New videogame crash on the horizon?

[Sniderman]

I know this subject's been done to death, with every new system release supposedly spelling doom because of the glut. Parallels are always being drawn between 1983 - The Crash - and today.

Well, this article was just posted to Fortune's website:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,480222,00.htm

I'm somewhat concerned because this is the exact type of article that ran in 1982-83 just before the market bottomed out. So, is the market of today in the same condition as it was 20 years ago - bloated, glutted, supersaturated, becoming stagnant with lack of innovation? Or is 2004 the right time to have a videogame market like the one we have? Can we support it today when we couldn't back then?

Comments?

[Raedon]

I crash today wouldn't be the same as the old days because the Arcade with the fresh games that look kick ass are gone.

[lionforce]

I don't see a crash like 83 happening anytime soon, I do see company products like N-Gage and the Phantom going bad quickly and I think companies will start looking at sales figures more closely and re-evaluating which products they are going to release which kinda sucks because the "original theme" games could be on their way out and sequals upon sequels of the same game could be coming more often than they do now, IMO, but you never know what the future will be till it comes :)

[digitalpress]

As always, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a MAJOR CRASH that causes all game prices to plummet to bargain basement liquidation sale levels.

God how I miss 1984.

[davidbrit2]

Yes. And anything to kill off the XBox, which is just a complete money sink hole for MS. It's like they're TRYING to flood the market and kill it off prematurely. Hmm, that sounds just freaky enough to be possible... Kill the market, then jump back in like the NES... I'm scared. Hold me.

[YoshiM]

Good question, but it's hard to say HOW it would crash. My memory is fuzzy but did the initial crash happen due to an overall glut of software and hardware or was it due to a glut of inferior software (and possibly hardware)?

The big difference today is that the shelves are not clogged with games for more than 3 home consoles (as the GBA is like a separate entity, we'll disregard that) as by the crash we had two Atari systems, Odyssey 2, Colecovision, Intellivision, Vectrex and probably a couple others I can't think of at the moment. Another difference is that each system fills a niche. The PS2 is the "everyone" machine and the most popular. The Gamecube attracts the younger crowd (and those young at heart) with its family friendly first party games and lower price point. The Xbox has been coined the "hardcore gamer's" machine in many circles and is know for it's more mature action titles (namely FPS games).

The future to me is very hard to determine. I've tried writing this paragraph like three times and I can't come up with any good predictions. Part of me says that if the games keep being as cookie-cutter as they are now the audience will get peeved, nothing will sell and the market crashes. Another part of me says that even though IMO there are a lot of game clones out there they STILL sell and this trend will probably continue for the future. As the Internet is landing into more homes (including broadband) we will probably see more "free" games playable from your couch with Playstation controller in hand or collaborative games come down the pipe. I do know one thing: it will be a very interesting time.

[calthaer]

Things sound bad. Looks like all we'll have to look forward to are EA's sports games and a bunch of poorly-designed license rip-offs that are shoved out the door in time for the movie.

I hope there is a crash, and I hope EA crashes the hardest. I'll never forgive them for ruining Ultima, Wing Commander, most of Westwood's games, and for burying The Bard's Tale franchise and never letting it see the light of day. They'll probably try to make The Bard's Tale Online and get ~10k subscribers just like their failures The Sims Online and Earth and Beyond.

That company makes me ill, and therefore, the article also makes me ill. I hope sales slump and people stop putting up with the same old unimaginative crap that market research churns out.

[IntvGene]

I think that we'll see something.. but something more of a correction than a full-out crash. I think video games are too popular today to completely crash. Are kids going to stop buying games completely? I don't think so. When godawful games like Enter the Matrix are selling, I think anything will. The gamers will have to play something, or do something else with their time.

I think that the fad of video games also had a big part of the crash, and the growth of home computers replacing them. I don't see anything replacing the video game market. Sure, there is the possibility of individual consoles dying out, but the whole market as a whole? I don't see it.

When big franchises and companies start to lose their lustre, I think we'll have a signal. But, until they start going down, we'll lose some small companies, but nothing major yet.

[Oobgarm]

Maybe not such an epic crash, but I do see a bottoming out sometime soon. Like the early 80's, folks are starting to see what kind of money the industry can haul in, and everyone wants a piece of the action.

It's easy to target the hardware makers. I personally thought that the advent of the Xbox would bring things to a screeching halt, but here we are today. Upocming ventures like the N-Gage scare me. Nokia is only trying to cash in on the games biz, nothing more. I thought the same of M$, but their history in the gaming industry changed my mind. They've had experience producing quality games. The only quality game Nokia has is Snake, and I'm sure it wasn't even their idea. :D Gouging a consumer $300 for a videogame machine/MP3 player/PDA/cellphone is ridiculous. Too many cooks in the kitchen if you ask me.

But what about software? I mean, we don't have DOG FOOD companies putting out games or anything ;) , but we do see games based on garbage that no one who genuinely cares about industry would produce. Games based on Eminem? Starsky & Hutch? Playboy? Hell, they're even considering doing a game based on Arnold Schwartzenegger's "Pumping Iron" documentary. Have we run out of ideas? It's sad that unique and fun titles like Devil Dice, Mr. Domino, Mr. Driller, Rez, and the like go unnoticed because they're not the "Hot New Game" that everyone's obsessing over. Even worse is the fact that so many of these great titles aren't being brought overseas from Japan due to this very situation. One of the great things about the industry is the innovation, and the lack of it these days is killing everything slowly.

On the same wavelength, re-hash and filler product is flooding the shelves. There are too many games and publishers hoping to ride on the coattails of another franchise's success. We saw the Extreme Sports genre explode then implode, the Fighting genere do pretty much the same thing (albeit a bit earlier), and it looks like the whole "Stealth Action" bit is going the same way. Unnecessary and rehashed sequels are churned out by the big shots, but, as witnessed by the dismal sales of the recent Tomb Raider flop, that may change. Don't even get me started on buggy, rushed garbage.

It hasn't been brought up here yet, and hearing a statement like this from me may be as likely as an oral bowel movement, but I seriously do believe that large chain stores are heavily contributing to the decline. "But you work in a game store!" you cry. Yes, that's true, and I love my job, but I feel strongly about this. Remember that things were different when I started working there back in the Funco days. But now that things came collapsed into two major players (Gamestop/EB), with a minor one (Game Crazy) bringing up the rear, it's all about who can pimp out the hot new product better than everyone else. The companies are all about pushing what they believe to the HOT, but many innovative and fun games slip through the cracks while attention is diverted to these HOT TITLES.

"Reserve Soul Calibur now! Reserve Madden NFL now! Reserve NBA Live now!", they cry, yet smaller titles like F-Zero, the best thing I've played all year ;) , go by unnoticed to the masses. It's not to say that I personally don't enjoy the big games, but it quells innovation when the small stuff gets swept under the carpet. Do I pimp this HOT stuff out? Sure, if the person I'm talking to would be interested in it. But say, what about a hard-core gamer? I find other stuff, quirky, innovative games that would give them more enjoyment than those big titles could. Catering to the individual is the key, not ramming things down people's throats. It may not be the best way to make money, but I think the industry would be more bountiful if things worked that way.

In all honesty, though, it's about the $$, and nothing else. Yeah, everyone knows it, but no one says so. It's blatantly obvious, even though it's one of those unspoken truths. That's the American Dream for you.

*sigh* I dunno. I a way I hope for a crash, mainly for my own collecting benefit ;) --and so we can get back to the roots of gaming. But then again, things are going so well for the industry now, I hate to see it falter and be relegated to "geek and nerd" stuff like it was so many years ago. We've developed thick skin over the years, it's just softened a bit since the mainstream movement. Maybe that's just what we need.

[1bigmig]

From the article:
On average an American will spend 75 hours this year playing videogames, more than double the amount of time spent gaming in 1997 and eclipsing that of DVD or tape rentals today, according to market research firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson.

If I only spent 75 hours a year playing videogames, I would be embarassed - one hour about every five days. I wonder what the average for the members on this board would be O_O I'd say minimum an hour a day for 365 hours a year.

[jonjandran]

Good question, but it's hard to say HOW it would crash. My memory is fuzzy but did the initial crash happen due to an overall glut of software and hardware or was it due to a glut of inferior software (and possibly hardware)?


The reason for the crash was simple. You had several major companies trying to get the lion share of the market.
Say that at the time the video game industry was a 100 million dollar business. There were only around 5-10 MAJOR software companies fighting for their share. The problem was they all thought they could get ALL of it. So they massed produced too many carts. They each thought they could sell 100 million in software.
When they didn't they had to sell and sell cheap. That didn't help keep them in business so they wen't bankrupt or left the industry.
This in turn with CRAPPY games pissed of the masses and the Game Industry CRASHED.

[YoshiM]

Good question, but it's hard to say HOW it would crash. My memory is fuzzy but did the initial crash happen due to an overall glut of software and hardware or was it due to a glut of inferior software (and possibly hardware)?


The reason for the crash was simple. You had several major companies trying to get the lion share of the market.
Say that at the time the video game industry was a 100 million dollar business. There were only around 5-10 MAJOR software companies fighting for their share. The problem was they all thought they could get ALL of it. So they massed produced too many carts. They each thought they could sell 100 million in software.
When they didn't they had to sell and sell cheap. That didn't help keep them in business so they wen't bankrupt or left the industry.
This in turn with CRAPPY games pissed of the masses and the Game Industry CRASHED.

Okay, it was more of a combo of glut and crap. Kinda figured as such. Thanks for clearing that!

[Pantechnicon]

As always, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a MAJOR CRASH that causes all game prices to plummet to bargain basement liquidation sale levels.

God how I miss 1984.

Here here! I'm with the boss on this one. I remember 1984 very well. I was 14 at the time and had little idea what a market crash was in the first place. All I knew was that all the 2600 games I was pining for were suddenly and inexplicably affordable at $2 to $4 a pop :D Believe me, now that I'm earning my own income, come the next crash, I intend to clean house.

The online gaming trend (in which I personally have no interest) will either be the the doom of the industry, or the only thing to sustain it in the coming lean times. Game developers will probably start pouring the majority of their funding into the fueling this trend whilst largely ignoring the development of stand-alone games. Those gamers who ride the bandwagons will of course say "Pfft. Stand-alone games are obsolete.", but whom does this leave out? It leaves out the middle to lower income households who purchase at most two new titles per year and sure as shiat can't afford broadband. These lower-income folks account for more revenue than you might think. Alienate this market, and the gaming industry is cutting off its own legs.

And when that happens, I'll be the first one you'll see elbow deep in the PS2 bargain bin at Kay-Bee LOL

[Mayhem]

and for burying The Bard's Tale franchise and never letting it see the light of day. They'll probably try to make The Bard's Tale Online and get ~10k subscribers just like their failures The Sims Online and Earth and Beyond.

Strange you mention this... I've heard Brian Fargo has bought back the rights to the series. No idea whether it's true or not though...

[SoulBlazer]

A crash would be awfull. We've spent fifteen years getting the market back to what it was before the crash. If it dies now, many good companies will go under, many good games will never see the light of day, and we'll have to reinvent the wheel all over again. Many good games still come out each week -- it's a matter of finding the gems in the rough and buying them.

[Pantechnicon]

My screed continues... :roll:

Now that I think about it, I do not think that online gaming will save or sustain the market. Here's why.

Remember the good old days (pre-1985) when the arcade games were primarily about raw reflexes and speed? It got to a point where a kid could come into the arcade, drop 25 cents into the Robotron, and hog the machine for two or three hours. From a gamer standpoint, this is cool. But from an operator's standpoint, this sucked because the machine isn't making as much money as it could have. Game developers responded by making games that kicked your ass inside of two minutes and urged you to put in another coin to continue? 10...9...8... So now the revenue starts coming again in a regular stream.

But that's the arcade, you say. What does this have to do with online console gaming? Well, let's say that this online gaming thing really takes off and somehow proves itself sustainable in the short term. For every Everquest, you're going to have at least half a dozen paler knockoffs. Ditto for Diablo or whatever other genre; One standout, several copycats. Those hardcore online gamers who have invested so much time and effort into "Evercrack" are not going to give up everything they've built in that game world to move over to something else. So all the money the mfg's spent in development, creation of an network infrastructure to support the thing, and of course marketing is just going to go down a black hole. The imitator titles (and you knwo there will be imitators) won't bring in enough new blood, nor lure away the kid who just became a 26th-level Ninja-Wizard after months of effort. But for a few stand-out games, it just seems to me that there's no long-term future in this.

[swlovinist]

I did a post like this one a few months back, yet this post has brought alot of great insight and things to think about. This is a huge topic, that will affect gamers and collectors alike. As for a crash, I do not know, however I work at a games store and the futrue scares me a bit. I too agree, that there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and I am not just talking about hardware developers. I too, agreee that there are too many games coming out that are trying to ride on the success of stale franchises and movie rip offs(gosh Tomb Raider was GARBAGE). I think there are great quality games that come out, but I think that the flood of games will hurt sales of the few companies that go out of their way to make a A+ title. It is as if the market forces game companies to just release a game and who cares about the quality. When the horrific Matrix game sells over a bigillion copies, what does that tell the other developers of games? Hey, lets do a movie rip off, release a buggy game, and make millions! I know that there are great games that come, but the average game that comes out is just..........average at best. There are a flood of games coming out and it is forcing everyone to re-evaluate their price points. Even look at the Japaneese game companies, they have taken some hits to the stomach and pocket books. TOO many games, too many choices, too much crap, too many ports, too many rip offs, to many seuquels = in my mind, a correction. I feel at least a correction is coming, and I think it will be good for the consumer. Lets face it, two out of the three systems out in the states right now are not doing very well, Microsoft expects everyone to buy a rocking chair and wait till spring for their heavy hitting games. Gamecube is making great software, and nobody cares. The playstation 2 is dominating the market, but at what cost? Software glut, and I feel the outcome is not good.

[jaydubnb]

I think that we'll see something.. but something more of a correction than a full-out crash. I think video games are too popular today to completely crash. Are kids going to stop buying games completely? I don't think so. When godawful games like Enter the Matrix are selling, I think anything will. The gamers will have to play something, or do something else with their time.

I think that the fad of video games also had a big part of the crash, and the growth of home computers replacing them. I don't see anything replacing the video game market. Sure, there is the possibility of individual consoles dying out, but the whole market as a whole? I don't see it.

When big franchises and companies start to lose their lustre, I think we'll have a signal. But, until they start going down, we'll lose some small companies, but nothing major yet.

I agree with this post. I think that gaming's become far too mainstream for a total implosion of the industry. Kid these days have higher disposable incomes and with several gaming mags/word of mouth/internet/hell, TV gaming shows, avoiding duds is far easier than ever. Back in the days buying a game was like playing the slots; now you can get full on reviews from a million sources telling you of the contol scheme, music, graphics, playability, etc. In fact, I cant even remember the last time I bought an outright bad game....early 90s maybe?

[Captain Wrong]

You all have intereting points. All I want to add is two things...

1) when I was at Meijers the other night, they had literally pallets of PS2 and GBA games scattered throughout the store. I've been in there before and noticed one rack of budget games, but I counted no fewer than 4 pallets in various locations in addition to the usual budget section in video games. And a quick flip through the selection turned up nothing but crap, crap, and licensed crap.

2) I really doubt any crash is going to affect the price of NeoGeo MVS carts, so I really don't care one way or the other. (On the other hand, it might prevent new ones from coming out, so maybe I do care a pinch ;))

[Keir]

and for burying The Bard's Tale franchise and never letting it see the light of day. They'll probably try to make The Bard's Tale Online and get ~10k subscribers just like their failures The Sims Online and Earth and Beyond.

Strange you mention this... I've heard Brian Fargo has bought back the rights to the series. No idea whether it's true or not though...
I heard that too. Fargo's new company, InXile, bought the rights to Bard's Tale and was seeking the rights to Wasteland as well.

[Raedon]

I'm scared. Hold me.


*RUNS OUT THE DOOR*

[Raedon]

seriously the market, and I, could use a 5 year break from consoles. Hell I've got over 1500 games I need to finish lining my walls and Tupperware.

It will be back, there is money to be made. At least we we won't be seeing Lora Croft again after such a crash. Man, I've always hated the controls on that game.

[calthaer]

Strange you mention this... I've heard Brian Fargo has bought back the rights to the series. No idea whether it's true or not though...

Well well well, HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN?! It looks like you guys were right. This at least gives me a faint smidgen of hope that some decent RPGs might come out in the next five years.

http://nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1552

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1925

and

http://www.cheek.org/bard/

We'll have to see. The original Bard's Tale games were great dungeon romps...while they were nothing short of revolutionary at the time I think they'll have to do a lot of updating to 'em in order to make them palatable to us today in a world post-Diablo, post-Bioware / Black Isle RPGs, etc.

[Kid Fenris]

I think IntvGene's got the right idea. We won't see a real crash, but rather a minor shakeout that'll do the most damage to upstarts like Nyko and the Phantom, and perhaps big publishers who haven't had runaway successes in a long time (Eidos and Acclaim, to name two). Nintendo and Sony aren't going anywhere, though, and the big Japanese developers are more likely to merge than fold. And I doubt that licensed titles will go away, considering the unwarranted success of Enter the Matrix.

However, I'm afraid that niche labels like Atlus, Eidos' Fresh Games, and the already beleaguered Working Designs (which seems to cause 90 percent of its own troubles) will take a beating if the market slides. These companies have their dedicated audiences, but they'll have a hard time drawing any new users in a limited market. A shakeout could also derail SNK's plans to release ports of Neo-Geo games in America.

Anyway, a complete crash would be terrible. Some may say that a market collapse would allow the industry to begin anew as it did with Nintendo in the 1980s, but such talk reminds me of a James Bond villain who wants to destroy civilization so he can rebuild it with the genetically-engineered best of humanity.

[davidbrit2]

Anyway, a complete crash would be terrible. Some may say that a market collapse would allow the industry to begin anew as it did with Nintendo in the 1980s, but such talk reminds me of a James Bond villain who wants to destroy civilization so he can rebuild it with the genetically-engineered best of humanity.

Oh, hey, thanks for reminding me... :-D

[kainemaxwell]

I do agree with all the points above. We gotta remember too, like mentioned before, that graphics right now are at their limits as well as most game genres.

[lendelin]

Like a good politician, let me quote myself from another recent thread which asked the same question. Bob Dole said:

The historical analogy 83/84 - present is nonsense.

1. The present slow-down in game/hardware sales (already for some time in Japan) is cyclical, always was, always will be. Sales figures go up after new game systems are released, stagnate in the adulthood of game systems, and go slowly down when the new generation systems are around the corner. The slowdown has nothing to do with a crisis situation.

2. In 83/84 the setup was a multiple major power setting with lots of competing manufacturers which got greedy, produced bad games and expected high profits like in the past, furthermore, misperceived the market like babes in the woods - a lack of professional market startegies and research. Today the extreme opposite is true - we have a concentration of 3 established major power players, all with exceptional experience in marketing games, and from good to fantastic financial resources.

Don't get me wrong, all isn't well on the game front today. The market is overheated and saturated for two years now, it has to calm down; what we see nowadays aren't indicators of a big crash, it's a restructering of the market in which Microsoft tries to get ahead of Nintendo and in the long run wants the no.1 spot...and this results in a fierce competition in which the market is overblown, smaller developers have some clout and loose some, and some major developers/publishers merge. All this doesn't happen because the market will crash, on the contrary, it happens because the game industry became so successful with incredible high profit rates.

Reading through the posts, it just amazes me how many of you feel uncomfortable and are reluctant to accept one simple fact, namely that videogames became BIG BUSINESS. Oobgarm represents the ambiguity perfectly (sorry Oobgarm, this goes for almost every post, you just summarized it so nicely :) :


*sigh* I dunno. In a way I hope for a crash, mainly for my own collecting benefit --and so we can get back to the roots of gaming. But then again, things are going so well for the industry now, I hate to see it falter and be relegated to "geek and nerd" stuff like it was so many years ago. We've developed thick skin over the years, it's just softened a bit since the mainstream movement. Maybe that's just what we need.

Sorry, guys, you can't have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand we were glad when games got away from the esoteric clique- and kiddie image- status, on the other hand we complain about basic phenomena which comes with the turf. Let's face it, with incredible commercial success and big business comes a more structured economic environment for developers and publishers, from game development to distribution - and that's good so because if developers/publishers wouldn't take increasingly market considerations into account, it would spell doom because a lot of money is at stake. You want the best of two worlds - the homy and cozy atmosphere of the industry when it was in it's early childhood, and the widespread acceptance and financial success of an entertainment branche.

There is nothing wrong with critique about the flaws and shortcomings of big business, but you have to accept the fact that it IS big business. Don't escape into the past. What's bothersome is the black and white picture tendency. Don't construct a golden age of videogames which never existed and use it as a critical blueprint of the present. Looking back at the crash tells you that basically everything good and bad was always there, from firms which wanted to make a fast buck, poor quality games, copy cat clones, premature releases, movie licenses which were a recipe for a crappy game, and game developers who faced financial and economic restrictions when it comes to creativity. Game developers and heads of the businesses at the time tell the same story. Today the only difference is a higher degree of a structured environment in which market considerations have to be taken into account. There are levels of degree differences, not strong contrasts.

What are we complaining about? We have more and better quality games than in the past in every genre, my must buy list is longer than to the best NES and SNES times, the prices for even very good games drop faster and to a lower level than ever before in normal economic times (remember how expensive SNES games were and stayed expensive for a long time?), and our finicky demands keep the developers on their heels.

We can't turn the wheels of history back, and if I could I wouldn't. I don't want Baseball and soccer of the 30s, I don't want the industry of the 70s and 80s, as nice as a selective and nostalgic look back is.

The tale "From Ralph Baer to EA" is neither a fairy tale nor is it a nightmare. It is a tale of an incredible success story with drawbacks, struggles, law suits, battles for market shares, and good and bad games. It is a success story which produced a high level of professionalization and profit rates which rival any other branches of the entertainment industry. Enjoy it, don't complain about it. :)

[YoshiM]

What are we complaining about? We have more and better quality games than in the past in every genre, my must buy list is longer than to the best NES and SNES times, the prices for even very good games drop faster and to a lower level than ever before in normal economic times (remember how expensive SNES games were and stayed expensive for a long time?), and our finicky demands keep the developers on their heels.

We can't turn the wheels of history back, and if I could I wouldn't. I don't want Baseball and soccer of the 30s, I don't want the industry of the 70s and 80s, as nice as a selective and nostalgic look back is.

Actually, the thought of "more and better quality games" statement is, as I always say, in the eyes of a beholder. In overally technical quality we're starting to see games with serious glitches-stuff that was fairly infrequent with titles in the past. And with the promise of hard drives, downloadable content, and patches on demo discs it's going to get worse. What about, in these 3D games, proper cameras? I've yet to find a good selection of titles that get it right. Even the mighty Wind Waker has several moments where Link is TOTALLY obscured while in combat by a pillar or something and you can't swivel the camera around it to see what's going on.

Then there's gameplay quality, but I think I've talked about this before here so I'm not gonna repeat. In short, I like some sort of difficulty and the only difficulty is time. No sense of urgency. There's no fear of losing as the penalties for botching has become lax over recent years. And those who fear actual opposition get frustrated and either stop or crank the difficulty down so they are "kings of the world." Laugh or raise an eyebrow but I know a few modern gamers who either cranks the difficulty down, turns the game off, or (in online games) hop out if they are losing to another player. The game mentality that a lot of us grew up with (that "arcade" mentality) and still subscribe to has been replaced with a fast food McGames mentality. Fast and easy to swallow as it's similar to everything else on the menu. Yes we can argue that the past games for say the NES were just as cookie cutter but the mentality then was beating a challenge. Getting the high score. The arcade mentality.

As for turning back the clock, thankfully Nintendo has done this with the GBA. Even though I don't own one (I'm busy when I'm mobile, so I haven't found a good reason to get one) the games on there hearken back to the days when gameplay actually meant something without the huge graphical glitz. Thankfully the web also does this with many free or inexpensive games where gameplay comes first and graphics second.

[lendelin]

As for turning back the clock, thankfully Nintendo has done this with the GBA. Even though I don't own one (I'm busy when I'm mobile, so I haven't found a good reason to get one) the games on there hearken back to the days when gameplay actually meant something without the huge graphical glitz. Thankfully the web also does this with many free or inexpensive games where gameplay comes first and graphics second.




I don't wanna bore you to death with arguments why gameplay is as important than it ever was....but...don't tell me you'd go back to the 16bit times and sacrifice the great XBox games you have? :) If you tell me that, I'm goin' wild. :-D

[Jonathan]

Cookie cutter games are only such if you're used to it and can recognize a pattern. As adults, we are far FAR more preceptive to this than as children. as a kid, i had no concept of something like a re-run being 'bad' because as a child i enjoyed the activity. I liked the sensory input, no matter how many times i'd seen it.

(How many times did you watch the very same Looney Toons show? I bet you can't count it on all of your fingers and toes! Do you think you could pull off the same stunt with even a favorite modern show? No, because you're too old for it. Nothing on tv is 'new' even if it is enjoyable the first few times around. I hope i've fleshed this point out enought.)

Games of today can pull off nearly the same show year after year because there is always a new crop of eager children who haven't had that level of gaming in their lives. from extreme early childhood to middile school until late teens there are things in games which you can't do untill you've had that level of life experiance to draw solutions from. Once you reach an adult level you've pretty much seen everything the current market can throw at you insofar as new content and inovation. You see patterns and you see low quality and 'dumb buck' games. Take Enter The Matrix for exaple. How many thousands of times have we seen something like this? Sure, we can name off a dozen or more games that have the same motions, but remember that most of the people buying either don't require a terribly inovative game to be happy as we do OR they're so young that they never touched an Atari and think of video games in strickly Nintendo/sega/sony increments. They eat up enter the matrix just as if it were bugs bunny and tweety.

or so i think

ps. it's nice to be at these forums! I'm new!

[YoshiM]

As for turning back the clock, thankfully Nintendo has done this with the GBA. Even though I don't own one (I'm busy when I'm mobile, so I haven't found a good reason to get one) the games on there hearken back to the days when gameplay actually meant something without the huge graphical glitz. Thankfully the web also does this with many free or inexpensive games where gameplay comes first and graphics second.




I don't wanna bore you to death with arguments why gameplay is as important than it ever was....but...don't tell me you'd go back to the 16bit times and sacrifice the great XBox games you have? :) If you tell me that, I'm goin' wild. :-D

I'm pining for the gameplay of then-graphics are nice but if the game is about as fun as a hot poker to the eye I ain't interested. That's why I don't own a PS2 as most of the exclusive stuff for me is just bland in the gameplay department. The biggest thing about modern games that hits me most is my favorite genre: the platformer. So far out of the stuff I've played few have gotten it "right". Games like Maximo have soooo much potential (I'm a Ghouls n' Ghosts nut) only to be marred by unforgiving cameras with environments where no matter how you crank the camera you can't see if there is land to touch down on over a cliff.

I'm also pining for some semblance of variety. Take action platformers like Moonwalker and El Viento-both not huge sellers and arguably clones of past games but they had enough flair and personality to stand on their own two feet and feel "different". To me many of the pop games just feel way to similar to other games. When I played Rygar it felt like I played it before. When I pick up and play older titles I never saw before that are clones of a genre rarely do I get that feeling. Today even another genre I like, FPS games, are really showing their "me too" qualities. Thank goodness there are games like Halo, Ghost Recon and Red Faction that bend things to practically make their own genre.

So I'm not saying "down with ultra realisitic graphics", I'm saying "don't do 3D just for the SAKE of 3D". I'm glad games like Viewtiful Joe are coming out that play good first and look good second and have flavor that makes the game stand on its own.

[YoshiM]

Cookie cutter games are only such if you're used to it and can recognize a pattern. As adults, we are far FAR more preceptive to this than as children. as a kid, i had no concept of something like a re-run being 'bad' because as a child i enjoyed the activity. I liked the sensory input, no matter how many times i'd seen it.

(How many times did you watch the very same Looney Toons show? I bet you can't count it on all of your fingers and toes! Do you think you could pull off the same stunt with even a favorite modern show? No, because you're too old for it. Nothing on tv is 'new' even if it is enjoyable the first few times around. I hope i've fleshed this point out enought.)

Games of today can pull off nearly the same show year after year because there is always a new crop of eager children who haven't had that level of gaming in their lives. from extreme early childhood to middile school until late teens there are things in games which you can't do untill you've had that level of life experiance to draw solutions from. Once you reach an adult level you've pretty much seen everything the current market can throw at you insofar as new content and inovation. You see patterns and you see low quality and 'dumb buck' games. Take Enter The Matrix for exaple. How many thousands of times have we seen something like this? Sure, we can name off a dozen or more games that have the same motions, but remember that most of the people buying either don't require a terribly inovative game to be happy as we do OR they're so young that they never touched an Atari and think of video games in strickly Nintendo/sega/sony increments. They eat up enter the matrix just as if it were bugs bunny and tweety.

or so i think

ps. it's nice to be at these forums! I'm new!

Welcome Jonathan! If you haven't already, introduce yourself in the, well, Introduce yourself thread (it's become unsticky, so you may have to look for it).

The thing with shows like Looney Tunes is that many of those episodes were good. Those shows were running on all cylinders and hit everything right which makes many of them classic. I can only speak for myself but as a kid if I typically only watched reruns when they were either good the first time or there wasn't anything else on at the moment (and I didn't want to do anything else). Newness plays a role but if it ain't good people won't watch (though "good" is all in taste-like the current rage that are reality TV shows). As for watching modern shows over and over-age has nothing to do with it. If it's a good show people will watch it over and over. If that wasn't the case there wouldn't be complete season DVD sets of modern TV shows being sold in stores right now.

[bargora]

Yes, welcome to the collective. The "introduce yourself" topic is the infamous thread 11, the infamousest of threads.

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11