Why is Gaming declining?

[RARusk]

[roots.genoa]

11 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

Look at this person, does this look like a person you would trust to speak honestly?

And do you look like someone I would trust?

[Creamhoven]

1 hour ago, RARusk said:

That looks like a magnesium deficiency.

5 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

And do you look like someone I would trust?

I dont know how good your judgement is but if it's functional yes. (Compared to that hideous political person you have talked about, no question).

Edited June 4, 2023 by Creamhoven

[Tanooki]

On 6/3/2023 at 4:12 PM, Creamhoven said:

I'd prefer solid argumentation.

I've been off here for two days, skimmed this train wreck, and I've yet to see where you figured out how to make one of those.  Might be just something to consider.

[roots.genoa]

Damn,  if you didn't get Tanooki on your pessimism bandwagon, you clearly did something wrong! 😝

[+GoldLeader]

I'll tell you why it's declining, ...It's,...Well the answer is..

 

Umm on second thought this kind of knowledge can be dangerous.    I might have to keep this scary stuff to myself....Don't worry...Very few can figure out the code and gain the knowledge...

 

 

I blame The AMICO!!

[Austin]

On 6/4/2023 at 3:51 AM, roots.genoa said:

No, that's the type of person that thinks like you that everything is declining. 😑

Gotta love that he does the whole "+1" regardless of how scathing your response is.

 

Dude is a troll and should, at this point, get the boot.

[+Gemintronic]

Pleasing shareholders over making great games.

Gamers accepting half baked games and monetization.

 

There we have it.  Please excuse me.  I need to find the keys to the Scooby-Doo van so I can solve the next mystery!

[CPUWIZ]

Why are you guys feeding it?

[Creamhoven]

5 hours ago, Gemintronic said:

Pleasing shareholders over making great games.

Gamers accepting half baked games and monetization.

 

There we have it.  Please excuse me.  I need to find the keys to the Scooby-Doo van so I can solve the next mystery!

I wonder where the falling off point will be. Lowered standards and willingness to accept mediocraty can only go so far. The faustian spirit people that brought humanity to such levels that video games are even possible had, is far removed from where the industry is at right now, and it will collapse eventually.

 

 

Also, in evaluating the degression of gaming, I think it is important to view the current iteration of the gaming industry as a continuation of hollywood. Therefore comparing it to the standards of hollywood is adequate.

[roadrunner]

[RetroSonicHero]

I feel "why is gaming declining" is a bit of a loose question that should be elaborated on.

 

In regards to the technology, gaming has been better than ever before. The stuff we are able to accomplish in games when it comes to the visuals and AI is absolutely breathtaking compared to what we had 20 years ago. In this sense, it will continue to improve as certain developers continue to push the boundaries.

 

 

So where does the decline come from? 

 

Basic QA and company philosophy has changed over the years. There is something to be said before the days of automatic updates over the internet for console games, because back then, it was absolutely paramount the game was as polished and bug-free as possible. They couldn't just lean on patches. If there was a serious issue with the game, they would have to reprint it. A good example of this is the Cherry Poppers save corruption for GTA: Vice City. Publishers and company policy had a standard of delivering a very polished experience by the time the game left the door. Nowadays, big corporations would rather rush a product to meet quarter/holiday deadlines instead of delaying a game and taking the time to fix it beforehand. For the customers, this leaves a rock in our shoes even if they do eventually decide to fix the game (which is never a guarantee). For the companies, it generally doesn't matter because enough people buy the game anyways to make it profitable. More people need to be vocal with their wallet in order to make a difference, because that is ultimately the only thing these companies care about.

[Creamhoven]

2 hours ago, roadrunner said:

That was actually a good movie. Spielberg is a very sophisticated artist and often underestimated, but even to a casual viewer without deeper understanding it is quite enjoyable. The gaming industry would do better if it had talent like that in my opinion.  It is dearly missed.

17 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

I feel "why is gaming declining" is a bit of a loose question that should be elaborated on.

I agree, it is a rather open question. I hope to come to a better understanding for what reasons others think that gaming is in decline.

17 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

In regards to the technology, gaming has been better than ever before. The stuff we are able to accomplish in games when it comes to the visuals and AI is absolutely breathtaking compared to what we had 20 years ago. In this sense, it will continue to improve as certain developers continue to push the boundaries.

I agree. Although the issues with current releases might indicate that they are punching above their weightclass, but I can imagine they will be able to technically improve things in the long run.

17 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

 

So where does the decline come from? 

 

Basic QA and company philosophy has changed over the years. There is something to be said before the days of automatic updates over the internet for console games, because back then, it was absolutely paramount the game was as polished and bug-free as possible. They couldn't just lean on patches. If there was a serious issue with the game, they would have to reprint it. A good example of this is the Cherry Poppers save corruption for GTA: Vice City. Publishers and company policy had a standard of delivering a very polished experience by the time the game left the door. Nowadays, big corporations would rather rush a product to meet quarter/holiday deadlines instead of delaying a game and taking the time to fix it beforehand. For the customers, this leaves a rock in our shoes even if they do eventually decide to fix the game (which is never a guarantee). For the companies, it generally doesn't matter because enough people buy the game anyways to make it profitable. More people need to be vocal with their wallet in order to make a difference, because that is ultimately the only thing these companies care about.

This is an interesting explaination. If you look back at movie and music production, recording on tape didn't allow for bad concepts and lack of planing or talent. If you have to pay all the costs that come with analog film/audio production, seeing a return on the investment is a more critical concern, and fixing things in post is not as much of an option with that technology. In a way things improve with technology, but they also invite lazyness and getting comfortable with mediocraty. So if the technology developes in a way that encourages even less intelligence then games might look better but they will drastically lose substance.

 

I don't think so much that they care about money any more. It is a concern yes, but it seems like they are more concerned with pushing messages most people frankly don't care about or find offensive. Pushing messages is a normal cultural thing, but the problem is while Spielberg was quite intelligent in his way of conveying messages, what we see these days in hollywood (and) gaming is on the highway to idiocracy, sadly. It is quite amazing to see such a rapid decline.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Creamhoven

[RetroSonicHero]

8 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

I don't think so much that they care about money any more. It is a concern yes, but it seems like they are more concerned with pushing messages most people frankly don't care about or find offensive. Pushing messages is a normal cultural thing, but the problem is while Spielberg was quite intelligent in his way of conveying messages, what we see these days in hollywood (and) gaming is on the highway to idiocracy, sadly. It is quite amazing to see such a rapid decline.

I've witnessed this firsthand to an extent.

 

Nowadays it's more deliberate given the fact that big corporations like to base their game development off of vigorous "focus testing". Many game sequels coming out feel like they are just the product of some research team determining what experience most people would (probably) enjoy, and this comes off as creatively bankrupt because they don't try new things if it doesn't meet the status quo. Throw in some kind of slapped together moral in there and boom, you've got a game sequel that will make more money than any of us on this forum will ever imagine being able to possess. I'll argue till the day I die that game companies prioritize profit first since that is the way of the world, but it's no secret they also push messages.

Edited June 5, 2023 by RetroSonicHero

[Creamhoven]

4 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

I've witnessed this firsthand to an extent.

 

Nowadays it's more deliberate given the fact that big corporations like to base their game development off of vigorous "focus testing".

Oh that is interesting. So they don't have an artistic vision but base their endevour on what is popular at the moment. This explains alot.

4 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

Many game sequels coming out feel like they are just the product of some research team determining what experience most people would (probably) enjoy, and this comes off as creatively bankrupt because they don't try new things if it doesn't meet the status quo. Throw in some kind of slapped together moral in there and boom, you've got a game sequel that will make more money than any of us on this form will personally ever imagine being able to possess. I'll argue till the day I die that game companies prioritize profit first since that is the way of the world, but it's no secret they also push messages.

Yes, it is an interesting dynamic. Making money is cleary an important concern, but aren't they sabotaging themselves with contrived messaging?

Edited June 5, 2023 by Creamhoven

[Tanooki]

Since this is all about derailing anyway, yes Raiders is a fantastic movie.

 

Due to #5 coming out in a few weeks Fathom Events nationally is running Raiders on a 2 day limited screening, Sunday was day 1, Wednesday is day 2.  Most places are just 7pm showing, a few have a 4pm as well if the space will allow for it.

 

I'm going.  Always regretted I was too young (way too) to see that one back in that day, my first non-kids movie was Last Crusade of all things.   I'm going, this will be awesome, even if I know it all too well, I'm not Mr moneybags with a screen room in my own home I can sit 5ft from to fake the huge wall experience.

[RetroSonicHero]

2 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

Making money is cleary an important concern, but aren't they sabotaging themselves with contrived messaging?

For sure, it comes off as disingenuous and fake. Especially when it's obvious that they're doing it deliberately and not to make legitimate commentary of a an issue/moral important to them. It falls under the "focus testing", I'd say. Give the demographic you are aiming to appease what they want, and enough people won't think twice about it. But those that see right through them are always quick to point out their BS.

[Creamhoven]

7 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Since this is all about derailing anyway, yes Raiders is a fantastic movie.

 

Due to #5 coming out in a few weeks Fathom Events nationally is running Raiders on a 2 day limited screening, Sunday was day 1, Wednesday is day 2.  Most places are just 7pm showing, a few have a 4pm as well if the space will allow for it.

 

I'm going.  Always regretted I was too young (way too) to see that one back in that day, my first non-kids movie was Last Crusade of all things.   I'm going, this will be awesome, even if I know it all too well, I'm not Mr moneybags with a screen room in my own home I can sit 5ft from to fake the huge wall experience.

Bring it back!

5 minutes ago, RetroSonicHero said:

For sure, it comes off as disingenuous and fake. Especially when it's obvious that they're doing it deliberately and not to make legitimate commentary of a an issue/moral important to them. It falls under the "focus testing", I'd say. Give the demographic you are aiming to appease what they want, and enough people won't think twice about it. But those that see right through them are always quick to point out their BS.

Thank you for the excellent points you've raised.

[Creamhoven]

To all those who were not happy with this thread: I hope you enjoy your games and have a good time. Take good care of yourselves!

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Creamhoven

[zzip]

In anything there is the "early days",  a "golden age", and after that a gradual decline, and maybe eventually you get a renaissance 

During the golden age, everything is aligned to make it work:  The finance,  a scene full of talent, and audience eager to consume it.   Over time those pieces start to fade away

 

I actually don't think gaming is in all that bad shape compared to say movies and music.   It's a much newer industry and hasn't had as much time for the rot to set in as those other industries.   Give it enough time and it will get there.  

[Creamhoven]

26 minutes ago, zzip said:

In anything there is the "early days",  a "golden age", and after that a gradual decline, and maybe eventually you get a renaissance 

During the golden age, everything is aligned to make it work:  The finance,  a scene full of talent, and audience eager to consume it.   Over time those pieces start to fade away

 

I actually don't think gaming is in all that bad shape compared to say movies and music.   It's a much newer industry and hasn't had as much time for the rot to set in as those other industries.   Give it enough time and it will get there.  

Interesting. I wonder if the hollywoodification of gaming will speed up this process. If I understand correctly the golden age is an age of overabundance. The people of the golden age had it so good that they faded away. The people of the silver age were arrogant and did ignore the gods, they stayed young for long but aged quite quickly eventually and were no more. The bronce age people are people of war and conflict, they basically killed eachother. Those who remained lived through the iron age and the cycle closes. Overabundance, arrogance and war.

Quote

As a Yuga Cycle progresses through the four yugas, each yuga's length and humanity's general moral and physical state within each yuga decrease by one-fourth. Kali Yuga, which lasts for 432,000 years, is believed to have started in 3102 BCE.^[5][6] Near the end of Kali Yuga, when virtues are at their worst, a cataclysm and a re-establishment of dharma occur to usher in the next cycle's Satya Yuga, prophesied to occur by Kalki.

I think theyve messed up with the time scale. 432,000 years is ridicilously long, it may actually be the case that the cycle ends alot sooner.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Creamhoven

[zzip]

6 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

Interesting. I wonder if the hollywoodification of gaming will speed up this process.

That really only exists in the AAA gaming space,  you have other areas like Minecraft and Roblox that are doing something completely different and are super popular.  If AAA gets too stale and risk adverse (and sometimes it feels that way), there's plenty of other places to look for good games.

 

So that's why I don't think gaming is in decline yet, probably still in its golden age

[MrTrust]

1 minute ago, zzip said:

That really only exists in the AAA gaming space,  you have other areas like Minecraft and Roblox that are doing something completely different and are super popular.  If AAA gets too stale and risk adverse (and sometimes it feels that way), there's plenty of other places to look for good games.

 

So that's why I don't think gaming is in decline yet, probably still in its golden age

 

It's in its golden age, and the two examples you cite are both over a decade old.

[zzip]

Just now, MrTrust said:

 

It's in its golden age, and the two examples you cite are both over a decade old.

yes but still super popular despite that.    Kind of turned the old idea that a game has to have a short, limited shelf life on its head. (unlike movies and albums)

[roots.genoa]

2 hours ago, RetroSonicHero said:

back then, it was absolutely paramount the game was as polished and bug-free as possible.

It's a lot easier to make a 2D bug-free game than a 3D one, though, especially an open world game with complex physics. Maybe that's why it took 6 years to release Tears of the Kingdom.

 

1 hour ago, Creamhoven said:

Spielberg is a very sophisticated artist and often underestimated, but even to a casual viewer without deeper understanding it is quite enjoyable. The gaming industry would do better if it had talent like that in my opinion.  It is dearly missed.

Well, Spielberg is not dead and his latest movie is a masterpiece, by the way.

 

42 minutes ago, zzip said:

During the golden age, everything is aligned to make it work:  The finance,  a scene full of talent, and audience eager to consume it.   Over time those pieces start to fade away

But golden age is a marketing (or at best historical) notion. Movies from the golden age of Hollywood (30-50) are faaaar from my favorites. I prefer the silent era of the 70s movies for instance.