Life after video games

This link. To a website called PWOT: Pointless waste of time, in case nobody's heard of it. Has an article talking about the fall of the gaming industry as we've come to know it.

He discusses such things as how games have come to rely on trite details and improvements such as the one described:

Quote[/b] ]Compare Madden NFL 2001 to Madden 2004. You have to squint to tell the difference. Do you think innovations for Madden 2007 will be startling by comparison? I'll never forget the IGN Madden 2002 screenshot with a caption pointing out that it would be the first Madden to depict players' arm hair.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when details such as this are selling-points for a game.

He goes on to illustrate the difference between 1997's goldeneye and 04's Red faction.

It's true, things really haven't changed that much in the past few years. Games have become stagnant and shallow.

The whole reference to arm hair does run a similar parallel to the OFP community's increasing interest in making insanely detailed addons if for no other merit or reason save for it's own.

Other people in the PWOT forums have argued that:

Quote[/b] ]With all due respect, this in no way counters Wang's claims. His argument is not that there is little room for advance left -- he'd be an idiot to think otherwise. Video games have a very long way to go until they are real enough to mistake with (say) a television show in terms of realism, both on the screen and to the ear. The problem that Wang brings up, though, is that it doesn't matter. Graphics are "good enough" now and the remaining areas of improvement are going to bring greatly diminishing returns. As he pointed out, one of the the major differences between Madden 2001 and Madden 2002 was that the players had arm hair. That improvement, while appealing from a realist or aesthetic perspective (cough*shallow*cough), bring no more enjoyment to the game.

Personally I'd be glad if the industry -did- in fact collapse and revert back to the way it was when I was a kid. When there were niche developers and there wasn't such widespread exploitation and interest in the genre. Developers had to work a lot harder and innovate more to satisfy that customer than they did some drone who bought the newest game because it depicted armhair, or some other similiarly trite feature.

I think 1997 could be a microcosm for the gaming industry in general. As some may recall it was the year of the real time strategy. I think the same thing (although it's taken a bit longer) is what's happening to graphics in games. Pretty soon, well hell, even now. Every game just looks fantastic. However they all seem very empty to me. Like most of them are all just the same. Same as back in 1997 when RTS games were flooding the market en masse and soon the craze abated and then the age of Quake 2 took over after that and gave birth to (or kicked in to high gear) the online multiplayer gaming community.

At any rate. I find this information actually encouraging, I only really play OFP anyhow. I'm very apathetic to the happenings elsewhere in the gaming world.

I've seen that site, and think the author is living in some kind of fantasy world.

The gaming industry will thrive in it's current state. It will allways be dominated by flashy cookie cutter titles which feature little innovation, but there will allways be good products which come about from time to time.

Now take what I just said and put 'movie' or 'music' or 'television' in the place of 'gaming'. It's pretty much the same story with all forms of media entertainment.

For the authors prediction to come true, society would have to take a massive exodus away from it's current mode of consumerism. This would take far more than a slew of crappy products to hit the market. A giant asteroid or a few nukes might do the trick, but not crappy games.

That's probably true and generally I thought that was unlikely, however wishful thinking tends to influence my opinions.

I think the industry will subsist on those aforementioned drones who will consume just about any old game or software because it is new and "appears" to be improved. People are stupid. There's no way around that.

I think it's because of this trend towards mass marketing that has shifted my interest away from games. I think I should be happy about that though. Sometimes you need a kick in the right direction to move your life into the next phase.

the age of gamers are increasing, and in long run, i see no decline in the number of people playing games. there will be 'mass produced' games, using well known engines, and some acute ones like OFP.

for 50+ yr, i'd have to reserve some forecast since it is dependent on population of new borns.

Ten (I should say 15) years ago it was possible for two friends to write a game. Today it's a project more costly than shooting a film, the development time is rarely below 2 years and it's hard to do it with a team smaller than 20 people.

We've grown used to the details and taking them all away would bring us back to Amiga 500 graphics that simply wouldn't sell. Well, there are excellent text based games online but the audience is limited.

Developers are working hard enough these days. The gaming industry is a publisher industry and like any other publisher industry the developers are often slaves under bad terms.

95 out of 100 games do not generate profit for the developer, BiS are one of the lucky exceptions who made it a hit. The other games that failed we don't remember or talk much about. The publisher will however make a profit from 100 of 100 games published. The right of the investor in a way.

I was in the game industry from 1994 to 1998 but considerably raised my salary and working conditions by moving to the next building, writing the same code but for apps, not for games.

I still have a passion for games, I'd love to get involved in game development some time in the future again but I won't work for a publisher.

Luckily the terms changed.

The future of game is open source and modular design. All of ID software's games are available as open source. Counter Strike was a mod.

All of you mod and mission designers are part of the game industry. You might not make the big cash but you bring the development forward.

Today and in the future, game design is based on modules. In the future, the game creators do not have to write the rendering from scratch. They will be able to put a game together by modules and often it will be open source and that means most of the games will even be free.

Again it's possible for two friends to create a game, no need of going back.

Besides, playing games isn't a fad, it's more of a need and as long people need the excitement, there will be games.

Old topic...

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=409

(seems nobody is reading my posts... )

Quote[/b] ]To a website called PWOT: Pointless waste of time,

That was a pointless waste of my time. The video game industry is still growing, and the creation of high definition television sets will allow console makers to bring even more amazing details to systems that are cheaper than PCs. The industry is nowhere near collapse.

Quote[/b] ]Personally I'd be glad if the industry -did- in fact collapse and revert back to the way it was when I was a kid. When there were niche developers and there wasn't such widespread exploitation and interest in the genre.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that games of OFP2 quality can be made by "niche developers"? You need large teams to pull off big projects, and a guy in his basement is not a large team.

I think it's just that with computer gaming being the big market it is today (and with the high investment nescessary to develop a good game) you get a situation like with the movie industry: a lot of similar mainstream stuff that may not be revolutionary but means (mostly) guaranteed revenues from the mass market, and only a few great exceptions - games that actually try something new and succeed at it.

Nothing bad about it. There will still be many good and 'revolutionary' games in the future (just like OFP when it came out).

Quote[/b] ]To a website called PWOT: Pointless waste of time,

That was a pointless waste of my time. The video game industry is still growing, and the creation of high definition television sets will allow console makers to bring even more amazing details to systems that are cheaper than PCs. The industry is nowhere near collapse.

That is not the point. Sure, games will get more and more detailled, killing is showed even more realistic, etc.

But there's nothing new. New gaming concepts are risky, and shareholders don't really like risky things.

Example: Graphic adventures like Monkey Island, Larry etc.

Recently LucasArts decided not to develop any new graphical adventure games because they think there is no market (press release):

www.lucasarts.com,recently[/url])]

"After careful evaluation of current market place realities and underlying economic considerations, we've decided that this was not the appropriate time to launch a graphic adventure on the PC" says Mike Nelson, Acting General Manager and VP of Finance and Operations. There is currently no plan to reduce staff.

Hmm, but the gamers who bought Sam'n'Max back then aren't that old and therefore still alive to buy a new Sam'n'Max...

Instead, what's doing LucasArts? Exploiting Star Wars (I'm a SW fan, but in the last few years there was too much Star Wars -> myth exploited to death), creating action-adventures...

*frowns* *shakes-head*

Quote[/b] ]Are you actually stupid enough to think that games of OFP2 quality can be made by "niche developers"? You need large teams to pull off big projects, and a guy in his basement is not a large team.

I don't think stupidity has anything to do with it.

Secondly. How OFP2 looks is completely inconsequential to me. The simple fact is a game like OFP was created long ago. It was called Muzzle Velocity, which was created by a small software development company.This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Secondly if the rest of the industry dries up then yes. More people interested in game development would conceivably form slightly larger (than what would be considered small back when gaming was in it's infancy) and more cohesive gaming development teams. However nowhere near the size I'd imagine of say the Electronic Arts development gulags.

Take for instance the group that made the game Birds of Prey for the PC. That was a terrific flight sim and it was complicated for it's day. Same with the Falcon series. These weren't made by "small" teams in the sense that someone was writing code out of his basement, however small compared to most mainstream gaming companies I'd say nowadays. I'm speaking in relative terms my good man. I'm just tired of mass production of entertainment software.

BIS in my opinion a niche developer whether or not you'd like to count the number of heads working on such a game. OFP is not a mainstream title, it never really has been. At least not in North America. Every software store I ever went to. EVER. Always had copies of OFP laying around whereas various shitty tactical FPS games of more notorious repute were usually sold out or sold down. I've known so many people interested in that sort of genre that never even knew about OFP until I introduced it to them. My cousin who plays it works at a computer store and was commended for boosting sales of a so called: "stagnant product" which again. Was OFP. This is in terms relative to more mainstream software that was sold there. So that is my basis for comparison.

Quote[/b] ]We've grown used to the details and taking them all away would bring us back to Amiga 500 graphics that simply wouldn't sell

Perhaps you guys. Not me, and that's a ridiculous comparison. There's no mention of taking all that detail away, it just means that headway in game development, such as making pointless little features like arm hair won't be a priority. Developers would have to work harder focusing less on a gimmick that will appear old in six months.

As I had posted in that quote before. Games look good enough as is in my opinion, and obviously the person who wrote that. I believe that most developers these days just take the shortcut and focus on visuals instead of innovations in other areas instead. Such as gameplay.

I think at the very least, gaming will and I think is slowly slipping in to a rut of mediocrity. When people start getting sick of playing the same game over and over only with more detailed eyebrows or nose hair. There will be a slump.

Quote[/b] ]Instead, what's doing LucasArts? Exploiting Star Wars (I'm a SW fan, but in the last few years there was too much Star Wars -> myth exploited to death), creating action-adventures...

*frowns* *shakes-head*

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

THe best selling game overall in the last year or so was the Sims.

THE. SIMS.

The people who bought that 'game' (dolls house simulator) and its thousands of spawn (sims hot date etc) are the reason for the lack of originality in games recently. Publishers go with what is popular. IF the market buys unoriginal, shitty games, they will finance unoriginal, shitty games.

It is still possible for two people to make a game nowadays: it will just look/play/sound the same as it did back when it was customary for two people to make a game.

You're trying to surprise me with such information. I'm well aware of it.

I think the article was trying to get the point across that you can only innovate so much before things become repetitive. Granted the more dull a person becomes the harder it is for them to become aware (and tired) of such repitition. I believe it will happen. You can only peddle that crap for so long.

When did the Sim's first come out? 1999? It was around about that time that certain games really started picking up attention from casual gamers. The more mainstream media oriented individuals who had no interest in niche titles. So this is an affair that has yet to mature and become boring. This will eventually happen. I'm not saying people will inevitably stop buying it, but there will be a point where you'll have your core demographic of mindless consumers just buying it up and that'll be it. Things like the sims are still a relatively new concept in terms of drawing in new gaming demographics. The problem with these demographics is they're a lot more fickle.

Movies have been mostly cookie-cutter for the last 30 years or so, I don't see anything perticularly bleak about the future of gaming.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that games of OFP2 quality can be made by "niche developers"? You need large teams to pull off big projects, and a guy in his basement is not a large team.

And Bohemia Interactive Studios wasn't a niche developer?

Had you ever heard of BIS before OFP? Unless you kept up with Czech gaming news. I think not.

THe best selling game overall in the last year or so was the Sims.

THE.   SIMS.

The people who bought that 'game' (dolls house simulator) and its thousands of spawn (sims hot date etc) are the reason for the lack of originality in games recently.  Publishers go with what is popular.  IF the market buys unoriginal, shitty games, they will finance unoriginal, shitty games.

It is still possible for two people to make a game nowadays: it will just look/play/sound the same as it did back when it was customary for two people to make a game.

The Sims was / is very "revolutionary" in it's core and noone has infact copied it's concept to date. Only Maxis and EA shelling out expansions to increase the lifespan of their game, which I see no harm in to be honest.

How many build your own family-type games have you seen recently that are NOT affiliated with the franchise that we call The Sims?

There will allways be games that are regular and nothing out of the ordinary, many games from "the good old days" are just rip-offs aswell. A successful concept copied more or less exactly.

In my opinion only good things can come out of this industry, every crappy, unoriginal game is also a step forward for the industry in a sense. All industries benefit from more money, it may mean more meaningless crap, but it also means more good things, in this case more good games coming out.

I've to add that modern hobby computer game programmers have much more possibilities and tools to create games.

I remember --back in the (early) 90s-- I had to address the graphics memory on my own with inline assembler instructions. Memory segment 0xA000, int 0x10 calls etc. Game loops were primitive (polling), there was no real thread management. Without using the protected mode you only got little memory for graphics.

Nowadays you can use SDL or ClanLib, which do nearly everything concerning input/output and resource management. Plus you can find several free 3D graphics engines and 3D modeling tools on the web.

As you can see modern hobby computer game programmers can focus on story and gameplay. They have more chances than the early Sid Meier, Richard Garriott, Chris Roberts, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert etc. All they need is a good idea and talent. And they can ignore marketing analyses...

http://pingus.seul.org/

http://kursk.sourceforge.net/screenshoot3.html

http://scourge.sourceforge.net/

http://netpanzer.berlios.de/

Imo we can compare tomorrow's game market with today's music market. There will be a noticeable split-up between Independent and Mainstream.

Independent labels still sell CDs, they got a small but strong market. Mainstream labels are suffering from the saturation of their market and from customers who are bored by the xth remix. Same will happen to the big game companies, e.g. EA...

Waste of time. Of course it is a waste of time. But there are times when the kitchen is already clean, when the daily tasks are fulfilled, when there is nothing on TV, when I am not tired enough to sleep, when my friends are studying. Well in that case everything I do is a waste...

Of course I could go jogging, do some Joga, help poor children, write a book, read the bible and pray for the better in the world.

But no, I prefer gaming!

Are you actually stupid enough to think that games of OFP2 quality can be made by "niche developers"? You need large teams to pull off big projects, and a guy in his basement is not a large team.

Tell that to the ONE GUY who wrote X-Plane, which is now an FAA approved flight trainer, or the ONE GUY who wrote Racer, a game that some Universities are using to teach engineering students who are studying car design.

Speaking of Racer, I think I'll go grab the latest beta and hook up my racing wheel.

And don't forget Roller Coaster Tycoon

Quote[/b] ]Tell that to the ONE GUY who wrote X-Plane, which is now an FAA approved flight trainer, or the ONE GUY who wrote Racer, a game that some Universities are using to teach engineering students who are studying car design.

There's a very short supply of people who can create a game from scratch. You can't rely on this tiny group of people to create a large enough variety of games to satisfy gamers. Also, a smart and motivated person can create a flight simulator, but imagine them trying to create a good first/third person shooter game. Massive amounts of object creation, the difficulty of recording sounds (To record gunshots, you need somewhere around $10,000 in recording equipment), creating nice looking units, detailed texturing, etc... That's definitely a team project.

I never said the Gaming industry would change - just that one person does have the ability to create a kick ass game nowadays. In regards the X-Plane and Racer, just the core game is created by the author but the game community creates most of the content - Cars and tracks in the case of racer, and planes and addon scenery in the case of X-Plane.

Racer comes with one car and one track, and the community supplies the other 170 or so cars, and around 50 or so tracks.

I dont see any reason why one dude couldn't built a decend FPS either, and have a community supply the content.

Can you play multiplayer in Racer, just like in Live for speed?

Yes, but it is Buggy - with a capital B! MP is really on good if your on a LAN. My cooworker and I raced eachother at work.

Massive amounts of object creation, the difficulty of recording sounds (To record gunshots, you need somewhere around $10,000 in recording equipment), creating nice looking units, detailed texturing, etc... That's definitely a team project.

Yeah, I wonder how BAS or other mods (e.g. Bundeswehr mod) could do this. Are they that rich to buy such expensive equipment?

Maybe they just used public available sounds ?