A little clarification regarding negativity towards the industry

Good stuff. I tend to agree with the general tenor of the game comments. I hate lies and deceit too, but that is modern marketing I suppose. I currently have 6 games on my taskbar, none of which (and some are actually quite good) 'grab' me as much as say the old Might and Magics. Something is missing from today's games- perhaps it's Heart, I don't know. The only games I've actually finished in the past year have been Indies. The recycle, rinse, repeat of most modern AAA titles just wears after a few hours and I need a break!!

@DArtagnan
Thanks for the post. I couldn't have written better (and not only because English is not my natural language). That's precisely what I've been feeling and thinking.
Like GothicGothicness said, this is happening with most of the entertain industry. There are a few exceptions, like comics and BD, but most are following that same pattern. Everything now seems to be classified just as an asset or a commodity.
It's a sign of the times, unfortunately.

@DA: To summarize :
You are ignorant about most things, not related to games and IT.
You are an arrogant b*st*rd.
You are a know-it-all.
You b*tch about everything.
You get into fights with everyone because of all of the above.

I would add to your list as this thread goes on

@Everyone: Yeah, new games don't seem to excite me as much anymore. I used to like games a lot, but I don't know why they just don't appeal to me as much anymore. And to be honest, I do not think it's the production values or anything like that. Gothic was an amazing game, but it was riddled with so many game-stopping bugs (and for me a few game-stopping riddles, like why the hell would I need to pull out my bow to shoot a damn lever, especially when my bow skill sucked?!) that I had to use JemyM's FAQ to actually complete the game. And then I also played Diablo II which was quite polished but the gameplay was basically keep clicking on one or two buttons to kill everything you see. Then there were all the strategy games and they're: set-up basic resource gathering, get some basic soldiers, set-up advanced resource-gathering, get advanced soldiers, ….

Games have nothing truly new to them.
I played through almost of the choiceofgames.com games and I had a blast just last week. It was fun to play through with different characters and try and 'see' everything there was without having to go through a 5-hour long tutorial area like in KOTOR/KOTORII. It was fun to have a whole narrative presented with choices and dialog without having to run from the New Camp to the Sect Camp which takes 30 minutes to do.

I forgot what my original point was, but I guess what I said makes me somewhat clear.

Originally Posted by Pladio
@DA: To summarize :
You are ignorant about most things, not related to games and IT.
You are an arrogant b*st*rd.
You are a know-it-all.
You b*tch about everything.
You get into fights with everyone because of all of the above.

I would add to your list as this thread goes on

You forgot to mention how sweet and endearing I can be, when nobody is watching

I think part of the problem is that people who genuine prefer more complex games still buy these hyped "AAA" games and then complain about them, while ignoring more interesting games because IGN/Gamespot/etc gave them a poor score or because the voice-acting is bad.

If you read mainstream websites/magazines mostly covering mainstream "AAA" games, then those are the games you'll end up buying. If you don't like the direction a company is going then don't give them your money.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I think part of the problem is that people who genuine prefer more complex games still buy these hyped "AAA" games and then complain about them, while ignoring more interesting games because IGN/Gamespot/etc gave them a poor score or because the voice-acting is bad.

If you read mainstream websites/magazines mostly covering mainstream "AAA" games, then those are the games you'll end up buying. If you don't like the direction a company is going then don't give them your money.

While a reasonable point, it should be said that most people don't necessarily follow development of games closely - both because they might not have the time and also to preserve the "surprise" of a new game.

So, you often need to actually play the game to determine if it's really for you. Games like Deus Ex 3 and Risen 2 - both seem REALLY good at this stage, and there's really no way to know for sure if the people behind them are going "in the right direction".

Wait for reviews? Sure, if you trust the mainstream media. Go by word of mouth? It's an option - but we all know how subjectively we each respond to features and their implementation.

Piracy is looked upon as evil by most enthusiast gamers - and I can't really blame people for not going that route.

So, it's not so easy to just "not give them money" - and it gets a lot harder when the people on the receiving end are those who end up "interpreting" the success of a game, and how to follow up on that success.

As we've witnessed, both Mass Effect and Dragon Age changed significantly for their sequels - and they were both mega hits. So, even when you give them your money when you think it's right - that's absolutely no guarentee they will do good things with it.

Nah, the "vote with your wallet" system is broken and nearly useless.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You forgot to mention how sweet and endearing I can be, when nobody is watching

Yeah, I've never seen that…

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
While a reasonable point, it should be said that most people don't necessarily follow development of games closely - both because they might not have the time and also to preserve the "surprise" of a new game.

Those buyers are already a lost cause. They are making a fully uninformed purchase and are probably only affected by marketing and can thus only be "reached" by games with AAA budgets. Although that could be changed if they really are after something else and get disappointed several times in a row.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, you often need to actually play the game to determine if it's really for you. Games like Deus Ex 3 and Risen 2 - both seem REALLY good at this stage, and there's really no way to know for sure if the people behind them are going "in the right direction".
Wait for reviews? Sure, if you trust the mainstream media. Go by word of mouth? It's an option - but we all know how subjectively we each respond to features and their implementation.

If you trusted mainstream media you'd probably not be interested in a sequel to a low-scoring game (Risen). You'll read reviews from a source whose opinions you have come to value. For instance, I'd probably see what Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GameBanshee think about it. I'd probably check how it's received here and at RPGCodex aswell. If there's a demo, I'll try that, otherwise I'll probably shamelessly pirate it before making a purchasing decision.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
As we've witnessed, both Mass Effect and Dragon Age changed significantly for their sequels - and they were both mega hits. So, even when you give them your money when you think it's right - that's absolutely no guarentee they will do good things with it. Nah, the "vote with your wallet" system is broken and nearly useless.

I don't agree. "They" might not do good things with it, but other developers trying to sell a similar idea will have an easier time.

I think more people need to realize that most of these "AAA" games are the equivalent of 90's Nintendo games and The Sims, just with higher production values.
1997 we had Mario Kart selling 12 million copies and Fallout selling 80.000 copies. 2008 we had CoD selling 12 million copies and Dragon Age selling 3 million. You could even see that as an improvement for RPGs

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Those buyers are already a lost cause. They are making a fully uninformed purchase are probably only affected by marketing and can thus only be "reached" by games with AAA budgets. Although that could be changed if they really are after something else and get disappointed several times in a row.

That's quite a simplification. I'm often one of those potential buyers these days, because I'm not interested in spoiling games for myself by reading up on them - and I don't have the time I used to, to endlessly follow games.

Plenty of upcoming games that I'm interested in, but I don't really know that much about them - except the most basic things.

I'll most likely end up buying some on instinct alone - or I'll "try before I buy", which you can't expect from people.

If you trusted mainstream media you'd probably not be interested in a sequel to a low-scoring game (Risen). You'll read reviews from a source whose opinions you have come to value. For instance, I'd probably see what Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GameBanshee think about it. I'd probably check how it's received here and at RPGCodex aswell. If there's a demo, I'll try that, otherwise I'll probably shamelessly pirate it before making a purchasing decision.

You can scavenge mainstream media for relevant bits of information - but it's only useful insofar as you have the experience to read between the lines.

Also, I don't really have any place whose "opinion" I trust. I find myself disagreeing with the vast majority of places out there.

I don't agree. "They" might not do good things with it, but other developers trying to sell a similar idea will have an easier time.

Certainly, but if the dumbed down approach following the prequel sells better - that's what other developers will be told to do. So, no, it just doesn't work as well as it should

I think more people need to realize that most of these "AAA" games are the equivalent of 90's Nintendo games and The Sims, just with higher production values.
1997 we had Mario Kart selling 12 million copies and Fallout selling 80.000 copies. 2008 we had CoD selling 12 million copies and Dragon Age selling 3 million. You could even see that as an improvement for RPGs

I'm not sure I follow, could you clarify?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That's quite a simplification. I'm often one of those potential buyers these days, because I'm not interested in spoiling games for myself by reading up on them - and I don't have the time I used to, to endlessly follow games. Plenty of upcoming games that I'm interested in, but I don't really know that much about them - except the most basic things.

You've played Oblivion and Risen. At this point, I'd say you probably expect Skyrim to be a simplified version of Oblivion and Risen 2 to be quite like Risen. If Risen 2 turns out to be a hand-holding, button-mashing experience you'll probably be more vary of future games from Piranha Bytes. What more information do you need?

Certainly, but if the dumbed down approach following the prequel sells better - that's what other developers will be told to do. So, no, it just doesn't work as well as it should

I don't see how a "I can't affect anything, I'll just buy the dumbed down sequel anyway" does any good in preventing it from selling better.

I'm not sure I follow, could you clarify?

Simple games have always sold 10 times more, the only thing new is that the simple games now have astronomical budgets.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
You've played Oblivion and Risen. At this point, I'd say you probably expect Skyrim to be a simplified version of Oblivion and Risen 2 to be quite like Risen. If Risen 2 turns out to be a hand-holding, button-mashing experience you'll probably be more vary of future games from Piranha Bytes. What more information do you need?

I'm not talking about my expectations, but about reality - which I won't know until I get the games in my hands. That's the point, actually.

I don't see how a "I can't affect anything, I'll just buy the dumbed down sequel anyway" does any good in preventing it from selling better.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I bought Dragon Age, because I wanted to support the return to a less mainstream approach from Jade Empire/Mass Effect. The result? Dragon Age 2. I actually bought Mass Effect, because I expected it to be more like KotOR in terms of mechanics than it was. The result? Mass Effect 2.

So, just because *I* stop buying dumbed down sequels - it doesn't mean the general public will. As long as you can sell your game through marketing and mainstreaming - it's irrelevant what the enthusiast does with his money. We're in the minority.

So, we'd have to change the entire mainstream/casual mindset - before "voting" would count.

Simple games have always sold 10 times more, the only thing new is that the simple games now have astronomical budgets.

The sky is blue as well - so?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The sky is blue as well - so?

All I'm saying is that I see lots of people complaining about the direction of mainstream games, while refusing to look past them. Mainstream games always have been simple. Complex games never had "AAA" budgets.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
All I'm saying is that I see lots of people complaining about the direction of mainstream games, while refusing to look past them. Mainstream games always have been simple. Complex games never had "AAA" budgets.

That depends on what you mean by "AAA".

In the past, the main audience consisted of enthusiast gamers - and the largest budgets were still behind games targeting that main audience.

It was never about money, though. It was about where the creative people were, and what they wanted to do.

Today - if you want to maintain a decent living as a developer, and you're not fortunate enough to be in a position to work on a dream-team like PB or a similarly established middle-market developer - you really have no choice.

You're going to work for the big boys, and you're going to work with what they think will generate a profit.

The pressure is on to make smash hits, and that's what you're going to do.

Well, that, or you go in the opposite direction and develop small indie games or Facebook/iPhone apps.

It's the lure of money that's causing all this confusion and distraction. People funding game development were NEVER about creative strength or art - and they ALWAYS wanted money. That hasn't changed. What HAS changed, is the size of the market and the nature of the mainstream audience. That's why everyone driven by money is standing in the way of true innovation where complex/intricate gameplay is concerned.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That depends on what you mean by "AAA".

In the past, the main audience consisted of enthusiast gamers - and the largest budgets were still behind games targeting that main audience.

Not really. The most popular games in the 90's were casual console games as well. And they probably had the biggest budgets, except it only went to marketing since technology limited how much you could spend on the actual game. 360 / PS3 is the NES of the 2000's.

Today - if you want to maintain a decent living as a developer, and you're not fortunate enough to be in a position to work on a dream-team like PB or a similarly established middle-market developer - you really have no choice.

There's plenty of promising middle-market developers outside the US. Paradox, 1C, BIS, TaleWorlds, Creative Assembly, Larian Studios, Best Way, THQ, GSC Game World and I'm sure many more.

That hasn't changed. What HAS changed, is the size of the market and the nature of the mainstream audience. That's why everyone driven by money is standing in the way of true innovation where complex/intricate gameplay is concerned.

To be honest, I don't think it's changed that much. It's just that the mainstream games "look" similar to the niche games these days and have bigger budgets. When I was a kid, everyone except the 1-2 "nerds" had a NES and played Super Mario. Today, everyone except 1-2 "nerds" have a 360 and play CoD.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Not really. The most popular games in the 90's were casual console games as well. And they probably had the biggest budgets, except it only went to marketing since technology limited how much you could spend on the actual game. 360 / PS3 is the NES of the 2000's.

I'm not talking about console games, only PC games. I'm also talking about gaming until around '92-93 - with the release of Doom. To me, this represents the most tangible time of true decline.

There's plenty of promising middle-market developers outside the US. Paradox, 1C, BIS, TaleWorlds, Creative Assembly, Larian Studios, Best Way, THQ, GSC Game World and I'm sure many more.

That market segment is expanding - that's true, and I'm personally waiting until I see something approach actual true innovation. Mostly, we're seeing variations on established themes.

To be honest, I don't think it's changed that much. It's just that the mainstream games "look" similar to the niche games these days and have bigger budgets. When I was a kid, everyone except the 1-2 "nerds" had a NES and played Super Mario. Today, everyone except 1-2 "nerds" have a 360 and play CoD.

You seem to talk about console games more than anything, which might be where we miss each other. I never considered the console market a serious contender where complex/intricate gameplay is concerned - and to me, the hardware was always a severely limiting factor in terms of breadth and scope.

Well yes.

We tend to forget that the games industry is relatively young. It started in the early 1980s on really small PCs and as the number of home PCs grew so did the market. As the market grew so did the companies publishing the games.

Economic theory tells us that market concentration will happen and the focus will change. The focus is for many companies is maximising profits whilst minimising risk especially if you have a stock exchange listing. Also the view within the company by senior management changes so that they see the games as "products" and people as "resources".

So the big money is with companies who want to make big bucks but take little risk.

Creativity requires taking risk but that usually requires some-one with vision. Difficult to find if the bean counting mentality exists. I am sure you know of examples of the creative individuals leaving companies once they have been taken over (though it may be with a lag).

I think I am losing the thread of this discussion you guys are having.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You seem to talk about console games more than anything, which might be where we miss each other. I never considered the console market a serious contender where complex/intricate gameplay is concerned - and to me, the hardware was always a severely limiting factor in terms of breadth and scope.

Well, aren't Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, Crysis 2 etc. all console games? Are you saying the problem is that console games are now ported to PC more frequently? I'd actually agree with that, I wish EA would just stop making PC versions of their games, it would open up the market to smaller players.

For what it's worth, regarding reviews and impressions before buying big name titles I tend to use sites that have a large amount of user reviews like Amazon. I won't necessarily go by any single review but just try to get an overall picture. That way I'm not just looking at a review of one guy with an axe to grind or trying to stay on EA's good side or whatever.

It is still possible to try and stack the deck to some degree, but it takes a real concentrated effort and it's a lot harder to do than to get the gaming press to go one way or the other.

Dragon Age II is the perfect example to illustrate that the game press is broken, completely out of touch with gamers and should be viewed as irrelevant. If you look at Metacritic there is a huge disconnect between how gamers reviewed the game and how the press did.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

Critics: 38 positive reviews, 7 mixed, 0 negative
Users: 354 positive, 132 mixed, 757 negative

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Well, aren't Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, Crysis 2 etc. all console games? Are you saying the problem is that console games are now ported to PC more frequently? I'd actually agree with that, I wish EA would just stop making PC versions of their games, it would open up the market to smaller players.

No, they're multiplatform games - with a strong PC legacy behind their designs.

But, we agree that it would be nice if the AAA guys moved to consoles once and for all, so we wouldn't have to expect anything from their PC releases.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, they're multiplatform games - with a strong PC legacy behind their designs.

They are console games with PC versions. Bioware has primarily been a console dev since KOTOR. Dragon Age: Origins was an exception.
And Crysis 2? Sluggish movement, linear levels, constant handholding, onscreen objective markers, Quick-time events, lean and prone removed, 2 weapon limit, no graphics options, "Press START to continue", opens with a 5 minute non-interactive cutscene….could it even be more consolized?

But, we agree that it would be nice if the AAA guys moved to consoles once and for all, so we wouldn't have to expect anything from their PC releases.

I'd say we should already know better than to expect anything other than a straight port ;-) Or if we're very lucky, a straight port with a different UI.