Why is Gaming declining?

[Creamhoven]

4 minutes 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

In this sense I agree. Some indie games I have played were incredible. But they are not hegemonic civilisational feats either.

3 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

 

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

I am wondering if gaming ever had a golden age yet. I think gaming in its progression peaked somewhere between 1985-1995. Till 2005 it was still quite innovative. By 2015 it seriously dried up and by 2025 it may start to fall apart.

[Creamhoven]

1 minute ago, roots.genoa said:

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

True, but he is getting old and there is no replacement as far as I can see. (haven't seen the movie but am sure it is great)

[MrTrust]

4 minutes ago, zzip said:

yes but still super popular despite that.

 

Or still super popular because there has been a steep decline in the intervening years.

 

5 minutes ago, zzip said:

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

 

The most popular new songs didn't even make up 5% of total songs streamed last year.  Music purchases favored old music even more.  The #2 box office movie right now is a remake of a 30 year-old picture.

[MrTrust]

 

Accidental double post

Edited June 5, 2023 by MrTrust

[Creamhoven]

1 minute ago, MrTrust said:

 

The most popular new songs didn't even make up 5% of total songs streamed last year.  Music purchases favored old music even more.  The #2 box office movie right now is a remake of a 30 year-old picture.

Wow, I didn't know that.

[zzip]

3 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

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.

The sheer amount of code in modern games plus dependencies on games engines, physics engines and so forth and not to mention the device drivers and wide range of hardware your game could possibly run is just insane.  Any one of those components could have bugs that affect the user experience.   There are so many things that can go wrong and so many things to test.    The people who accuse the developers of being lazy have no idea what it's like to work in software development.   Game developers often have "crunch time" as deadlines approach where they may be putting in 80-hour weeks and even sleeping in the office.   They are anything but lazy, the problem is the projects are just that complex and only get more complex as the tech advances. 

 

15 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

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.

It's been said that movies were in decline in the early 70s until people like Spielberg, Lucas and others came along and revitalized it

 

But looking it Hollywood now, it's in pretty sad shape.  Reboot after Reboot,  Superhero movie after Superhero movie.   Franchises are more important than creativity.  That's not to say someone can't come along and revitalize it again, but right now I don't see many signs of that.

[zzip]

4 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Or still super popular because there has been a steep decline in the intervening years.

They are games where you can build up a community, build up your servers and generally invest so much that it's hard to give all that up just to jump to the latest thing.    People create game and game servers within minecraft for instance.   And they stay fresh with new updates.   Minecraft is a very different game than 10 years ago.

 

On the other end,  you see current games like Tears of the Kingdom, Hogwarts Legacy, Elden Ring posting huge sales numbers,    So it isn't like people are playing those old games because nothing good is coming out.  

 

12 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

The most popular new songs didn't even make up 5% of total songs streamed last year.  Music purchases favored old music even more.  The #2 box office movie right now is a remake of a 30 year-old picture.

Yes because the music industry is truly in decline creatively,  and Hollywood is stagnant.

[MrTrust]

8 minutes ago, zzip said:

On the other end,  you see current games like Tears of the Kingdom, Hogwarts Legacy, Elden Ring posting huge sales numbers,    So it isn't like people are playing those old games because nothing good is coming out.

 

Okay, I should never have never even started pursuing the popularity digression in the first place.  That's irrelevant.  Stepping over it.  I don't care who bought what, who plays what, or who still buys or plays what.

 

You asserted that gaming is, or at least may be, in its golden age.  I assume the reason you then cited the examples of Minecraft and Roblox is to illustrate this point, yes?  Now, both of those games are over a decade old.  It does not make any sense to say, no, gaming is still vital and innovative, look at this game from 2006, and this other one from 2012.  What is happening in the here and now to indicate this golden age?

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

2 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

That was actually a good movie. Spielberg is a very sophisticated artist and often underestimated,

Really? A good movie? Who knew? Spielberg underestimated.......WHAT REALITY ARE YOU LIVING IN? He is literally one of the most celebrated and revered directors of our time. 🙄

 

 

 

[Creamhoven]

3 minutes ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

Really? A good movie? Who knew? Spielberg underestimated.......WHAT REALITY ARE YOU LIVING IN? He is literally one of the most celebrated and revered directors of our time. 🙄

 

 

 

Spielberg is an esoteric symbolist and I am sure most of his audience don't understand the depth of his work.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Creamhoven

[MrTrust]

3 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

Spielberg is an esoteric symbolist and I am sure most of his audience don't understand the depth of his work.

 

Something tells me there's another esoteric symbolist involved in this conversation.

[Creamhoven]

Just now, MrTrust said:

 

Something tells me there's another esoteric symbolist involved in this conversation.

Just one?

[Tanooki]

2 hours 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

 A few items a year aside, that's about how I am anymore on the bastardization of the meaning and executing of the AAA game.  This year I got (bought 2of3) Tears of the Kingdom and I've barely touched it (I need time, not lack of care) and also the Kirby and Metroid remasters (kirby was a gift too.)  Other than that I've been about actual decades old games, or just other stuff that would have or still do qualify as indie the true AAA by old intent stuff.  The time when the right (small or not) team, right talent, right execution, and design that keeps you wanting to come back for more meant something.  That's how it was up until it got all mega budget in the HD era and that has been a dice roll decline yet you look into the next tier under you can find a huge supply of what really works that's overlooked because some sorry 10s to 100s of millions budget says it's great.

[Steven Pendleton]

I don't watch movies or TV or anime or listen to music or whatever so I can't tell you anything about those, but Sonic Mania was released a few years ago and that's one of the best games ever made, so it's not all completely terrible.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Steven Pendleton

[roots.genoa]

10 hours ago, zzip said:

It's been said that movies were in decline in the early 70s until people like Spielberg, Lucas and others came along and revitalized it

But they revitalized it commercially speaking, not (always) artistically speaking, though. 😑

Recently a French journalist interviewed David Fincher and talked about his involvement with Return of the Jedi and Temple of Doom back in the days, then complained about the cinema today that would be full of remakes and sequels... Fincher had to make him notice Return of the Jedi and Temple of Doom were both sequels. 🙂

 

That's the huge irony for me. You all keep complaining about remakes and franchises, but you're the guys that grew up with and revere blockbusters from the 80s that were the first ever Hollywood franchises (well, except for James Bond and Universal monsters maybe), and mostly inspired by movies from the 50s. Directors from the 80s were notoriously nostalgic of the 50s, like directors today are nostalgic of the 80s. That's a f'n cycle. Remakes have always been a thing, already in the silent era. I recently stumbled on a movie from the 30s that was the remake of a film done 3 years before, dammit. And the original was not even silent (a lot of silent films have been remade with sound).

 

For the last time, STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT. I understand you don't have the time to watch as many movies as me, it's totally OK but then don't make claims about the state of cinema when you have no clue about it.

[roots.genoa]

Scratch that, it was two years: Ex-Lady (1933) is a remake of Illicit (1931), both produced by Warner Bros.

[zzip]

6 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

But they revitalized it commercially speaking, not (always) artistically speaking, though. 😑

Recently a French journalist interviewed David Fincher and talked about his involvement with Return of the Jedi and Temple of Doom back in the days, then complained about the cinema today that would be full of remakes and sequels... Fincher had to make him notice Return of the Jedi and Temple of Doom were both sequels.

Sequels had a bad rap back then,  maybe even worse than now.   It was kind of shocking when Empire Strikes Back ended up being a better film than the first movie, because that wasn't supposed to happen!   

 

I never complained that sequels exist,  but the reliance on them is so much greater today.   Now everything has to be a franchise or a "*verse".   George Lucas could have kept going after ROTJ, and he even claimed Star Wars had a 6 or 9 part story at various times.   But back then he decided 3 was enough to finish off that saga and moved on to untested things like Willow and Howard the Duck.   Back then,  Hollywood wasn't scared to try different unproven IP and you got classics like ET, Back to the Future, Lion King, Close Encounters, Breakfast Club, Beetlejuice, Alien, Princess Bride and on and on and on.   Yes some of those got sequels but there was also a sense of shame in it..  Rocky used to be a punching bag for cynical jokes about sequels (haha Rocky 12, amiright?)   These days there seems to be zero shame in milking a franchise to death.  

 

6 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

 

That's the huge irony for me. You all keep complaining about remakes and franchises, but you're the guys that grew up with and revere blockbusters from the 80s that were the first ever Hollywood franchises

Yes true, but we didn't know those movies would grow to be huge franchises at the time,  they were just another movie.   They were still pumping out lots and lots of hit movies that didn't become franchises.   My criticism isn't that such things exist, but that there's way too much reliance on sequels and reboots and "verses" today at the expense of creativity.

 

7 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

and mostly inspired by movies from the 50s. Directors from the 80s were notoriously nostalgic of the 50s, like directors today are nostalgic of the 80s.

Of course, there's only so many types stories you can tell and I'm sure even the movies of the 50s drew inspiration from fiction and live theater.   Star Wars and Indiana Jones are repackaging of old serial ideas in a way that felt fresh.    Today we don't do that, instead we just milk Star Wars, Marvel and soon Indiana Jones dry until all the fans tune out.

[zzip]

18 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Okay, I should never have never even started pursuing the popularity digression in the first place.  That's irrelevant.  Stepping over it.  I don't care who bought what, who plays what, or who still buys or plays what.

 

You asserted that gaming is, or at least may be, in its golden age.  I assume the reason you then cited the examples of Minecraft and Roblox is to illustrate this point, yes?  Now, both of those games are over a decade old.  It does not make any sense to say, no, gaming is still vital and innovative, look at this game from 2006, and this other one from 2012.  What is happening in the here and now to indicate this golden age?

So basically you just want to cherry pick from what I said to prove me wrong.

 

The games I mentioned are highly popular AND critically regarded.   We can still find lots of those.   One thing about golden ages is you don't realize you are in one until it's over and people start wondering "why can't they do X anymore?".   That's because the investment  and talent have moved elsewhere.  One reason music and movies might be suffering creatively these days is because the gaming industry employs writers, actors, directors, and musicians.   Those people would have worked in the music or movie industry in other eras.

 

Of course there's always people who will claim everything was better in their day, even in the best of times.   On the other hand, sometimes the decline is objectively real.   In gaming I don't see many objective signs of a decline-  Maybe at best you can argue the AAA scene is stagnant, but there's still lots of great sub-AAA stuff to be found in the game stores.

[MrTrust]

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

The games I mentioned are highly popular AND critically regarded.

 

And old.

 

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

 We can still find lots of those.

 

Such as?

 

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

In gaming I don't see many objective signs of a decline-  Maybe at best you can argue the AAA scene is stagnant, but there's still lots of great sub-AAA stuff to be found in the game stores.

 

That doesn't meet the actual argument.  So what that you can find great stuff?  It's not as though no great things happen in periods of decline.  I don't deny great games still get made.  Great rock music still gets made.  Great films still get made.  I'm sure great frescoes still get painted and great operas still get composed.  That doesn't have anything to do with whether we're in a period of decline or not.

 

You may find great games at the sub-AAA.  You are not going to find something that blows you away the way you were the first time you saw Star Raiders, or Prince of Persia, or Alone in the Dark, or Super Mario 64, or whatever games happened to make you go back and rethink what was even possible for video games.  There's nothing that is going to make your jaw drop admiring the sheer brilliance and force of will of it as might happen with Excalibur, Dwarf Fortress, or Ur-Quan Masters.

 

Say what you want about some of those games, the late 90s into the early aughts was an explosion of creativity.  Every month, there was a Fear Effect, or Parasite Eve, or Half-Life, or, again, whatever it happened to be for you at the time.  The games that weren't necessarily wholly original, but which pushed the envelope in terms of new mechanics, new styles, writing, presentation, etc.  I mean Resident Evil 4 was nearly 20 years ago.  Has any action game really surpassed it in that time?  I don't believe so.  Even if you think there are better game which are newer, has there been anything in the intervening 20 years that was paradigm-shifting like that?  That was that influential?  That was that unanimously accepted as a masterpiece?  There hasn't.

 

Decline is not a straight, 45-degree downward line.  It's the peaks and valleys getting consistently lower.  It's having to go back to 2012 and cite Minecraft when you need an example to argue against decline.  If decline isn't real, why aren't you citing any games from 2 years ago, or even 5?

[zzip]

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

You may find great games at the sub-AAA.  You are not going to find something that blows you away the way you were the first time you saw Star Raiders, or Prince of Persia, or Alone in the Dark, or Super Mario 64, or whatever games happened to make you go back and rethink what was even possible for video games.  There's nothing that is going to make your jaw drop admiring the sheer brilliance and force of will of it as might happen with Excalibur, Dwarf Fortress, or Ur-Quan Masters.

If your definition of great game is it has to be paradigm shifting then you are going to be in for a world of disappointment.   That can only happen every so often.  

 

For me it has to be a fun and engaging game,  it doesn't have to push technology forward in a big way.

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

If decline isn't real, why aren't you citing any games from 2 years ago, or even 5?

stop cherry picking,  I cited two games from this year and one from last year.

 

 

[Razzie.P]

2 hours ago, MrTrust said:

You are not going to find something that blows you away the way you were the first time you saw Star Raiders, or Prince of Persia, or Alone in the Dark, or Super Mario 64, or whatever games happened to make you go back and rethink what was even possible for video games.

 

You might not, but many of use can, will, and do get "blown away" by new titles.  Funny thing is, the "whatever games happened to make you go back..." part of your statement has always been more modern experiences, for me. 

 

I've loved gaming since the late 70's, but I don't think any game ever truly "blew me away" and made me rethink what was possible until PS2 when I played Dragon Quest 8 and FZero on Gamecube.  Then I was blown away again when I took a chance on this game that reviewers kept saying "there's no way to truly explain some of these mechanics other than to suggest everyone give it a shot" -- that game was Demons Souls on PS3, which later evolved to Dark Souls.  Stepping out of the "real world" and into the "fantasy world" in Ni no Kuni blew me away on PS3.   Then VR game along and I had never seen anything like Superhot.  Even the tried n' true formula of Tetris has a whole new level of wow when playing Tetris Connected in VR.   Last year, Deathloop (PS5) blew me away once I understood it and it clicked.  Now Returnal (PS5) seems like it's gonna repeat that.  

 

 

[CapitanClassic]

1 hour ago, Razzie.P said:

You are not going to find something that blows you away the way you were the first time you saw Star Raiders, or Prince of Persia, or Alone in the Dark, or Super Mario 64

I give you Monkey MindPong, coming to a Twit Brain near you.

 

 

[Creamhoven]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

If your definition of great game is it has to be paradigm shifting then you are going to be in for a world of disappointment.   That can only happen every so often. 

 

Especially these days. Stagnation is a decline on its own. If you are not gaining ground your in a losing position. I think it is important not to lose sight of the historical context as well. When you think of wagnerian opera, absolute art, you can argue against it from multiple angles. However, living in times when this stuff was developed and released is radiacally different from what we are dealing with these days. The development of all those instruments, the symphonic form, having so many gifted people performing a piece of art together.

 

We are obviously not able anylonger to develope something like that at all. The gaming stuff it is impressive technically, but it is resting on lorals of past generations and we are currently seeing how its seriously losing steam. This in a prolonged time frame means we are moving in a state of regression, because if you are not able to develope forms on the level of opera your civilisation has already regressed. Seeing other forms losing steam as well indicates that we will see a regression on many fronts eventually. First you lose those who push things forward, than you lose those who cant maintain the current state and next is a decent into barbarism.

[Creamhoven]

44 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

I give you Monkey MindPong, coming to a Twit Brain near you.

 

 

Dude if you look around you can still find good things out there. That banana-smoothy 10/10. Excellent smoothy!

[Atariboy]

I don't think gaming is declining. I think it's just my own taste evolving which is behind my loss of interest in most modern AAA gaming.

 

There's still tons of neat games popping up regularly that I find personally appealing. They just tend to not be the $70 games from major publishers that are catching my eye these days. And even then, there's no shortage of exceptions thanks to my continued interest in Nintendo's 1st party lineup, Forza Horizon, and a few others.

 

But most of the big named titles I see in news headlines and such these days, I don't even know what genre they're in (like Redfall for a recent example). But plenty of others obviously do find appeal in such games, so I don't think they're getting it too wrong or that some silliness like a decline in the industry is underway just because I've personally drifted away.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Atariboy