Do We Really Want Change?

[Mendon]

I read THIS ARTICLE from Game Informer and it really made me stop and think about my own likes - dislikes - wants.

 

Quoting from part of the article:

 

"To me, it feels like most gamers, despite these many cries that the gaming industry is running itself into a rut and that we need different styles of games to keep it going, can't accept change. Analysts and journalists all report on how this change is a very needed one, yet the next big shooter gets all of this positive reaction only for them for a few months. After that, they start mentioning this needed change, leaving this cycle to repeat endlessly. We just can't be pleased it seems. This is why I believe that this rut that people mention is only going to get worse. We can't break ourselves of this shooting game spell we seem to be under, and the publishers and developers that make these games see no reason to stop with all of the money they get.

 

That is not to say, though, that people haven't tried to innovate out of this before. Nintendo has tried to give us something different with health-conscious gaming while Sony has been trying to innovate all genres on all fronts. Yes, they still give us Mario and Killzone, but they still try to give us other things like Wii Fit, LittleBigPlanet, and Heavy Rain. And, in some cases, they've been successful with these new innovations. Heavy Rain has sold over 1 million units and Wii Fit and similar games has been successful in drawing new gamers to the market. But it still hasn't really shaken this fixation of shooters that we have yet."

 

I thought about the collection of games I've purchased over the past year and while there are some that I feel put a different spin on the normal.... Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls, WiiFit Plus, Risk Factions.... my purchases have pretty much been dominated by FPS's, Fighters, Shooters, and "Match 3" puzzles.

 

Take motion control, for example. I own a Wii and some of the games.... Wii Sports, Red Steel 2, Sports Resort, LIT.... work really, really well and are a blast to play. Yet I haven't even tried Kinect or Move and find myself knocking both and saying Sony and MS are fools. Am I stuck in a rut of "analog control only games" on the 360/PS3 and afraid to try what may turn out to be a really enjoyable gaming experience? Am I resisting change?

 

I'm not sure...... but I'm thinking about it. What about you?

 

 

Mendon

Edited July 30, 2010 by Mendon

[Gamemoose]

I read THIS ARTICLE from Game Informer and it really made me stop and think about my own likes - dislikes - wants.

 

Quoting from part of the article:

 

"To me, it feels like most gamers, despite these many cries that the gaming industry is running itself into a rut and that we need different styles of games to keep it going, can't accept change. Analysts and journalists all report on how this change is a very needed one, yet the next big shooter gets all of this positive reaction only for them for a few months. After that, they start mentioning this needed change, leaving this cycle to repeat endlessly. We just can't be pleased it seems. This is why I believe that this rut that people mention is only going to get worse. We can't break ourselves of this shooting game spell we seem to be under, and the publishers and developers that make these games see no reason to stop with all of the money they get.

 

That is not to say, though, that people haven't tried to innovate out of this before. Nintendo has tried to give us something different with health-conscious gaming while Sony has been trying to innovate all genres on all fronts. Yes, they still give us Mario and Killzone, but they still try to give us other things like Wii Fit, LittleBigPlanet, and Heavy Rain. And, in some cases, they've been successful with these new innovations. Heavy Rain has sold over 1 million units and Wii Fit and similar games has been successful in drawing new gamers to the market. But it still hasn't really shaken this fixation of shooters that we have yet."

 

I thought about the collection of games I've purchased over the past year and while there are some that I feel put a different spin on the normal.... Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls, WiiFit Plus, Risk Factions.... my purchases have pretty much been dominated by FPS's, Fighters, Shooters, and "Match 3" puzzles.

 

Take motion control, for example. I own a Wii and some of the games.... Wii Sports, Red Steel 2, Sports Resort, LIT.... work really, really well and are a blast to play. Yet I haven't even tried Kinect or Move and find myself knocking both and saying Sony and MS are fools. Am I stuck in a rut of "analog control only games" on the 360/PS3 and afraid to try what may turn out to be a really enjoyable gaming experience? Am I resisting change?

 

I'm not sure...... but I'm thinking about it. What about you?

 

 

Mendon

 

To be honest, the industry has been in ruts for a long time. Space shooters on the VCS, platform games on the NES through the 16 bit era, the fighting game explosion, "stealth" games, now FPS and "sandbox" games like GTA. The ruts continue until some company decides to try something new, either by software or hardware, that is popular enough that it shifts the industry and everyone jumps on board. Besides, it seems like most media industries get stuck with what's hot-look at the sheer number of reality TV shows.

 

One of the reasons, I think, that shooters have such staying power these days is that the console audience has gotten bit my the online multiplayer bug. Like those that played their Quake 3's and Unreal Tournaments online on PCs years ago, console gamers really got their first real taste of this on the original Xbox. Give players rankings and such and it's like digital crack.

 

As for your apprehension to the motion controls on 360 and PS3-I think that comes from the fact that those are add-ons and historically, add-ons suck. While I do agree that the Wii's got some games that really make good use of the controls, other titles seem to just replace the buttons the system doesn't have with gestures. When you think of it, only really now we're starting to see games that are using the motion controls in a more constructive way than just "waggle". With Microsoft's and Sony's kits, the idea that games are going to be as functional as Wii's titles back in 2006 is a hard thought to shake.

 

Personally, I'm curious about the 360/PS3 motion controls, but not enough to lay down the dough. Motion control on the Wii didn't turn me on as many of the titles I played missed the mark in the motion department. Games like Cooking Mama drove me nuts as the gestures were never detected correctly. So with the big Two companies toting motion, I'm automatically skeptical.

[StanJr]

I agree, we are stuck in a rut, (culturally in the bigger sense as well, music is the same today as it was 10 years ago, there have been no more Nirvanas, Elvises, Run DMC's) but I think that both parties are responsible. Consumers are too afraid to try new things when they still get "highs" off of the same old things. Online play has definitely extended the life of the FPS, but that will get old too. At the same time, developers see huge profits from the same old things, and when they try to innovate, everyone goes "oh yeah, that's really neat" for ten minutes and then goes back to the same old thing. Look at Katamari Damacy, amazing game, innovative controls and game design---niche following at best.

 

Right now there are a handful of game types that consumers consume in mass quantities and they sell well so we get lots of them. I cannot think of a good flight-sim, real or space in a long time, but I remember when X-Wing was the greatest game anyone had ever played. Same for micro-management games like Overlord or Sim City (Sims excluded that is a whole beast all itself) 2-D Platformers are making a comeback thanks to the Wii, but they have a lot of ground to regain. And even in these instances are we seeing innovation or more of the same old thing from way back? Hard to say.

 

The Wii continues to push forward with innovation, but is constantly belitted because of lackluster games produced by developers who don't want to put the time into innovation to keep up. The in-house stuff from Nintendo continues to excel!!

 

It seems nobody wants change, but at the same time wants to cry about being in a rut. I do not own any FPS or any of the other same old things for any modern systems. The majority of my Wii collection is made up of the weird stuff, Let's Tap, Okami, Rayman, Gravity, Wii Fit, Wii Sports Resort, Alien Syndrome, DDR, Tiger Woods Super Mario Galaxy. There are some mainstream titles in there, but they all use the innovative controls in some unique way, they all try for more than the same old thing.

 

But then again, I'm all about game play and only impressed by graphics if the game is fun. I want change, I want a diverse library of high quality games.

[Segataritensoftii]

I think everyone wants change, but they don't know what kind of change they want until they actually see it. I think it's always been this way, and probably part of the reason why people go into ruts. They just play what was the freshest and most enjoyable when they first discovered it.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Segataritensoftii

[Austin]

One of the reasons, I think, that shooters have such staying power these days is that the console audience has gotten bit my the online multiplayer bug. Like those that played their Quake 3's and Unreal Tournaments online on PCs years ago, console gamers really got their first real taste of this on the original Xbox. Give players rankings and such and it's like digital crack.

 

Yep.. For a while there, the average gamer didn't seem to understand why many of us PC gamers locked ourselves away in weekend-long sessions of online Quake, Unreal Tournament, etc.

 

Now that it's a pop-culture thing, many of us "old fogeys" sit back and reminisce over the golden years of online PC gaming..

[xg4bx]

i think those in the gaming media talk out of both sides of their mouths. they decry the lack of originality yet everyone of them will give the new call of duty a 9+.

 

in all fairness even i don't know what i want anymore.i've been playing and loving dragon age and mass effect but even a steady stream of games like that would get tedious.

 

i think its time for more "hybrid" games like fallout 3 or even mass effect 2 i.e. shooters with rpg elements. i've long had an idea for a shooter where your skills in weaponry naturally increase the more you use a particular weapon. if you use mainly pistols, your rifle skills will suck, etc. all done behind the scenes, not stats involved. i'm sick of the vanilla corridor shooters we get these days. the only real difference between doom and call of duty is the graphics.

 

we definitely need more 3rd person action games, my favorites last gen were the suffering, freedom fighters, psi-ops, stuff like that. games that had some tactics to them, not just shoot shoot shoot.

 

we definitely need more vehicle based games, whether it be space, mech or boat. i'd love some modern jackal or iron tank action.

 

i think i don't even honestly want or need originality, i just want variety. frankly i've gotten tired of nothing but serious gun play. most games are so gritty and heavy these days.

[Mendon]

The topic sort of asks the "chicken or the egg" question.... Do we buy what publishers release or do publishers release what we will buy?

 

When I used GameFly, I was able to try out a bunch of different games that I never would have even looked at if I had to pay out $50 -$60 a copy. So I can see where publishers might want to play it somewhat safe and not become overly risky by straying very far from the known and profitable.

 

I watched the Nintendo conference at E3 and was very impressed with Epic Mickey and how it looked and played. Yet I found that I was much more excited over and ready to immediately purchase the announced classic's: Kirby, GoldenEye, Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong Country, and Metroid. Is this a rut I'm in, ready to only buy the familiar? Yet, I enjoyed the hell out of 1 vs. 100 on XBL (and am angry it won't be back!) and I think the main reason for this enjoyment was because the game was new, different, and FUN. So maybe I'm not in a rut.......

 

I have to wonder how many of one genre can the marketplace support at one time? For example, I'm really curious to see how this fall-holiday-New Year is going to play out amongst all the big name FPS games being released. Within the span of just 2 - 4 months, the shelves will be flooded with Halo, Medal of Honor, Black Op's, Fallout 3, Crysys 2, Killzone 3, Bullet Storm, Gears 3, and probably a couple other biggies I've forgotten. Will they all sell as big as they are expected? Will one or more games be considered failures because they didn't sell 5 million copies? How many of these FPS titles will shooter fans support at one time? Can there be too many releases at one time?

 

I think the next year is going to be very, very interesting for gamers.

 

 

Mendon

Edited July 31, 2010 by Mendon

[Lord Thag]

Most if the games I buy are oddball/original titles like Heavy Rain, so yeah, I want change. I'm tired of the same crap.

 

For me though, it's less about the game play styles (i.e. First person shooters, RPGs etc) than it is about the crappy, redundant, derivative content.

 

Most games these days are story driven, and game companies seem to only want to do bad sci-fi channel made-for-saturday-tv quality plots. THAT is what drags most games down.

 

I mean, your rarely hear many people complain about Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, or Bioshock. The first is gears of war crossed with a light rpg. The second is a pretty standard adventure game, the third is a FPS rpgs ala System Shock or Ultima Underworld. None of them are original from a gameplay standpoint.

 

Yet they all were lauded as creative and original. Why? Because the storylines in all three were simply outstanding.

 

I don't care so much if the styles of games change so much as the quality of content. RPGs in particular, are the worst offenders. Barnes and Noble is full of outstanding Fantasy and Sci-fi. Aisles of it, in fact, yet your standard story driven RPG is just a giant pile of cliches. Does it really take that much effort to come up with something a bit different that actually treats the gamer audience like they are not horny fifteen year olds?

 

Give me solid gameplay (original or not) and quality, well crafted stories and I will be just fine. Or something new. Either way, I'm a-ok with change.

[Christophero Sly]

Great points, Thag.

 

I'm not necessarily discontent with the current state of gaming. Moreover, I'm consistently a generation behind, so my perspective on where we are in gaming right now might not be the most incisive, but I would even add that as long as they are intelligent, well-written, and well-plotted, I don't really care if stories are cliched. I think it's hard to avoid certain cliches, anyway. Of course, I'd prefer it if plots weren't cliched, but I'll tell you what, all else being equal, I'll take cliched over convoluted or non-existent any day.

 

Maybe not the best example, but I just finished up Half Life 2 on my Xbox, and it's a great game--great visuals, great soundscape, great animation, nice puzzles, etc., but I was struck by how the game adds up to something substantially less than the sum of its parts. It's certainly an immersive game, but unfortunately, it's not a particularly engaging one, and the reason why is because it has an extremely weak and meandering plot. In fact, the plot is nearly non-existent, and this causes the game to absolutely drag in the second half. I was repeatedly asking myself, why am I here; why am I making my way down yet another bombed-out stairwell or wading through another flooded basement? By all but ignoring plot and storyline, I feel that they really squandered something special with Half Life 2.

 

I don't know. I guess the scope of modern games has finally reached the point where the plot is ultimately the critical factor that makes or breaks a game for me. And, yes, a part of me is very uncomfortable saying that. Regardless, wherever gaming is headed, my interest will be increasingly predicated on games being able to provide intelligent, compelling, well-plotted stories.

[+Random Terrain]

Change the controller all you want, but it won't fix what has been wrong with most video games since they popped up in arcades, then moved into our homes and eventually into our pockets:

 

Randomness and Replayability

 

Alternatives to Constant Restarting

 

Play vs. Competition

 

SOS (Same Old Stuff) Syndrome

[Hyper_Eye]

It isn't a matter of resistance to change as opposed to desire for change. It is a matter of good change vs. bad change. The motion controls were a brilliant decision by Nintendo. They were also incredibly risky. It has paid off for them and that is awesome. What MS and Sony are doing, on the other hand, is not just risky but it is stupid. Nintendo has saturated the casual gamer market with a system that does motion control out of the box. Most of the people who bought it got the system with Wii Sports and never bought another game. That is because they don't buy stuff for the item they bought. They buy the item for what it comes with. Now MS and Sony expect that these casual gamers are going to 1) buy their system and then 2) buy an addon for it and then 3) buy games for that. They are out of their minds.

 

MS needs to face the hard truth that their hardware sales have peaked. The audience the 360 caters to has already bought it or rejected it. They should focus on getting as much good software out for it, while it still has life in it, as they can. In the meantime they should be gearing up to get their next console designed and they should spend extra time making sure it runs cool and that they take advantage of the improved way in which they handled hardware ownership in the 360 and make the next one fully backward compatible.

 

Sony should be doing everything they can to get big hit titles out that will draw the disillusioned away from the 360. Between the PS1 and the PS2 they developed a gigantic fan base. A lot of those fans bought 360's but Sony could get them back. They should make that happen.

 

Instead both are going to hedge their bets on these stupid motion control products and they are jumping in when the game is more than half over. I'm sorry... you don't win that way. These guys went the HD and online route. I think it is great and I'm glad they did it. Nintendo decided they didn't have a shot if they went the same route and decided instead to throw caution to the wind and create a fundamental shift in the way people think about game consoles and the people that buy them. I can see the desire on the part of the other 2 to get in on that successful direction but timing is everything and the timing is terrible. You can't tell me they haven't had good and expensive analysts tell them that exact thing. They are blinded by Nintendos lead.

[Hyper_Eye]

Maybe not the best example, but I just finished up Half Life 2 on my Xbox, and it's a great game--great visuals, great soundscape, great animation, nice puzzles, etc., but I was struck by how the game adds up to something substantially less than the sum of its parts. It's certainly an immersive game, but unfortunately, it's not a particularly engaging one, and the reason why is because it has an extremely weak and meandering plot. In fact, the plot is nearly non-existent, and this causes the game to absolutely drag in the second half. I was repeatedly asking myself, why am I here; why am I making my way down yet another bombed-out stairwell or wading through another flooded basement? By all but ignoring plot and storyline, I feel that they really squandered something special with Half Life 2.

 

You need to play Episode 1 and Episode 2 now that you have finished the main game. In particular Episode 2 is the most engaging part of the 3 games. These games are not as long as Half-Life 2 so you don't have as much time to get bored with them. But to me Episode 2 had no chance of getting boring anyway because it had my strictest attention from the moment it started to the moment it ended and I felt like 2 or 3 more hours of it would have been just fine with me.

[Christophero Sly]

You need to play Episode 1 and Episode 2 now that you have finished the main game. In particular Episode 2 is the most engaging part of the 3 games. These games are not as long as Half-Life 2 so you don't have as much time to get bored with them. But to me Episode 2 had no chance of getting boring anyway because it had my strictest attention from the moment it started to the moment it ended and I felt like 2 or 3 more hours of it would have been just fine with me.

OK. Thanks. I'll check them out.

[stalepie]

I think certain kinds of games will always be played. People have played certain sports and card games for generations now and a lot of basic types of play tap into our ancient desires for competition, war and fighting.

 

I personally I have trouble thinking of new ideas for games. There's already a big variety of them, with even old-fashioned 2D games still being made. Recently I saw someone argue that they never wanted to grind or do turn-based fighting in an RPG again, but I argued these elements are essential to RPGs. As it happens, many types of games can only be changed so much before they lose their essence.

 

There may be only a few types of basic games that are fun to play electronically. Usually they involve some aspect of fight or flight, or a maze, or a race. Occasionally they involve strategy or inventory management, and puzzles, but these are often wrapped around the basic fight or flight mechanics. From this perspective there has never been much innovation in the industry and probably can't be.

 

That said, I think there may be innovation in the way we experience games. Kinect, Wii and Move are already demonstrating that, but maybe in the future we will have headsets that read our brainwaves or virtual reality rooms like the Holodeck.

 

With stories, I don't think much beyond the basic hero quest works well in games. And arguably, the hero quest works better in games than it does in any other medium. Usually to make the hero interesting in a comic book or movie you have to have him expressing doubts, failing, or changing in some way, but these things are difficult to demonstrate in the hero in a game, that you control, and normally have to be done with the NPCs. Even then it raises the question of whether you are still playing a game any time control and challenge is taken away from you.

[ninjarabbit]

The problem I think is that game design for the most part really hasn't evolved that much in the last 10-15 years. Most of the games we're playing now are just bigger, faster, and better looking versions of games we've played for the last 2 generations. Yeah the Wii and DS added some wrinkles to games design (and Nintendo was rewarded handsomely for this) but even then 90% of the games for those systems didn't need the motion control and stylus. To be brutally honest the only games in the last 10 years that have changed the way people look at games are GTA3 and Wii Sports.

 

I think a lot of it is because games cost so much to develop and market so companies are much more risk adverse. Part of it too is that game design theory is a lot more refined than it was in the 80's and 90's so there's a lot less experimentation, imagine if someone tried to pitch Super Mario Bros today he'd be laughed out of the building.

[Vic George 2K3]

I'm still waiting for a game that blatantly calls itself...

 

THE SIN-ULATOR!!!

 

And maybe have its box cover done in the style of Grand Theft Auto III & IV to attract the fans of those games.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Vic George 2K3

[cimerians]

Here's a good point being made by Katamari creator Keita Takahashi:

 

"Katamari creator sees 'no future' in games"

http://www.destructoid.com/katamari-creator-thinks-the-future-for-videogames-is-dark-181334.phtml

 

If you really think about it, FPS games are basically the same since DOOM in the 90's. That is, hold a gun and move around a world in "1st person view". Adding modern technology to it makes it great of course but that basic fundamental is always there. Boring?

 

I dont know. I still like traditional turn based RPG's so I guess I'm happy with everything now. I'm not big on motion control at all though. In fact, it's inconveniant for me. I just want to sit down, relax and not move my arms around too much after a long day sometimes.

[stalepie]

Here's a good point being made by Katamari creator Keita Takahashi:

 

"Katamari creator sees 'no future' in games"

http://www.destructoid.com/katamari-creator-thinks-the-future-for-videogames-is-dark-181334.phtml

 

If you really think about it, FPS games are basically the same since DOOM in the 90's. That is, hold a gun and move around a world in "1st person view". Adding modern technology to it makes it great of course but that basic fundamental is always there. Boring?

 

I dont know. I still like traditional turn based RPG's so I guess I'm happy with everything now. I'm not big on motion control at all though. In fact, it's inconveniant for me. I just want to sit down, relax and not move my arms around too much after a long day sometimes.

 

The best thing I think is that more variety gets added (motion control games, innovation in FPS and RPGs) but the old styles still get made. I think it's actually hard to improve on classics like Doom and Dragon Quest. It is like how there are certain styles of music that hit their zenith and then for decades later imitators and younger generations tried to continue the conventions with varying degrees of success.

 

I mean, look at it this way: baseball, basketball and football haven't changed much in 100 years, right? So why should fighting games..

[ninjarabbit]

Here's a good point being made by Katamari creator Keita Takahashi:

 

"Katamari creator sees 'no future' in games"

http://www.destructoid.com/katamari-creator-thinks-the-future-for-videogames-is-dark-181334.phtml

 

If you really think about it, FPS games are basically the same since DOOM in the 90's. That is, hold a gun and move around a world in "1st person view". Adding modern technology to it makes it great of course but that basic fundamental is always there. Boring?

 

I dont know. I still like traditional turn based RPG's so I guess I'm happy with everything now. I'm not big on motion control at all though. In fact, it's inconveniant for me. I just want to sit down, relax and not move my arms around too much after a long day sometimes.

 

The best thing I think is that more variety gets added (motion control games, innovation in FPS and RPGs) but the old styles still get made. I think it's actually hard to improve on classics like Doom and Dragon Quest. It is like how there are certain styles of music that hit their zenith and then for decades later imitators and younger generations tried to continue the conventions with varying degrees of success.

 

I mean, look at it this way: baseball, basketball and football haven't changed much in 100 years, right? So why should fighting games..

 

 

Actually baseball, basketball, and football do change significantly and evolve over time. For example NBA didn't have the 3 point shot until the 70's and that altered the way the game is played, offenses in football like the West Coast and Spread didn't happen until the 80's. And that's not even mentioning all the numerous rules changes.

 

Sooner or later someone is going to come out with the next GTA3 or Wii Sports and it's going to spawn a million copycats and that's ultimately the problem with the industry. Of course this isn't anything new since we've seen Space Invader clones, Mario Kart clones, SF2 clones, SM64 clones, and more.

[stalepie]

Here's a good point being made by Katamari creator Keita Takahashi:

 

"Katamari creator sees 'no future' in games"

http://www.destructoid.com/katamari-creator-thinks-the-future-for-videogames-is-dark-181334.phtml

 

If you really think about it, FPS games are basically the same since DOOM in the 90's. That is, hold a gun and move around a world in "1st person view". Adding modern technology to it makes it great of course but that basic fundamental is always there. Boring?

 

I dont know. I still like traditional turn based RPG's so I guess I'm happy with everything now. I'm not big on motion control at all though. In fact, it's inconveniant for me. I just want to sit down, relax and not move my arms around too much after a long day sometimes.

 

The best thing I think is that more variety gets added (motion control games, innovation in FPS and RPGs) but the old styles still get made. I think it's actually hard to improve on classics like Doom and Dragon Quest. It is like how there are certain styles of music that hit their zenith and then for decades later imitators and younger generations tried to continue the conventions with varying degrees of success.

 

I mean, look at it this way: baseball, basketball and football haven't changed much in 100 years, right? So why should fighting games..

 

 

Actually baseball, basketball, and football do change significantly and evolve over time. For example NBA didn't have the 3 point shot until the 70's and that altered the way the game is played, offenses in football like the West Coast and Spread didn't happen until the 80's. And that's not even mentioning all the numerous rules changes.

I don't consider that much change. The 3 point shot is just 1 point added to a certain kind of shot, while the offenses, if I understand right, are types of strategies rather than rules.

[stalepie]

(deleted)

Edited August 17, 2010 by stalepie

[Reaperman]

I'm finding it really hard to cope with the rut this generation of games has fallen into.

Now that minigame compilations, FPS's, and 3rd person action titles form the vast majority of releases, I find that racing games are about the only significant genre that I still enjoy. Sure there are unique titles here or there that I pick up, but nearly half of my ps3 purchases are racers. This has *NEVER* happened before, and it does not actually reflect a change in my tastes.

 

I need change and I don't care where it comes from.

Gaming needs to find a new rut to fall into, or go back to some old ones. That's the way to get me to switch more of my (rather large) gaming budget to current-gen titles. Or they can try to keep releasing the same 3 games that I never wanted to start with, and keep thinking up new creative fees to dick me over with.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Reaperman

[Pixelboy]

Do we really want change? The answer is yes and no. What we (gamers) really want is to be satisfied with the games we buy with our hard-earned money, and that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter if the game is a rehash or if it's based on a new gaming concept, what matters is customer satisfaction. If a rehash is well done and provides an enjoyable experience to a majority of gamers, then it will generate positive hype, just as much as any attempt at an original game.

 

If game developers and publishers rely on rehashing their properties, it's because brand recognition plays an important part in marketing, especially with today's gamers who are far more informed and sophisticated than those of the early days of gaming. Everybody's a critic today, and it doesn't make things easier for the players in this industry.

 

Think about it: How many good original games are generally ignored by the gaming populace, regardless of the gaming platform? How many of these games have had underwhelming sales figures as a result? The real question here is: Why are gamers ignoring these original games to begin with? The easy answer would be it's because they're not based on known properties and franchises, but while that's not totally untrue, there's something to be said about consumer's willingness to spend money on video games. And that's where the marketing aspect comes in. If an original game doesn't wow audiences with still screenshots, then it will be overlooked when it's actually released. The phenomenon is nothing new: How many boardgames were created these past decades only to fall into obscurity?

 

Do we want change? Sure, but only if it wows us. The Wii managed to do just that with the Wiimote, and won the hearts of millions as a result. So it can still be done. But you have to admit, there's a bit of hypocrisy behind gamers' pleas for "change". They never say "We want things to change, but these changes need to wow us in order to win us over". Yet that's exactly what it's all about.

 

Why do you think movies and TV shows are still widely released on DVD years after the appearance of BluRay? Because BluRay doesn't generally wow consumers. It's just the same damage-prone disc medium with more data storage capacity, and BluRay players are still far more expensive than DVD players. A new non-disc medium needs to come along in order to impress consumers and put them in a spending mood. Downloadable movies and TV shows will never work, IMO, because people like to own what they buy, and downloading is just short-term to long-term renting. But that's a discussion for another thread, mind you. The idea here is that bringing something new to the table is always a throw of the dice.

[+Random Terrain]

I'm still waiting for a game that blatantly calls itself...

 

THE SIN-ULATOR!!!

 

And maybe have its box cover done in the style of Grand Theft Auto III & IV to attract the fans of those games.

I'm pretty sick of people crapping on the GTA games, especially GTA:SA. The main missions make you do 'sinful' things, but if you sand box it, use cheats, and ignore the main missions, the game is only as sinful as your perverted mind makes it. You can drive all kind of vehicles, including bicycles, motorcycles, and boats (there are places where you can do amazing stunts too). Fly airplanes, helicopters, or use a jetpack. You can swim, climb a mountain, get on top of a building and jump off with a parachute or float down on a floppy rubber boat thingy, and so on. You can be a taxi driver, an ambulance driver, be a cop and go after criminals, be a firefighter and put out fires. . .

 

The GTA games are like real life. You can choose to be good or bad. You have the freedom to do what you want if you use cheats and avoid the main missions. You can make your own fun. If you need your hand held the whole time and led around like a child, I can see how these games could upset you. Just understand that when you jump on cute little cartoon characters, you are murdering them. Your feet are covered in blood. It's a pretty little Mario nightmare world, but it's OK since that slut princess has been 'kidnapped' for the millionth time. It's time for you to realize that she just wants to get laid and you're murdering creatures with your feet and fire burps for no good reason.

[Reaperman]

 

I'm pretty sick of people crapping on the GTA games, especially GTA:SA. The main missions make you do 'sinful' things, but if you sand box it, use cheats, and ignore the main missions, the game is only as sinful as your perverted mind makes it.

I guess I partially agree with that, but not the part about not crapping on gta games.

I agree in that gta you can play the actual main game and murder people like you're obviously supposed to,

or you can play it wrong and be bored by its lousy mini-games, lack of plot or direction, and terrible mechanics for everything.

 

I tried the 'screw around in gta' path pretty much every time I played, but murdering people is the only thing rockstar bothered to make any fun. Heck they devalued life to the point where even that is somewhat joyless. It is very true about SA doing the 'everything else' better than the other 3d gta's though. Really I miss the 'arcadey murder people' of the older 2d ones, where at least it kept score better when you went on a rampage. It was kind of like smash tv, but bigger.

 

I think GTA fans would especially love a sin-ulator. You might not necessarily have to sin in it. Maybe you could spend your time planning sin-ulated church functions too. I'm sure that'd be at least as fun as gta's virtual weight lifting.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Reaperman