Things seem to be regressing to a point - going back to the "good old days"

[eds1275]

I do enjoy newer games. They are fun... but they are also a commitment. You need time to play them, and when you're in one if you don't keep up with it, you sometimes have difficulty with the story because any memory lapse can really put you out in left field if you forget some valuable info. But there seems to be a resurgence of games that you can just turn on and play with no worries of having to sit through 20 minutes of cutscenes, credits, and then 2 levels that are way too easy because game companies assume that you are too lazy to rtfm so they incorporate some sort of horrible tutorial into the game itself, and even tie it into the story if they can.

Anyway, lately the xbox live indie, arcade, ipod/ipad/iphone, browser based, etc games have been showing up on my radar. These are mostly games that are easy to pick up and play but hard to master. Sounds a lot like arcade games to me.

My current favs are:

Angry birds and Angry Birds Rio [this one seems to be really popular with ladies and also people who are finally coming out of their shell and getting into games at a later age.]
Trials HD
SFIV [this one could totally be released as an xbox live arcade game]
Avatar Golf [xbox live indie]
Bejeweled [actually just about anything by PopCap]

[opt2not]

All of this has to do with the fact that the economics of making games is changing (has changed). You have to remember that the gaming industry is a business. Run by people who are in business to make money, not to make great games.
These smaller games, downloadable, cellphone, etc... are less risky to make, are quicker to get out, and in the case of phone games, has a larger exposure than what consoles can give you.
The days of the console is in trouble.

Take it from me, I've been working as an Animator in the video game industry for over 11 years now, have made a handful of high-profile successful titles, and have noticed how the industry is in vast turmoil right now.

Look at the market, at all the studios that have shut-down/did mass lay-offs (heck, here in Vancouver alone in the last 6 months!). You're either a high-budget 10+ million dollar, 4+ year development studio, or you're a small budget mobile, or web based studio. There is no room for the middle ground anymore. It's just too risky from a business standpoint. Also note, that most studios strictly hire short Contract workers, rather than take on permanent full-time staff. Again, another safe business standpoint.

Sooooo, in catering to this climate, we're seeing a lot of resurgence of the more simpler games with smaller designs, and smaller teams, with Arcade sensibilities. Gone are the days where every studio is fighting for "the next massive 80+ hour game". Retro throwbacks, free-to-play with DLC monetization, subscription based games are what is successful right now.

You're right in saying it sounds more like arcade games.

My producer said something along these lines the other day, that really hit it home for me (especially since arcade games are my passion/hobby): "We've gone back to the days of the arcade business model. Back then, you'd pay 25¢ for your short gameplay experience, get your fix, then move onto the next product. Since the consumer investment was so small, people didn't mind shelling out change to play. Hook a million people to coin-up and you've made a successful title. This is akin to now, where people are paying 99¢ for simple cell-phone games, play them for their small experiences, then move onto the next 99¢ game..."

[javeryh]

I don't know... I pretty much hate all iPhone games - even Angry Birds (no skill required!).  I do not like where the industry is headed if the iPhone and a bunch of crappy $1 games become the gaming preference of the future.  I do like Trials HD (it's too damn hard though - the opposite of Angry Birds) and other XBLA games like Pac-Man Championship Edition and of course any fighting game is going to be pick up and play.

I feel like any game with a story needs to be a minimum of 8 hours and a maximum of 12-15 and they should retail for $30.  Like you said, I don't have time for 40+ hour games but I do like to get invested in a story if the game is good.  I loved Bioshock and that was about a 15 hour game - perfect.  

I think the main problem is that due to the sudden increase in popularity of video games over the last 15 years and their acceptance into the mainstream there are just too many great games out there and you can't play them all.  

[VespaGuy]

In my younger days, I enjoyed the games with long campaigns. But as I've gotten older, gotten married, and had a child, I just don't have the time to play for extended periods. Not only that, sometimes I go without playing for weeks or months, only to pop in a game I was in the middle of and feel completely lost (where was I? What was I looking for again?).

In the past few years, I've really become a big fan of smaller games. I welcome the trend. As a PS3 owner, I've taken a shine to Pixeljunk's offerings (Monsters, Eden, Shooter 1 & 2) as well as a few other games (Joe Danger stands out as a favorite).

[opt2not]

I don't know... I pretty much hate all iPhone games - even Angry Birds (no skill required!).

Me too, I'm not a fan of Angry Birds. It's not really a good game, but it is the most successful one, and I can see why since it is probably the most casual of games out there.
So they did something right.
Right now the only iPhone games I'm playing is Battleheart - an arena-based RPG game, that simplifies the fighting mechanics of WoW and puts it into touch-screen mobile form...and Hoggy, an awesome free puzzle/platformer game. Both have wonderful artwork too!

There are some iphone gems out there, but you have to look really hard for them.

[Gatt]

@ Opt2not (Because I have some weird bug with quoting that won't scroll the screen,  sorry for the twitterish response)

I'm really interested in your take on my thoughts...

I've long thought that the problem isn't that the buisness is changing,  but the buisness model was doomed.  My impressions from alot of Gamasutra reading,  and random developer quotes is that gaming is currently a Blockbuster driven model.  Either your game sells millions or it isn't worth making.  So essentially any idea that might sell "Ok" isn't explored as it isn't "Sufficiently profitable",  or in other words,  Publishers want only Halo/Starcraft sales and if the game definitely won't sell 10 million units it isn't worth making.

I ask,  because I'm strongly of the opinion that the gaming industry needs to convert to the Hollywood buisness plan.  Diversify and budget to the average expected sales.  Meaning,  a Horror Movie isn't likely to crack 100 million or 200 million sales,  so they don't budget it as a blockbuster and it gets by without ultra-special effects.  So if a TB Strategy game isn't going to sell 10 million,  then don't budget it like Halo.  I believe that like Hollywood,  such a model would do well,  and occasionally you'd have your "Saw" where you sell ridiculous numbers of copies above expected.

IMO,  what's occuring is a result of the Blockbuster driven mentality and the failure to diversify rather than changing economics.  IMO they flooded the market with "Guaranteed millions of sales"  Shooters and their kin,  resulting in Gamer fatigue of too many extremely similiar titles.  That's why I'm curious if you think the Hollywood model is feasible.

[nox771]

I'm not a game developer, but this whole thread got me thinking about some posts I saw just a few days ago talking about book publishing (I'll link them below).

IMO, the problem facing big game studios these days is the same type of problem facing the big book publishers - which is that moving forward they are simply not going to be needed as much any more (well to be more specific they are going to be relegated to a niche).  The big difference these days is electronic distribution.  Once upon a time, to publish something like a game, you needed someone with money and connections - they had to print the discs/manuals/boxes (in large stockable quantities), ship them to retail outlets all over, and pay for advertising.

These days an indie studio can simply distribute their game through Steam (for PCs), or the Apple store, or Google market or whatever.  Maybe they pay a little bit to get some front page ad time, but compared to a publisher it costs very little.  Since the costs are low the games are likewise cheaper, which in turn yields more customers (the book links below talk about price and royalties extensively).  This is what has happened in the book world, which arguably is more of an extreme case since you generally have a single author, versus a whole team for a game. 

Developing now one might just need a small group of programmers and artists who can make games and directly sell them to customers.  This is further helped by the fact that a lot of what used to be really hard coding, got replaced by off-the-shelf game engines (thank-you OSS, ex. Spring Engine, Cube Engine).  Even without an engine there is serious money to be made by smaller developers (I'm quite impressed by Minecraft, a million-plus sales is pretty good).

This whole model of distribution is new, but I think it is growing quite a lot.  As indie studios pick up on that they will in turn grow and fill in the middle ground you are talking about.  As far as the large developers (EA, Activision, Blizzard, etc), I think there will always be a place for the high-end games (I like large immersive games like Fallout3), but I would not mistake failure on their part with failure of the industry as a whole.

My 2c, and if anyone is interested these are some good, interesting threads from some authors on the benefits of self-publishing:
Ebooks and Self-Publishing - A Dialog Between Authors Barry Eisler and Joe Konrath
Best Selling Author Turns Down Half A Million Dollar Publishing Contract To Self-Publish

[Gatt]

Nox,

I agree with your assessment on how very valueable Digital Distribution is.  I've actually had an idea tossing around in my head that I believe would substantially increase Indie Devs visibility and feasability,  as well as permit them to create very high quality games of all shapes and sizes.  I just fear that my idea is outside of the scope of my ability to realize it alone.  There's a specific issue limiting the Indie's ability to impact the market that I've been contemplating how to address,  specifically "How does one aquire a team of sufficient size to create a reasonable quality game?"

That's the difference between book publishers and Indie game devs.  One person can write a novel,  but for a full-fledged game on a major platform(PC, Xbox, PS3) you'll require a fair number of people.  Depending upon the scope,  it could be 20-30 people.  I've ideas on how to solve the problem,  but the solution looks to be subject to the same problem.  I suspect I need several people,  and no way to aquire them.  I've submitted my proposal to a few incubators,  but since it contains the phrase "Video game" I suspect it gets tossed right out.

Edit:  Because I think my post is a little unclear...The greatest game ever conceived could be sitting in a word document file somewhere in the middle of nowhere because someone with skills has a great idea,  but needs a few more programmers,  artists,  and sound people,  and he'll never be able to form an Indie because of isolation,  whereas the novelist could bring the idea to fruition. 

[DataWest]

On another note,

The music industry is also experiencing a similar change. Gone are the days of complete records. Now as a society we have embraced the quick .99 cent pop song. What goes around comes around though. In the 40's and 50's singles were king.

[nox771]

I would agree with that also.  I don't think a new indie venture could go straight from nothing to a full, boxed-quality retail game in one shot (not unless they had substantial VC backing).  I would expect that it would require bootstrapping of some sort, producing some quick web-based games, maybe mobile releases and such, until they could get the finances and scale the dev team from a founding group of two or three people up to a full team (the standard startup model).  The new aspect of it is the ability to actually distribute the small games to do the bootstrapping (at low cost).  Prior to Steam or the various mobile markets that option didn't exist, so it wouldn't have even been possible. 

As far as forming a team, you are correct, and that is probably a serious obstacle to indie game devs (I would tend to think that being able to self-publish removes a bigger obstacle for a startup though).  However I think this is an age old problem of knowing people, having contacts, and so on.  I know in my city there is a site someone setup specifically for gathering together web developers.  They have hack nights and stuff.  I'm not a web dev either, but if I were I could make a lot of contacts like that.  Maybe game devs need something similar.

[opt2not]

I ask,  because I'm strongly of the opinion that the gaming industry needs to convert to the Hollywood buisness plan.  Diversify and budget to the average expected sales.  Meaning,  a Horror Movie isn't likely to crack 100 million or 200 million sales,  so they don't budget it as a blockbuster and it gets by without ultra-special effects.  So if a TB Strategy game isn't going to sell 10 million,  then don't budget it like Halo.  I believe that like Hollywood,  such a model would do well,  and occasionally you'd have your "Saw" where you sell ridiculous numbers of copies above expected.

But the problem with the Hollywood model you mentioned for a video game is that the development of games and movies are different from a production standpoint.
For a movie you can skimp on the effects to save a buck, but it wouldn't necessarily change the end goal of the film. On a game, skimping on a feature can destroy a game design entirely. Look at a game like GTA, the whole point of the game is to have this vast living sandbox that you run around in. You have so many options Of things to do, because that's the nature of that game. Imagine skimping out on some of those options, the experience would change! It's like cutting out a few plot points in a story. It would just seem broken.

But your model does exist in games. Last year I worked on a small Wii title that was a 5 month project from start to finish. A cheap, very simple game for kids mainly. We got paid a small amount of money for development, pushed it out the door with as much quality that 5 months of production would allow. No one expected it to sell well, but it ended up selling through over a million copies! Now-a-days a million doesnt matter much, but for a budget title it's a wonderful surprise!

You are also right in saying that it is blockbuster run, and many high profile titles have been cancelled at the last minute due to publishers not expecting to make thier money back, cutting thier loses. But the real problem is that there is a vast amount of people in positions of power that are clueless about what makes a good game,  what  would keep the market from going stagnant. Marketting and business-folk, is the problem. They're of the mentality that the latest trends are what should be invested in,  existing product momentum is king of the land, so you get you umpteenth God of Wars, your Call of Duties...and those people have a foothold on the what gets published. The movie industry is not very different from this. So this leaves out the innovators, the developers wanting to explore fresh ideas, establish new IPs. Sure there are few that have made it through, but that number of success stories is too small to significantly change things.
In all honesty, what the game industry needs to do is unionize like the movie industry. That would put these publishers in check and give developers a little more breathing room to make games the right way, and stop being pushed around by these corporation of investors.

[RandyT]

I don't know... I pretty much hate all iPhone games - even Angry Birds (no skill required!).

If you believe Angry Birds requires no skill to play, then you don't understand the game.  It's a puzzle game that requires skill to place the shots, even after you have the puzzle figured out.  Sure, you can just randomly hurl birds at the structures, and get lucky enough to finish a sub-level, but you will likely only get a one star score.  Trying to play through the game like this would be tantamount to taping the fire button down on your controller and running around randomly in an FPS.  You might kill a few bad guys, but ultimately you won't succeed.  AB combines several successful gaming elements, and puts them into a package that lets even a complete novice play with hardly any instruction, while offering players more difficult challenges as the game and their skills progress.  This is the reason why it is so popular.  It is the epitome of a good "arcade" game.

But more on point, the game industry is, and has been over the last year or so, struggling.  Aside from the poor economy, there is a glut of games out there, and as most of the older folks here would recall, a glut is what caused the first video game crash.  The current situation is not so different, in that the tools for making really good looking games have gotten really good and really accessible.  This brings more players to field, sometimes with really good looking games that aren't very good games at all.  But because of the wider audience games have today, and the relatively good economy of recent years past, even these marginal attempts were profitable and the effects of a glut were less noticeable.  Now that the economy is doing poorly, and the outlook into the near future isn't indicating much for improvement, consumers aren't as willing to pay for big productions they might ultimately get little play value from.  And as even the marginal games have high production costs in order to make them look good, companies who have in the past survived on this recipe are starting to succumb to a less forgiving marketplace.

Games, whether it be board, role playing, video, whathaveyou, are not intended to be a sustainable "lifestyle".  They can be, but only if one has enough cash to keep buying the latest expensive releases and devoting a majority of one's time to them.  In these rough economic times, even the younger folks who were able to live this way through the success and support of their parents, or other means, are starting to find that the well has run dry.  Game companies must change the way they think in order to survive what can only be described as a "shakeout" in the industry.  This will inevitably mean that they will need to focus less on production value and more on game play and design, creating games which have a more broad appeal with less investment, thereby allowing for lower pricing and, in the case of a successful entry, higher profit.

All in all, a regression like this in the gaming world is a good thing.  It's a course correction that prevents it from ending up at a destination that is, from a business standpoint, unsustainable.  It's a good thing for consumers as well, because it means that those who can still afford the time and money required to play games will ultimately start getting more actual gaming value for their dollar.

RandyT

[robertsig]

The music industry is also experiencing a similar change. Gone are the days of complete records. Now as a society we have embraced the quick .99 cent pop song.

Well, I can pontificate about that subject separately from this one, but I think quality has a lot to do with it.  There are rarely duds on a Zeppelin album for instance, while even the worst Zeppelin song has more musicality than the best pop song on the radio today.  There is also the sound-byte generation with an attention span of a gnat.  But I digress.

I do miss the average 3D shooter like Doom and older RPG game like the early Ultima series (Ultima II - V).  So many artists are required these days that graphics gets more attention than the game play.

My brother is a game designer (producer) in San Francisco and works at one of the "quick game" companies right now.  Before that, he was involved in producing some big hits at other studios.  The tides are certainly turning, and people go where the money is.  With big massive PC titles, you only got the geeks.  With Angry Birds, you get everyone.

[eds1275]

The music industry is a sore spot for me, as I am a professional musician, composer, and sound engineer. Nobody wants to buy an album anymore, and so they just download the biggest and best tracks, and in my experience sometimes the best songs are not the ones that catch your ear right away because they are catchy - the best tunes are more often the ones that grow on you after a few listens or sometimes it takes years for you to develop the connection to music in a way that moves you.

This is hardly the case with arcade games though, as if the first level sucks you are going to stick your coins in elsewhere.

Back on the "Bird Debate"... Angry birds is not fun for everyone, and if you've played Trials until the hard and extreme settings that one is not fun anymore - but the addictive game play and the meter at the top that shows who's been doing better than you [i.e. the top score] is what keeps you playing. Having a competitive aspect to it really adds to the addictiveness of games - throw in a few secrets and you have a winner!

[LeedsFan]

One of the things that really annoys me is the move into charging for new DLC on big name games. It's been goin on a while now but the mess that was "Dragon Age: Origins" really bugged me. So much so that I refuse to buy DA2 until it becomes budget priced. Why?? Because I was so pissed off with them releasing new DLC before actually fixing the problems with the game. I fully understand their reasons for doing so and that it's their way to make the most money. But I am one customer that refuses to buy those type of games now at full price.

[Gatt]

@opt2not
Do you feel digital distribution has the potential to bring about change?  I know Steam and Live both still take huge chunks of the revenues,  but do you feel that over time they can put the power of Development back in the hands of the Devs? 

I've noticed a trend starting,  with Mount & Blade and Minecraft being bigger names,  it seems to me these services are starting to have an impact.  Dead State and Age of Decadence both seem to have pretty reasonable production values and are bringing back interesting gameplay mechanics in some pretty intriguing titles.  I'm wondering if the advent of digital distribution is starting to weaken the Publisher's stranglehold and a couple more breakout Indie hits might shift the Industry in a big way.

Especially given my research that indicates to me that some of the biggest publishers are on horribly shaky ground.  EA seems to be hanging on only by virtue of the NFL series,  and Zenimax is so overextended it's scary. 

So do you think we're standing on the edge or a precipice like Randy discusses?  One which will eventually alter how the Industry functions?

@RandyT

Very good point,  you bring up something I've been terming as Gamer Fatigue,  an overabundance of extremely similiar titles,  much like what occurred with Atari and later with the Genesis/SNES generations.  Combined with the lack of a hardware refresh to lead people in with more Flashy.  I agree that we're looking at an Industry crash,  I feel the Industry is overextended,  and due to too many ultra-similiar offerings they're starting to get desperate to keep afloat,  converging to the genres that have traditionally sold well as an attempt to stave off disaster at the expense of releasing new IPs.  Which ultimately just leads to the disaster as it's an overabundance of Shooter/RTS that got us here. 

As an engineer of sorts,  what is your take on the sustainability of consoles?  Do you think we're looking at the last generation?

I ask because I've been of the opinion that consoles have hit a wall they won't be able to overcome.  I question if they can manage the heat generated by modern chips in those small form factor consoles,  as they can't dissipate the heat from older generations.  I'm on my 5th 360 and my PS3 just cooked it's own power supply. 

Further,  I question if they can manage to offer a new generation of hardware without requiring power supplies that exceed most people's wiring limits.  With hardware easily requiring 500w these days between GPU and CPU,  I question if they can deliver a low power console.

I've been thinking the future is in home servers,  sitting in the basement with 16-32 cores,  pushing multiple screens in the house independently.  Handling gaming,  office,  VoD,  and any arbitrary task.  With someone delivering a closed box baseline and tinkerers can have their systems that exceed it.

Essentially a PC that takes the Console's one advantage and makes it ubiquitous.

@Leedsfan

I'm with you 100%.  The EA model of leave things out of the game and hit people for another $20 on release is unacceptable.  They're essentially increasing the price of a game to $80,  especially as alot of the time this DLC is actually already on the disc and all it does it unlock it. 

I was very much angered by the way EA handled Dead Space 2.  Multiple rooms in the main game accessible only if you bought the DLC prior to the game's release with many desireable items contained within.  It was even more obscene because I bought the PC version,  the DLC never existed for the PC version,  so I have no way of ever opening those doors and experiencing the full Dead Space 2.  It was such a huge middle finger to me as a PC Gamer,  especially as I bought the Collector's Edition and was still permanently locked out of the whole game.

I much prefer the Capcom Dead Rising method.  D/l a demo that is itself a short prequel,  that gives you small advantages if you get the main game and have bought the prequel,  and then another short game as a epilogue.  I felt my money was very well spent on Capcom's DLC.  Fable 2's sat well with me as well,  small contained games that had a small impact when the title finally released. 

[Paul Olson]

The music industry is a sore spot for me, as I am a professional musician, composer, and sound engineer. Nobody wants to buy an album anymore, and so they just download the biggest and best tracks, and in my experience sometimes the best songs are not the ones that catch your ear right away because they are catchy - the best tunes are more often the ones that grow on you after a few listens or sometimes it takes years for you to develop the connection to music in a way that moves you.

This is hardly the case with arcade games though, as if the first level sucks you are going to stick your coins in elsewhere.

Back on the "Bird Debate"... Angry birds is not fun for everyone, and if you've played Trials until the hard and extreme settings that one is not fun anymore - but the addictive game play and the meter at the top that shows who's been doing better than you [i.e. the top score] is what keeps you playing. Having a competitive aspect to it really adds to the addictiveness of games - throw in a few secrets and you have a winner!

As someone who bought albums for over 25 years, I would say that most of the tracks weren't all that great. You can listen to just about anything enough times to make you like it. I believe that is the theory that radio operates on. Sorry, if it takes years for me to enjoy something, I will pay for it after that happens. In my opinion, the music industry is killing itself off. The movie and game industry seems destined to follow their lead, too. They keep cranking out garbage, and the customers do not even have the option to return it when it sucks. Most of the sales in all of these industries happen before the customers can try the product, so these sales are almost 100% the result of marketing. That is not a model that will keep the customers buying long term. Services like Pandora are great, and really the only way I listen to music anymore. They are going to end up killing themselves off too though, because they are going crazy with ads. Last FM is currently a better choice to me, because there are less interruptions. Soon, it will probably be another one that pops up to take over.

I download a lot of demos on the 360, and it is extremely rare that I want to play enough to purchase the full game. I paid for Trials because I wanted more. Then it turned out that I didn't want all that much more. After a certain point, it just wasn't fun anymore, so I stopped playing. I wish I had the option to resell it, but I don't.

[ark_ader]

What I hate the most is the hype. 

We had hype back in the day of the Commodore 64 and Ocean Software.  the advertisements looked good, but the games were either buggy or plain sucked.

It looks like we are going full circle again with hype and sucky games.  Fable 3 is a perfect example.

We hear Peter Molyneux banging on what a great game Fable 3 is, lots of choices great graphics, etc.

It is not a cheap game at £39.99 - still that price at ASDA and a few outlets.

Fable 3 when released was buggy, crap story line, crap choice facilities (that was bragged by Peter) to the point where it was completely disappointing.

The previous releases of Fable is superior to this title.

And the list goes on: Fallout Las Vegas, Hawk2, Afterburner Climax and please don't even think about those Dreamcast games they are selling on Live...

The DLC on Fable 3 is expensive and dire all rolled into one.

I know I'm bashing one title - but when you wait for a title that excites you and then you play it - and get depressions because of how dire it is.  Like watching Tron 2.0...

I think we will see more showmanship - pushing crap console titles, but this also alienates your fan base.  I am much more picky on titles now.

Try before you buy doesn't cut it with demos. 

I think if a game is crap enough - you should be able to get your money back.

[jimmy2x2x]

I am very happy to see a small Amiga renaissance:

Battle Squadron one:
http://cope-com.com/

Katakis 2:
http://www.katakis2.de/
http://www.siebold.org/katakis2/ss05.png
http://www.siebold.org/katakis2/ss09.png

Possible new Turrican game:
03.02.2011
Manfred Trenz now owns Turrican word mark
The word mark Turrican was registered to Softgold until 31.12.2010, after it expired, Manfred Trenz registered it at 13.01.2011  http://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/register/3020110018855/DE

[eds1275]

As someone who bought albums for over 25 years, I would say that most of the tracks weren't all that great. You can listen to just about anything enough times to make you like it.

I wasn't saying that there wasn't bad music in the past. I enjoy music both new and old. My point was you had to buy an album and I think that it's a better way to go - the entire album was given a chance, as opposed to today where you can cherry pick the ones you want, leaving some potential gems lost in obscurity.

[Erik]

Speaking of Angry Birds, have you guys tried the games at kongregate.com?  I'm hooked on them.

I really don't care about the cost of games or the difficulty.  Anymore I just care about the time required to see them through.  I vividly remember my epic disappointment when I got Mass Effect for 360.  I was so excited about it after watching the clips and reading reviews.  Then I spent a couple hours wandering around some space station, talking to random NPCs, and riding an elevator CONSTANTLY.  That was it for me.  Never played it again.

Nowadays I like console games like New Super Mario Bros and Left 4 Dead.  I don't care about the story anymore.  If I want good writing I will read Gene Wolfe.

10 years ago I would have scoffed at browser games that in some cases take just a few minutes to finish, but now that's exactly what I enjoy.

[DCsegaDH]

As someone who bought albums for over 25 years, I would say that most of the tracks weren't all that great. You can listen to just about anything enough times to make you like it.

I wasn't saying that there wasn't bad music in the past. I enjoy music both new and old. My point was you had to buy an album and I think that it's a better way to go - the entire album was given a chance, as opposed to today where you can cherry pick the ones you want, leaving some potential gems lost in obscurity.

Yes, I agree with you ( btw I still buy cds), you get more of a chance to find hidden gems and I think a lot of times the hidden tracks are better than the hit songs. That is the reason I'm a big fan of music compilations, you can find discover new bands and hidden gems too.


Anyway, I do miss the days of when the smaller companies were around and more creative games were made instead of the next Halo or God of War, but I'm excited for Gears of War 3, this is the one of the few shooters I'm actually a fan of.

I do agree with most of you guys on this topic, I just find it funny that instead of paying 25 cents at an arcade cabinet, you pay 99 cents for a cell phone game. History repeats itself in a lot of ways.

[Cynicaster]

I have a PS3, and it gets a fair bit of use.  Let’s put it this way: if it got stolen from my basement tomorrow, I’d buy another one.  I’ve had the system for a year now (almost to the day) and I’ve noticed that in the last 6-8 months I’ve played downloadable games almost exclusively.  A friend of mine lent me Uncharted 2 months and months ago, I played about 90% of the way through it, and decided that I just couldn’t wait for it to end.  When that happened, I said “this is silly… if I want it to end, I’ll make it end by not playing it anymore”.  Then he lent me God of War 3.  I plan to give that game a fair shake, but I’ve had it for 3 months and the disc has not once gone in my machine.  Yet, a few nights a week, I still manage to find time for Pac-Man Championship Edition DX, Super Stardust HD, and various other $5-$10 PSN games. 

Growing up through the Atari years, there were two things I didn’t care much for: Pac-Man and the concept of chasing high scores in games.   I don’t know why I didn’t care about scores, but I just didn’t.  Sounds strange, because without scores, what good is Atari?  I don’t know, I guess I just liked short bursts of distraction.  On a whim I downloaded Pac-Man CE-DX in December or so, and that game single-handedly made me do a 180 on both Pac-Man and chasing high scores.  Through the excitement of the competition aspect of trying to get a score on the leaderboard and spending hours just trying to best my previous high by a few thousand, I realized what should have been obvious to me almost 30 years ago: when you’ve got something to shoot for, videogames are so much more fun.  It was kind of like a gaming epiphany for me (if such a thing is possible).  So now, I’ve dug out some of my Atari faves (Frostbite, Pressure Cooker, Kaboom! and many others) and have actually started tracking my scores and trying to improve them.  My 95% complete MAME cabinet will have its ribbon cutting ceremony at an ideal time, because now I can start trying my skill and chasing scores on some great arcade classics (the usual suspects: DK, Q*bert, Frogger) as well as some others that I never even played until the advent of MAME (Pengo, Amidar, Popeye, and Qix immediately come to mind).  I was out in my garage until 4am on the weekend bundled up in a few sweaters and sitting in front of a small space heater “testing” my machine… now let’s hope I ever actually get around to finishing it.  

So, here I am a 33 year-old gamer that cut his teeth playing Combat and Space Invaders on Atari 2600 at the age of 5 in the early 80’s, and it took a PS3 game in the year 2011 to finally stoke my appreciation for Pac-Man and turn me into a competitive chaser of scores.  Funny how things work.

Regarding the whole iOS game craze, my position is one of cautious support.  Clearly, I’m the type of gamer who seeks out quick bursts of pick up and play action (as opposed to long, boring audio-visual wank-offs that require no skill at all—Uncharted 2, I’m looking at you), so many of the iOS games would seem to be right up my alley.  I’ve got a handful on my iPod Touch and some of them really are quite cool.  But there is definitely a hype machine behind games like Angry Birds, and it makes me feel uneasy.  I can’t even remember the last time a single game—console, arcade, or otherwise—generated that much buzz.  Hell, Conan O’Brien staged a live action game of Angry Birds on his show.  Stuffy co-workers that fancy themselves way too sophisticated for videogames have it on their iPhones.  I’m not anti-success, but whenever something gets THAT big, it seems like it is always followed by a million copycats and derivatives that want their piece of the pie, until finally, you’re left with piles and piles of sterile, lifeless trash with no personality or soul.  It happens in music, too.  Angry Birds seems to have garnered the elusive “hip” status as a “killer app” on what happens to be the trendiest and most “stylish” electronic gadget possibly ever.  It’s a perfect storm of marketing brute force, with great power to influence the path forward in the game industry.  As they say, with great power and influence comes great responsibility—let’s hope Angry Birds doesn’t go down in history as the beginning of the end. 

[eds1275]

I just find it funny that instead of paying 25 cents at an arcade cabinet, you pay 99 cents for a cell phone game. History repeats itself in a lot of ways.

Well if you go to any of the arcades I go to games are usually more than a buck. They are either all swipe card or toekn based, and tokens aren't 25 cents any more.

[DCsegaDH]

I just find it funny that instead of paying 25 cents at an arcade cabinet, you pay 99 cents for a cell phone game. History repeats itself in a lot of ways.

Well if you go to any of the arcades I go to games are usually more than a buck. They are either all swipe card or toekn based, and tokens aren't 25 cents any more.

Yeah I know, but I'm just saying that instead of paying money at an arcade machine before, people are paying 99 cents now on cell phone games now. I know people still play modern arcades, but it's probably nowhere near the level of how many people buy games on their cell phones, but it's the same principal, its just switched to being mobile instead.

[VespaGuy]

Very good point,  you bring up something I've been terming as Gamer Fatigue,  an overabundance of extremely similiar titles,  much like what occurred with Atari and later with the Genesis/SNES generations.  Combined with the lack of a hardware refresh to lead people in with more Flashy.  I agree that we're looking at an Industry crash,  I feel the Industry is overextended,  and due to too many ultra-similiar offerings they're starting to get desperate to keep afloat,  converging to the genres that have traditionally sold well as an attempt to stave off disaster at the expense of releasing new IPs.  Which ultimately just leads to the disaster as it's an overabundance of Shooter/RTS that got us here. 

Well said. However, I think this is a problem that has occurred with just about every other generation though, so I don't necessarily see it as an end of gaming. I just see it as an end of some of the current genres. The FPS games of today that seem to be inundating the store shelves are no different than the side scrollers of the NES/SNES era. The titles are already getting stale and repetitive, and when sales start to decline - which they will - people will migrate to the "next big thing". Maybe it's motion gaming, or 3d gaming, or smaller mini-games that harken back to the arcade days. Whatever it is, the gaming industry isn't going anywhere.

I'm with you 100%.  The EA model of leave things out of the game and hit people for another $20 on release is unacceptable.  They're essentially increasing the price of a game to $80,  especially as alot of the time this DLC is actually already on the disc and all it does it unlock it. 

I was very much angered by the way EA handled Dead Space 2.  Multiple rooms in the main game accessible only if you bought the DLC prior to the game's release with many desireable items contained within.  It was even more obscene because I bought the PC version,  the DLC never existed for the PC version,  so I have no way of ever opening those doors and experiencing the full Dead Space 2.  It was such a huge middle finger to me as a PC Gamer,  especially as I bought the Collector's Edition and was still permanently locked out of the whole game.

I much prefer the Capcom Dead Rising method.  D/l a demo that is itself a short prequel,  that gives you small advantages if you get the main game and have bought the prequel,  and then another short game as a epilogue.  I felt my money was very well spent on Capcom's DLC.  Fable 2's sat well with me as well,  small contained games that had a small impact when the title finally released. 

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the way that Dead Space 2 handles DLC, but I think that EA is certainly fighting an uphill battle, simply because of how people personally define "The whole game".  If a game contains 30 levels/stages, and a year after the release 5 additional stages are offered through DLC, is the "whole game" now 35 levels/stages? Should a buyer be entitled to those 5 extra stages even though he only paid for and expected 30? Would it make a difference if those 5 extra stages were created/written at the same time as the original 30? What if the DLC was offered 6 months after the release? 3 months after? The same day?

[RandyT]

Regarding the whole iOS game craze, my position is one of cautious support.  Clearly, I’m the type of gamer who seeks out quick bursts of pick up and play action (as opposed to long, boring audio-visual wank-offs that require no skill at all—Uncharted 2, I’m looking at you), so many of the iOS games would seem to be right up my alley.  I’ve got a handful on my iPod Touch and some of them really are quite cool.  But there is definitely a hype machine behind games like Angry Birds, and it makes me feel uneasy.  I can’t even remember the last time a single game—console, arcade, or otherwise—generated that much buzz.  Hell, Conan O’Brien staged a live action game of Angry Birds on his show.  Stuffy co-workers that fancy themselves way too sophisticated for videogames have it on their iPhones.  I’m not anti-success, but whenever something gets THAT big, it seems like it is always followed by a million copycats and derivatives that want their piece of the pie, until finally, you’re left with piles and piles of sterile, lifeless trash with no personality or soul.  It happens in music, too.  Angry Birds seems to have garnered the elusive “hip” status as a “killer app” on what happens to be the trendiest and most “stylish” electronic gadget possibly ever.  It’s a perfect storm of marketing brute force, with great power to influence the path forward in the game industry.  As they say, with great power and influence comes great responsibility—let’s hope Angry Birds doesn’t go down in history as the beginning of the end.  

I think you might be over thinking this one a bit.  I had similar thoughts about the game until I played it (I play the Windows version on a tablet, BTW)  AB is simply the first of what will likely become a new gaming genre, due to the same type of successes seen previously in gaming history.  Some games just "click".  It's no different than Pac-Man, Super Mario, Tetris, or any other game which had mass appeal, and spawned a number of copycats.  These titles didn't ruin gaming in the slightest, rather helped to bring others who might not have been interested, into the fold.  Were it not for the large numbers of gamers, the blockbuster production values seen in todays titles would never have been possible, so games with this kind of mass appeal, which help to create new video gamers, only help to insure that the industry remains viable.  It may not be the type of game some prefer, but anything which makes the industry look more attractive, particularly at this moment in time, is a "good thing".

As for the "is this the last generation of consoles" question posed above by Gatt, no, I don't think there will ever be a last generation.  But I do think we will see the 360 and PS3 consoles around longer than any before them.  I think a lot of the problems seen on current consoles are a simple matter of how far ahead they reached with the hardware.  As such, being that it is nearly a necessity to do so, these types of issues will be the price we continue to pay for the performance we expect from the machines.  And there is evidence to back this notion up.  Nintendo has never been one to push the envelope by stuffing brute power inside their machines, and they have, IMHO, had the least amount of hardware problems.  Just like NASA's use of 20 year old technology for mission critical functions, Nintendo seems to take the approach of making something bulletproof, but not on the cutting edge.  This excludes them from a good chunk of the so-called "serious gamer" market, but it has worked for them.  Whether it will continue to do so in a major way, remains to be seen.  But if they can put together a string of exclusive "casual" titles with the success of the AB franchise, and at least bump up the capabilities of the next machine to full-HD, they will find another niche in which to successfully co-exist with the edge-riding, sometimes prone to failure, consoles most others are demanding.  The key word here, of course, being "exclusive", as these types of games are already available through the online services of all current consoles, cell phones, tablets, etc...

RandyT

[Paul Olson]

I like the Angry Birds model, and I think it will help to keep from spending money on the crappy games that will try to copy it. The free version seems to be fully functional, but ad supported, so you can really experience the full game, then drop a little coin to get rid of the ads.

There will be a ton of crap to follow. All game studios seem to know these days is that they should copy successful games. They do not seem to have a clue what makes them successful though. I work at a game studio, and it is really frustrating that they just cannot seem to grasp why some games are fun. It is not fun working on a game that is not fun to play. I think the problem is that studios don't feel that these small games deserve a game designer, so the games are designed by programmers, artists, and marketers. Those are not the right people for the job. You end up with good looking and technically great games, but there is zero gameplay. I don't know what the answer is. It is hard to step up with a game idea because if they agree to go with it, and it isn't a huge success, you are most likely out of a job. I think small games are best developed by just a few people working at home. The costs are low enough that they can survive on games that don't make millions. Once you are in a studio, it is always shoot for huge paydays, which usually ends up in layoffs while they try to find money to fund the next project. Ugh. Now I have to get ready for work.

[Epyx]

There are still companies that do games right. Bethesda still make fantastic western style RPGs...just recently began playing the now almost 5 year old game...I udpated the graphics and added a few mods (Oscuro's and dungeon mods) and got a whole new experience out of it.  I have to say I am looking forward to Skyrim in November (sequel to Oblivion).

Another company I enjoy is "From Software" and their last few offerings..Demon's Souls is a hell of a challenging and fun RPG and they are coming out with a new game this year (Fall).  And yet another great game company is Stardock Software and their games..Galactic Civilization II and Sins of a Solar Empire.

[ids]

...helped to bring others who might not have been interested, into the fold

I think there is more to this, however - how many of those girls that put quarters into (Ms)Pac Man back then continue to be gamers today?  Some stayed, some didn't.  I'd be curious to know more details (e.g. percentage).

...Nintendo has never been one to push the envelope by stuffing brute power inside their machines...

Wasn't the N64 a bit of a push - maybe the exception to prove the rule?  RISC cpu, SGI graphics, RDRAM?  I agree on all other points, however.

I do see the gaming world changing - and EA would be as much to blame as anything, with their crappy repeat games designed by marketing fools, explicit loathing/disrespect for the consumer, and soon they'll run out of good development shops to buy to keep them going.  The big blockbusters will probably keep doing what they're doing - new versions of last years money makers.  While the small and mid sized games will also have their hits.  I don't why, but I've lost interest in games 

[Donkbaca]

There are lots of girls that are my generation that like games.  I know more girl Zelda fans than guys.  Its just that they tend to not be as into the FPS and fighting games.

Nintendo isn't anti-"cutting edge"  They are just anti-losing money. The reason their systems are inferior to the other consoles is that they refuse to follow the formula where you lose money on a consoles launch, hoping to make money on the licesnsing and on the later life of the console when economies of scale can bring the cost down.  Nintendo refuses to play that game and makes money on every console from day 1, so they pacakge more modest hardware to keep price points from getting too high.  Their sweet spot is right around 200 bucks, always has been for every console they have released, so they won't pack in more hardware than they can afford to at the price level.

The more I have thought about this, the more I have swung in the other direction.  There are TONS of great games out, in fact we probably have more choices of what to play now more than ever.  I think the problem is that the wrong games are the ones that get all the attention.  Super Meat Boy is awesome.  A ton of people don't know it exists.

[RandyT]

I think there is more to this, however - how many of those girls that put quarters into (Ms)Pac Man back then continue to be gamers today?  Some stayed, some didn't.  I'd be curious to know more details (e.g. percentage).

Doesn't really matter.  Without females, gaming would not have made it into the mainstream realm.  Pac-Man (and Centipede) contributed greatly to that end.  And as a parent of two, now fully grown daughters, I can tell you that girls do indeed play video games.

Wasn't the N64 a bit of a push - maybe the exception to prove the rule?  RISC cpu, SGI graphics, RDRAM?  I agree on all other points, however.

Aside from the SGI graphics, which probably drug some of the other components along kicking and screaming, not really.  The PSX outdid it by quite a bit, and if you want to look at the really progressive aspects of machines at the time, and the things most prone to failure, it was the optical disc that everyone besides Nintendo decided to use in the system.  IIRC, the durability of the player and media was actually cited by Nintendo as the reason why they stuck with cartridges.  And in doing so, it hampered the capabilities of machine, relative to others which were on the market.

[SavannahLion]

I have to chime in that the way most companies handle DLC sucks ass. It used to be that if you bought the game, you got the whole game. Any DLC was then used to expand the experience of the game. Think about how expansions, conversions and mods were treated in the old days. Even extra, but largely unnecessary, goodies were tolerable. But when the companies decided that DLCs were necessary to complete a game, that's when they ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up. I stopped playing Little Big Planet because I was constantly reminded of the missing DLC. Bioshock is tolerable but the reminder is there, just not as obvious.

I don't know what is worse, forced DLC or patches on the first day of release.

[Mikezilla]

The more I have thought about this, the more I have swung in the other direction.  There are TONS of great games out, in fact we probably have more choices of what to play now more than ever.  I think the problem is that the wrong games are the ones that get all the attention.  Super Meat Boy is awesome.  A ton of people don't know it exists.

I agree. I also think there are just too many games to play. My sister got me a PS3 for Xmas, and I havent even had a chance to play the games she got me. I got Uncharted 2, GoW3, and Marvel Vs Capcom 3. MvC3 gets played the most because I was SUPER excited for that one, but also, you can just fire it up, play for a bit, and turn it off, no saving etc. The point is, there are just so many games out there to play, and not enough time. I still never played Red Dead Redemption, and my friend who works at Rockstar gave me a free copy. I bought Bioshock 2 when it first came out (2 years ago now I think) and its still wrapped in the plastic. Even Super Meat Boy, heard its awesome, still not time to play it. I downloaded Limbo, an AWESOME game, because my GF and I wanted to play it, and we still havent had time to do it. There are just so many games to try and keep up with it. I want to play em all, but I cant, unless I quit my job and break up with my GF, but I already went though that phase in my life, I wish I had all these games then!  

After the rambling, youre right, some of the small time games dont get enough praise, except for the people that are in the know. Another game, Bionic Commando Rearmed was awesome, but nobody knew about it, ala super meat boy/limbo. Half the reason I know about certain gems is because like I said, my friend works at rockstar, so its basically a nerdery that knows about whats going on.

[Mikezilla]

I have to chime in that the way most companies handle DLC sucks ass. It used to be that if you bought the game, you got the whole game. Any DLC was then used to expand the experience of the game. Think about how expansions, conversions and mods were treated in the old days. Even extra, but largely unnecessary, goodies were tolerable. But when the companies decided that DLCs were necessary to complete a game, that's when they ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up. I stopped playing Little Big Planet because I was constantly reminded of the missing DLC. Bioshock is tolerable but the reminder is there, just not as obvious.

I don't know what is worse, forced DLC or patches on the first day of release.

---fudgesicle--- yeah man Im with you on that. I get the whole concept of DLC, but what Capcom did with MvC3 is complete ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---. They have 2 characters come out as DLC a month after launch, and they are 5 bucks EACH. Not to mention, they are complete garbage to play. Part of the appeal of MvC2 was that there was SO much ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to unlock. In MvC3 you play it through a couple times and EVERYTHING is unlocked. 4 characters. You want more characters? You gotta buy em AFTER you already spent 65 bucks on the game. Oh whats that? You want more costumes? Gotta wait for the DLC content to come out so you can BUY those. Its ridiculous. If this is the trend, Im just gonna stop buying games. I mean, how much money do these ---uvulas--- have to make?! 

[Donkbaca]

IIRC, the durability of the player and media was actually cited by Nintendo as the reason why they stuck with cartridges.  And in doing so, it hampered the capabilities of machine, relative to others which were on the market.

I remember the reason being that carts offered a superior gaming experience because of the lack of load times.

I still never played Red Dead Redemption, and my friend who works at Rockstar gave me a free copy

Finally got on the RDR bandwagon, a buddy of mine got me a copy for x-mas.  It really is a pretty awesome game, you should give it a shot.

[DCsegaDH]

I have to chime in that the way most companies handle DLC sucks ass. It used to be that if you bought the game, you got the whole game. Any DLC was then used to expand the experience of the game. Think about how expansions, conversions and mods were treated in the old days. Even extra, but largely unnecessary, goodies were tolerable. But when the companies decided that DLCs were necessary to complete a game, that's when they ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up. I stopped playing Little Big Planet because I was constantly reminded of the missing DLC. Bioshock is tolerable but the reminder is there, just not as obvious.

I don't know what is worse, forced DLC or patches on the first day of release.

---fudgesicle--- yeah man Im with you on that. I get the whole concept of DLC, but what Capcom did with MvC3 is complete ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---. They have 2 characters come out as DLC a month after launch, and they are 5 bucks EACH. Not to mention, they are complete garbage to play. Part of the appeal of MvC2 was that there was SO much ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to unlock. In MvC3 you play it through a couple times and EVERYTHING is unlocked. 4 characters. You want more characters? You gotta buy em AFTER you already spent 65 bucks on the game. Oh whats that? You want more costumes? Gotta wait for the DLC content to come out so you can BUY those. Its ridiculous. If this is the trend, Im just gonna stop buying games. I mean, how much money do these ---uvulas--- have to make?! 

I agree, that is why DLC is a waste of money and a rip off, unless it comes out 2 or 3 months later with actual content. Everyone should protest it, I'm not buying it for 2 extra characters that should of came with the game already

[DataWest]

Nowadays I like console games like New Super Mario Bros and Left 4 Dead.  I don't care about the story anymore.  If I want good writing I will read Gene Wolfe.

That is all I play as well. I like pick up and play without an hour of pre rendered video.

[Ginsu Victim]

Just getting in on this topic....

Man, how could anyone say Angry Birds requires no skill?

I will not move past a level until I get three stars. Try to live by that rule and tell me how easy it is.

[Donkbaca]

I just don't find angry birds interesting.

But then again, I think Pigskin Football 621 AD is f-ing awesome, so maybe I'm just different.  It gets played at much on my MAME setup as anything else.