Is the game industry too easy on games? Does it encourage artistic elements enough? Is it too willing to ignore a lack of innovation? Does it lack an intellectual level of criticism?
Discuss.
Printable View
Is the game industry too easy on games? Does it encourage artistic elements enough? Is it too willing to ignore a lack of innovation? Does it lack an intellectual level of criticism?
Discuss.
The industry as it stands right now has next to zero professional critique. As I read in a paper on the film industry, that was one of the things that changed the perception of film from a lowbrow entertainment medium to a legitimate art form during the second half of the 20th century.
Another problem: as we all know most of the big studios are incredibly risk-averse because of the huge budgets involved in producing vidya. But I don't think that's that big of a deal because most movies that are produced each year are commercial garbage, while there are also many artistic movies made. There's plenty of games like these, too. It's just that this medium doesn't get any recognition as an art form which only further discourages the big names in the industry to produce anything decent.
No. Tieing into this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Very much so.Quote:
Does it lack an intellectual level of criticism?
The industry at large (outside of publications such as Edge Magazine) is generally in shambles when it comes to critique. Most "professional" reviews these days are pages of dross - especially things that grace the more popular sites such as Gamespot, IGN and Kotaku who will often get hung up on one little flaw as being the be all end all of a game and are afraid to actually heap praise upon deserving titles. (see EuroGamer and it's tendancy to give everything half-decent an 8/8.5 but hardly ever scores anything above that)
Yes but you'll very rarely see it from big publishers but it's pretty much the way that some many Indie developers are making big names for themselves and things like Steam Greenlight will only serve to aid this. Likewise you very rarely see this from big publishers in Hollywood either - when you're corporate it's all about minimising risk and bucking the trend is a massive risk - when you're low budget and starting out you don't really have anything to lose but have everything to gain.Quote:
Does it encourage artistic elements enough?
It works both ways too - consumers have clearly shown that they are more willing to throw money at something familiar - such as sequels and franchises, where they already know what to expect so they consider it to be a "safe" purchase rather than risking spending hard earned money on something unknown that they might not like.
Considering the explosive growth in a relatively short period of time. No - not by a long shot.Quote:
Is it too willing to ignore a lack of innovation?
Is there a potential issue of market saturation with sequels/franchising right now? Yes, definately. However people wrongly bang on iteration as not being innovative enough - but at the same time if you have a formula that works - why break it? I certainly think in terms of sequels and franchising the games industry takes more risk per instalment than straight to dvd sequels in the film industry.
Ironically I think it's the consumerbase that is more to blame at large for this supposed "lack of innovation" than the industry itself - which is comical considering the consumerbase is also the one that bangs on about this lack of innovation more than anyone else. People don't seem to realise that iteration is just an important step of innovative as building something from the ground up again -both approaches have pros and cons.
I think first you have to define what this "industry" is you're talking about. It seems like you're imagining a kind of regulatory agency whose job it is to encourage artistic elements and ferment innovation.
I think if you own a console, a handheld, and a PC, not even a super-powerful PC, you have absolutely no excuse if you're not finding innovative, awesome titles to play. Some of the new games I've played this year include Guild Wars 2, Splice, and Crusader King's II. GW2 is the closest thing to a AAA blockbuster, but its chock full of innovation. Splice is a puzzle game unlike anything you've played. And CKII is in a subgenre I didn't even know existed, and it's like nothing else out there.
I've also played blatant cash-ins like Diablo III and Counter-Strike: GO. But you know what? They're still well-made games that I boot up every now and then just because they're fun. I think it's silly for us to expect that every title available has a degree of impressive creativity and innovation. I think most games out there are fun and that's something we should be happy about.
Nintendo had to implement a quality assurance approval program on the NES just because of how bad games were by and large 20-30 years ago. Even then, you still had a good shot at spending money on unplayable garbage. That's not the case today and even the top blockbusters this season like Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty: Black Ops II have a degree of innovation they're bringing.
Attachment 37617
Just gonna leave this here
Agreed. How can the fun you'll have playing a game be described in numbers anyway? It's a ridiculous system. Luckily there are a few reviewers who just point out what a game is and does, and who might like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AulaynaNo. Tieing into this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Very much so.Quote:
Does it lack an intellectual level of criticism?
The industry at large (outside of publications such as Edge Magazine) is generally in shambles when it comes to critique. Most "professional" reviews these days are pages of dross - especially things that grace the more popular sites such as Gamespot, IGN and Kotaku who will often get hung up on one little flaw as being the be all end all of a game and are afraid to actually heap praise upon deserving titles. (see EuroGamer and it's tendancy to give everything half-decent an 8/8.5 but hardly ever scores anything above that)
Though a valid point, I'd say the media (as a third player next to the developers and actual consumers) have more say in this than one might think. People are idiotic when it comes to consumerism, and will buy what they are shown. If the media would be more supportive about artistic 'underground' titles, maybe they could enlighten the public. Of course, everything can be traced back to money and profits and therefore honesty and fairness gets thrown out of the window in favor of the big players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
I think this question should be: are we (the consumers and actual gamers) too willing to ignore a lack of innovation? My answer would be definitely yes, but this is an issue spanning far greater than just the game industry, as I'll do my best to explain below.Quote:
Is it too willing to ignore a lack of innovation?
Once again I think you overrate the masses' ability to think and criticize for themselves, because they can't. They depend on the media to feed them what they like. In fact we all do, to be honest. This goes not only for games, but the entire system of consumerism we live in today is based on that rule. There is only a small group of wise gamers scratching the tip of the iceberg that is defining innovation. And even in that group there are some people calling for innovation, but then come up with a remake of games they played 20 years ago. So it is definitely not up to the consumerbase to 'bring forth' the innovation. At least not in this consumer based society Spoilerwhich I hope to see crash in my lifetime, but that's a whole other topic :0)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
Interesting point. From that perspective the games put out today are a lot more safe and of better quality overall in a good sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
I think the best selling videogames are threading way too much ground on blockbuster film-level, and spend a whole less budget and time on innovating gameplay. There are games for us gameplay-fanatics around, but I find it hard getting to know about them because the media just feeds us the eye candy.
If people stop paying for the less innovative or artistic games then developers will stop making them.
Yes, but if critics weren't so easy on these games then maybe they wouldn't sell in droves. Critics are supposed to push for innovation and artistic evolution and if they don't, they're failing to do their jobs. :colbert:
EDIT: I didn't mean for that to come off as so bitchy. :(
It's ok, I read everything you say as bitchy. :D
It is true that high reviews contribute to game sales and I do find that reviews for games are not as critical as they could be. But even that is tied to people's preferences in what they buy. It always comes down to the consumer. Very rarely are there companies like Apple that actually tell the consumer what they want.
...What else should I buy though?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
(SPOILER)http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...nsj9o1_250.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
A book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Araciel...What else should I buy though?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Or an innovative and artistic game? There're plenty out there.
Journey comes to mind as such a game!
People should think with their heads and not just take a critic's word. Have we become nothing more than sheep?