Is innovation killing gaming?

[brandver3]

I'm having alot of trouble wording this topic, so sorry if it comes out kind of disjointed.

Lately it seems, to me at lest, the more advanced games are getting, the less apt I am to want to play them.

I really only have a limited amount of time to play games, I'm sure most of us here do. With better technology, larger storage formats, and more gaming income to be made, to me games are getting to long. There are so many games coming out. And when was the last time anyone paid $50 bucks for a game you beat in 4 hours, then kept the game and recommended it to friends.

It just seems that the longer games get, the more time people devote to them. The more time somne devotes to a game, the less time there is to play another game that he or she gamer wants to play.

I know where I'm trying to go with this, I'm just having some trouble getting there.

Anyways, the question is simple enough. Add your own opnion and I'll see If I can come up with the rest of my thought.

[Kroogah]

It's not killing gaming. It's changing gaming, but it's not killing it. I still play games from all eras and shake my head whenever anyone declares bias for a certain era. Doesn't matter if it's someone saying "PACMAN SUX GTA 4EVA" or "GTA SUX PACMAN 4EVA".

Just figured I'd post before this turns into another anti-Sony, anti-Microsoft, anti-Rockstar, and anti-EA thread.

[Cauterize]

...im confused

[brandver3]

I really hope it doesn't go that way.

I think if anything is a problem, its fickle cosumers.

The average gaming crowd cries out that the graphics are getting old and they want the newest best latest greatest product avalable. Then that same consumer get incredulous that they have to pay $50 dollars for it. Then they say it's just more of the the same and don't buy the game so it sits for months on store shelves till it's 20 dollars and the game company and store lose money.

Take GTA for example. GTA 3 is a great game. Still. It was just a top shelf grade A game.

Will John Q. Average gamer pick it up now? Hell no. Vice City is better. Doesn't mean GTA 3 is bad. But once GTA:SA comes out, then no one will play Vice City. Mean while, to keep up the profits on the series, I'm sure Rockstar has to hire more employees to keep un the level on innovation, when odds are they arn't going to make anymore money then they made on Vice City.

The problem is getting to be more overhead cost for companies, same amount of sales.

Seriouesly, the game industry is a "Multi Billion dollar yealr industry", so why did almost all gaming companies report loses last year?

[Mr. Smashy]

...im confused

That's because he's not really making any sense.

[Azazel]

personally just cause most games now take longer to finish or play really doesn't have anything to do with innovation. It's pretty rare to see games with any kind of innovation now.

[sku_u]

I really only have a limited amount of time to play games, I'm sure most of us here do. With better technology, larger storage formats, and more gaming income to be made, to me games are getting to long. There are so many games coming out. And when was the last time anyone paid $50 bucks for a game you beat in 4 hours, then kept the game and recommended it to friends.


Innovation isn't killing games. Stagnation in the market is what caused the market to crash in 1984. Had Nintendo not released a game system that was truly innovative in 1985, videogames may have never made a comeback.

The only difference between the innovations of then vs. now is that you, like me, are much older now than you were then. You will always harbor sentimnents for the games that you grew up with and will probably have even less time to play games down the road.

Based on your first post, it sounds like you're talking about the difference between the games of your youth vs. the games of today. I'm not sure innovation has anything to do with your argument.

If a game can't be played for fun for 10-20 minutes, I generally will put it down and if someone buys me an online RPG, I'll usually return it rather than open it because I find them to be nothing more than an excuse to get people to work in a virtual world for free doing things that they'd never want to do in real life, but to a 10-15 y.o who grew up with these types of games, they're the greatest games in the world.

[KlarthAilerion]

Neither innovation nor lengthy playtime are killing gaming. Bad games, corporate schmooze, and dying economies will be the things that kill gaming this time around.

If you don't like the newer games, find older games that you enjoy more. There's bound to be something great that you've missed along the way.

Innovations in gaming will only help the market, especially in the realm of hardware accessories. When the Neo Virtual Boy comes out with full-color surround 3D that doesn't make you go blind, people will flock to it. Fully-interactive voice-activated adventure games will draw in gamers in the not-incredibly-distant future. And don't forget that there's an entire adult "gaming" industry waiting to be tapped to greater potential.

Longer games aren't necessarily a bad thing, either. People that thought Dragon Warrior was too long over fifteen years ago may still think that RPGs are too long.. that doesn't mean that they won't be playing shooters, fighting games, racing games, beat-em ups, DDR-esque titles, or Pac-Man.

Face it, things change. If you don't like how they've changed in the realm of gaming, there is much more to life that you can go out and enjoy. If anyone is really tired of modern gaming, they really should look into a hobby that they get more enjoyment out of. Been there myself, came back, may leave again.

[musical]

With better technology, larger storage formats, and more gaming income to be made, to me games are getting to long.

I agree. I'd rather play a solid 20-hour game than a stretched 50-hour game (and that's what most are...strecthed). Those of us who work and have other hobbies, find it hard to keep up.

VICE-VERSA, we have a lot of young teen games *with nothing else to do* except play games. To them, 20 hours is a ripoff.

So game developers have a tough balancing act: Keep teens happy with long games, but not too long or else working people will not be able to play.

[Ed Oscuro]

So you're thinking about, among other things, the basic problem of longer games --> more expensive development --> lower cash returns?

Well, the same problem seemed to affect the Famicom Disk System; I think clever folks like those at Konami managed to churn out a large number of games for that system (with its low profit margin) using as much of the same programming as possible, hoping that folks who didn't bite at Castlevania II might jump for that Indiana Jones ripoff, for example.

For the near future, I think XNA's going to help some of the problem of programming overhead as folks will be able to plug in bits of software in a nearly modular system, and the companies that program the "modules" will simply tailor each module a little bit for the game each recieving company will use it in...so basically, you'd have experts working on each game. That would be really nice - just imagine what you could do if programmers could focus on the game system instead of low-level stuff (perhaps I could imagine Capcom selling a "generic 3rd-person control scheme," but maybe I'm being cynical).

[Dahne]

I wish RPGs would stop adding eight different kinds of gauges to the battle system. There's nothing wrong with changing from straight, boring battles. Things like Star Ocean and Tales of Destiny do this really well. Then there's ones like Chrono Trigger and Suikoden I and II, which take the original concept and make it crisp and quick so that it's fun and satisfying. Xenogears had an odd system, but it was easy enough to get the hang of. I'm talking about things like Xenosaga, that throw in a whole new crop of numbers to look after. Numbers are boring. Or Chrono Cross, with the whole stupid magic thing. I want to be able to change characters without having to spend half an hour arranging their spells, which have slow-as-hell animations and never do much anyway. Simplicity is a good thing, people.

[calthaer]

The only innovations gaming needs right now are in the area of automatic content generation. We have complex algorithms for creating 3D graphics, why not stuff to generate interesting random levels, mix up NPC dialogue, create all sorts of branching plot trees, and vary opponent AI?

[brandver3]

Yeah, my previous post was disjointed. But I said it was going to be.

I'm not against new games. I think new games are great. I just think there is to much.

Okay, I figured out where this came from. I was reading a review for Megaman Annivesary Collection. And the reviewer gave it a 6 out of ten. A six. And the main reason was that there wasn't enough "innovation". It got a low review score because it was just a abunch of the same old Megaman that the reviewer had played before.

I think that veiw is prevalent among alot of gamers and game companies. That its impossable to enjoy a game if its just more of the same.

I'm not against change, I just think the level of change is coming faster then the market can handle or enjoy.

[Captain Wrong]

I think you may mean complexity rather than innovation, if I'm reading your first post correctly.

If that's the case, I agree. I get tired of feeling like I need a graduate course to play a game.

[YoshiM]

Yeah, my previous post was disjointed. But I said it was going to be.

I'm not against new games. I think new games are great. I just think there is to much.

Okay, I figured out where this came from. I was reading a review for Megaman Annivesary Collection. And the reviewer gave it a 6 out of ten. A six. And the main reason was that there wasn't enough "innovation". It got a low review score because it was just a abunch of the same old Megaman that the reviewer had played before.

I think that veiw is prevalent among alot of gamers and game companies. That its impossable to enjoy a game if its just more of the same.

I'm not against change, I just think the level of change is coming faster then the market can handle or enjoy.

I wonder what that reviewer was thinking when he cracked open that Mega Man collection. Unfortunately that person really didn't place themself back when Mega Man came out-of course they are the same, they followed the same formula like every other game series of that era.

Funny thing is, that "formula method" is happening right now. The people who bought GTA 3 bought GTA Vice City, which is essentially a "mission pack" with new content. I bet a fairly large group of these people purchased True Crimes: Streets of LA and possibly Driv3r because they both offered a "GTA-like" experience. Or how about Enter the Matrix? Did any Dead to Rights fans buy that game? I won't touch the FPS genre.

Game companies have been pumping out the similar games for ages. Heck I even quoted magazines from 1992/93 on this board that stated how stagnant the market was with all the "me too" games and lack of innovation. Twelve or thirteen years later with the game market bigger than ever, the story hasn't changed, just the genres or gaming formulas that get clubbed to death has. If people really were tired of playing the "same old, same old" they would have voted with their dollars years ago and the market would be a drastically different place.

As for game longevity: to me it's not the overall length of the game but how much time you have to invest before the "fun" kicks in. There are a lot of titles I have played (Shenmue, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, the new Rygar and Mario Sunshine to name a few) where I mentioned my dislike as the game didn't "grip" me early on and I was told that "I had to play it more...it gets better". Why should I invest 4, 5 or 10 hours into a game just to get to the "good stuff"? My time is precious and if I have to slog through a lot of dumbass missions and FMVs before it gets "good", forget it.

[musical]

I want to read the Megaman Review. Where is it?



IMHO, innovation should only happen on NEW titles. Like Ico.

When it comes to sequels like MegaMan or Mario, try to stay as close to the original concept as possible. Keep what succeeded before. Sequels that tried new stuff like Dig Dug 2 or Zelda 2 lost fans. Sequels that stuck to the success of the past like Ms.Pac-Man/Jr. Pac-Man did, and MegaMan did, sold millions to people who loved the first game.

If the reviewer can't understand the "stay true to what works" concept behind Megaman, he's a dumbass.