dogs II, which is part of my point about Bethesda being willing to pick up the license out of practical concerns. Bethesda probably decided to make it a Pirates of the Caribbean game instead of Sea Dogs II because they felt the game would sell better that way (even if Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and others were missing).

I agree that consumer awareness shouldn’t be any excuse for releasing crap titles, and in the ideal world no company would want to really release a mediocre game if they didn’t have to. But it all boils down to money. The best costs a lot of money; for the time, for the talent, and all the support they’ll need. Most companies can’t afford the best, so they go for second, or third. A few will even do it for peanuts (some publishers are starting to turn their eyes towards eastern Europe for cheap but proficient developers). Does it really matter if Sponge Bob has a development budget that rivals Final Fantasy? Would anyone care? Probably not. So the company will do it for less. And if you want to tell all the companies who can’t afford the best to get out of the business, I doubt they’ll do that, because as I mentioned, most of the industry people are gamers and even if they don’t make the next great hit it’s what they want to do for a living and so they’ll stay.

In some cases (which I suspect may have been Tomb Raider’s problem), the reason a game goes out as badly as it does it because of money. They ran out. They couldn’t afford to work on it anymore so it was either give up and lose all that money or release the game and hope to recoup some of their losses. Not fun either way, but it’s not unheard of.

19

yeah, i know how that is… but i post it anyway :confused:

stupid babies mutter mutter can’t take a little insanity grumble grumble well it’s their loss! >:0

one of my largest problems with most mainstream games (FF especially) is how naive they are. it’s this stupid good always wins crap. it makes people self righteous, everyone thinks they are the hero of the shared human experience. i much prefer a world where absolute logic always wins. i recently was forced to play through FFX and i really hated it… square has this deal where they rope you in with something that looks cool (the opening in zanarkand had me interested), but from there on i was just waiting for it to end. i really couldn’t stand the “tidus, what are we going to do!? we’ve got to save the world!” “i don’t know, but we’ll think of something!” on and on… the heroes were blindly charging forward the entire game using that dialogue as the only real motivation to do anything. and it was probably the easiset final fantasy of the series; i don’t recall an other final fantasy where you could one hit kill all of the final bosses with a regular attack…

20

Well, I don’t mind the “good always wins” mentality, because frankly, people don’t always want to be depressed. They want to be uplifted. Not saying that there shouldn’t be any “good loses” games, but for the most part, it would get down right cliche if it happened in every other game.

My problem with FFX (now, I understand the appeal of it, but this is just my opinion) is that I don’t believe the main characters: Tidus and Yuna. Yuna is marginally better than Tidus (in that at least she realistically portrays her dilemma), but Tidus? That’s taking the angsty-teen thing a little too far. Lulu and Wakka are more realistic in their characters, but the story is still fairly cookie-cutter FF fare.

I want to see a game with real dialogue. Real banter… not a series of monologues between characters who happen to be facing each other. Watch any Quentin Tarantino movie… while that may be a bit too far in the other direction for most narratives, it shows how you can write around the plot, instead of having every conversation reveal stuff directly about the plot (I always hate it when the bad guy has the good guy down, and he’s about to win, but instead he decides to tell him what his stupid evil plans were, giving the good guy’s friends time to get there and save him).

We need better storytellers in the game industry, that’s all.