Game Industry Report Card

[Loony BoB]

I think they're still capable of being creative, but there is only so much you can do once games are churned out as fast as they are now. You just need to know where to look to find the more creative games. A good example would be Flower, another would be Spore. They might not be as good as one would have liked (in the case of Spore), but they were definitely creative. Also, Mass Effect and keeping your decisions in one game to affect the sequel. Creative! In the cases of these kind of games, it's the small things in today's world which are considered groundbreaking, as most of the ground had already been broken many times over in the 80's and 90's.

I do however think they could on occasion be better with their storywriting. There are some games that still are, but sadly it's been a while since I played an RPG that had incredible storytelling.

Also, a distinct lack of a Pokemon MMO - or even another developer coming up with something similar before Nintendo decide to do it - is mindboggling. HOW has this not happened? I just can't comprehend how Nintendo - let alone whoever owns Digimon or whatever other crap there is out there - hasn't milked this for all it's worth. Yet. I'm not begging for it, but it is something that baffles me. A different kind of MMO such as that would be interesting to me.

[Slothy]

I think they're still capable of being creative, but there is only so much you can do once games are churned out as fast as they are now. You just need to know where to look to find the more creative games. A good example would be Flower, another would be Spore. They might not be as good as one would have liked (in the case of Spore), but they were definitely creative.

Spore is a terrible example actually. The high concept behind it was certainly a creative and ground breaking idea, but the execution was the complete opposite. It played like 5 distinct games that did a poor job of emulating other games that came before in those genres, many of which legitimately did do something creative and innovative.

Anyway, as far as my actual critique of the industry. The short version would be to tell Valve to keep doing what they're doing and to tell everyone else to pay attention to what Valve is doing. Not so much in the development realm because trying to copy Valve's style is a stupid idea. More in how they engage their fan community, constantly strive to improve, and never nickel and dime the fans. When it comes to respecting the people who supported them from Half-Life up to now, no company is really doing it better that I can think of.

But of course I can't leave it there. Check out the latest episode of Extra Creditz over at the Escapist for my feelings on marketing, particularly from EA who they spend the episode talking about.

Activision needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and learn a lesson from the demise of Guitar Hero. This is what they try to do with every successful series they have and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that not only is it a bad long term business strategy, but it's likely to happen in the next few years with COD, and they really can't afford that. Their catalog of high profile IP's isn't so broad or deep that they could survive the demise of their biggest seller. Ironically, they could learn a thing or two from EA who has gotten a lot better at supporting new IP's (despite cancelling a Mirror's Edge sequel for now). Before leaving the topic of Activision though, they should fire Kotick. Sooner rather than later.

And as far as game design, bigger companies really need to pay more attention to the little things because I see a lot of high profile games with downright stupid interface choices. Why do I have to take cover behind an object in the demo I played of Mass Effect 2 before I can vault over it? Why does the original Mass Effect have some of the worst menues ever, going so far as to even be inconsistent about the confirm and cancel buttons on different screens (something I was able to avoid on PC, but how 360 owners put up with it is beyond me).

Continuing with stupid design choices; let's stop including leveling systems in games that really don't need them. I don't appreciate having to level in games which should be based on skill. In fact, I don't really appreciate having to level at all frankly, unless I get some choice in how my skills develop. Otherwise you're just trying to dictate how quickly I should be able to play through a game or when I should be able to get to specific areas. Too often a leveling system is a lazy attempt at changing the pace of the game, or worse, trying to artificially extend it. Any developer using them for either can quit now.

I'll probably be back with more later, but I'll try to be a bit more positive next time. I do think that overall the industry has done and will continue to do some awesome things for the foreseeable future.

[Loony BoB]

Spore is a terrible example actually. The high concept behind it was certainly a creative and ground breaking idea

This is the part I was referring to as creative.

but the execution was the complete opposite. It played like 5 distinct games that did a poor job of emulating other games that came before in those genres, many of which legitimately did do something creative and innovative.

This is the part I was referring to as not as good as some would have liked.

EDIT: I'm in need of an educatin'. Can someone enlighten me as to what 'IP' stands for when you're discussing video game series? Is it intellectual property or something? I see it used all the time but never knew what it actually meant.

[Slothy]

EDIT: I'm in need of an educatin'. Can someone enlighten me as to what 'IP' stands for when you're discussing video game series? Is it intellectual property or something? I see it used all the time but never knew what it actually meant.

Yep, it's intellectual property. So the Mass Effect series (as in the name, characters, locations, etc.) is considered an IP. Same for Final Fantasy, Half-Life, Uncharted, Mario, etc.

[Flying Arrow]

So what would you have them do? Put squares in and say "by the way, that's a person"? I don't really understand how you would expect people to play a video game involving a human character without the game developer attempting to imitate life. That's the entire point of a extremely large number of video games - to simulate what it would be like if you were a human in a fictional (or not) world without suffering from real-life consequences. The better the simulation, well, the better!

You're the second person in this thread who has suggested that I want to bring back old console graphics in place of current advances in technology. I haven't said anything like that and I don't have any problem with current technology. I don't even have a problem with attempting to simulate a fictional world in a video game (I love the Elder Scrolls, for example). What bothers me is when developers try to make CG characters look and act real.

I disagree. I think the advancements made in recent times - as Roogle's mention of Avatar in particular shows - have been immense and they show that actors are not required. CG characters are capable of getting an emotional response. Hell, even blocky little sprites were. Why wouldn't the more realistic characters shown on video games today? It's the writing that is important. Sure, if the faces are incapable of showing any emotion, it can be tricky to pull off an emotional response. But we're passed that now - character faces are capable of showing emotions. Also, with customisable faces and whatnot, actors can't adjust in the way CG can. This applies to Mass Effect in particular, which you mentioned.

Blocky-little sprites didn't emote, though. No one ever assumed they were real because they weren't designed to look real. The impact of, say, FFVI's sprites did not come from the acting of the scenario. It came all from the writing, music, and general staging of the scene. Nothing hinged on the performance of a human face. And yes, characters today are capable of being utilized to show different facial expressions, but that still doesn't measure up to an actual human performance. They still emote less than the worst actors out there. Customizable faces only compound this issue.

My initial guess would be that actors age, while video game characters stay the same. Sure, you can look to Batman and co and say "They have multiple actors who have played him!" but the lasting appeal is lost. Also, in the case of FPS games, you can't tell actors to react to the character's movement. If you're referring only to cutscenes, I would definitely agree that actors can be used - and they absolutely are (see: Command and Conquer).

I don't think the lasting appeal is ever lost. Just because Christian Bale is Batman now doesn't mean Michael Keaton's Batman is lessened in any way. Everyone understands that a movie is just a piece with actors and that those actors can be replaced. That's the nature of the medium.

And yes, I am only talking about acting. Interaction with the game world is a completely different issue. My bone to pick comes when players are forced to watch a CG representation of a person try to act, not the actual simulation portion of the game.

Then there is the (probably much bigger) problem of the actor becoming a huge success. You have to rely on his schedule, you have to pay him more to get him in, you have the video game character being cheapened because people feel like they're playing the actor, not the character. I like actors in movies, but I like movies more when I don't know the actors. I suppose Command & Conquer can again be pointed to as to how a video game character being portrayed by a well known name can - for me, anyway - cheapen the gaming experience. Even if it was Morgan Freeman himself, I'd still be going "haha, it's Morgan Freeman in a video game" instead of taking it seriously. Using unknown actors can work against you in the future because they can still become famous, unavailable, etc.

Fair enough, but, like with any filmmaker, the developer will have to work around all of this. None of this is really my issue, though.

[Slothy]

Blocky-little sprites didn't emote, though.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I understand the general point that you're trying to make Flying Arrow, that games that simply try to emulate the ability of a real actor to convey emotion through their performance in a realistic way are on a fools errand, and though I'm not sure I agree entirely, I do see where you're coming from. But I do have to disagree with the idea that blocky sprites didn't emote. It's outright not true. They may not have conveyed emotion through realistic facial expressions or body movement, but there have been plenty of examples of sprites which conveyed emotion through their animation. FFVI perhaps being one of the better examples of fairly simple sprites which convey a lot of emotion considering their low level of detail.

I won't try to argue that it approaches the level of a real actor, but it didn't have to to get the point of a scene across in its own charming way.

[Flying Arrow]

^ But the important part is that it got the message across in its own way, which is why, I think, it's still a great game. The great little sprites of FFVI are perfectly suited to the game in which they exist. I completely agree with you. My use of the word "emoting", which I limited to the subtleties of acting in this case, was probably too narrow.

[Slothy]

Fair enough. I've certainly made the mistake of poorly wording my arguments so many times that I won't hold one poor word choice against anyone.

[Loony BoB]

With regards to emotions, I'm sure that eventually there will come a time that emotions will be "better than the worst actors" (and c'mon, you're saying the FFXIII characters and Uncharted Characters were worse than Keanu Reeves in The Matrix? Really, now...). I actually think that time isn't too far away, either. The emotions shown in FFXIII are probably the best I've seen so far. I don't think that the emotions shown in L.A. Noir will be better. I honestly don't understand the big fuss about L.A. Noir as it looks fairly average to me so far.

I disagree regarding it not being important when it comes to video game characters changing dramatically / switching actors. People like some of the Batman movies but not the others often based entirely on the actor alone. The only reason they work it that way is because, hell, it's Batman. The likes of a new video game about an original storyline and character (as opposed to a very, very old comic book) can't rely on such fanatics. They have to create a character that is loved and can be loved for years of steady releases.

I think I'm in the same boat as Vivi22. I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

[Jessweeee♪]

I think things are improving. Doesn't anybody remember the nineties? I was a kid then and I remember the nineties.

They could be better though.

[Skyblade]

I think things are improving. Doesn't anybody remember the nineties? I was a kid then and I remember the nineties.

They could be better though.

Um, yeah, I do. Super Mario World, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, FFVI, FFVII, Super Metroid, LoZ: A Link to the Past, LoZ: Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Brothers, every good Sonic game...

The nineties were awesome.

[Vyk]

I have mixed opinions. There's a lot of companies that need to get their act together. And there's a lot of companies who have done wonderous things. Unfortunately, the wonder is rarely rewarded. So like Yearg said, the demographic is often just as much to blame as the the companies. The companies make bad decisions, people pay them. The companies make great decisions and nobody's interested. People are just as much to blame for the industry's short-comings. And I've really no clue what the heck is going on in Japan, that a lot of developers won't let go of the cliches they've developed. Rehashed stories must sell exceedingly well over there, I guess they're a huge fan of comfort zones. Though fortunately in the last few years a few developers have tried to branch out. Clover was a good one. And then they got closed and re-absorbed. So its pretty obvious what the general public thought of them (sadly). Pretty ridiculous all around. I'm just glad there's still some diamonds in the rough, by some miracle. The fact that we're getting a re-release of Beyond Good and Evil, and a sequel astounds and delights me. By all rights they should have let that series die. I wouldn't blame them. But I'm so glad they didn't

In short, developers might be dumb. But in a lot of respects, so are gamers

And I think I'm with Flying Arrow. I don't necessarily agree, but I've been a huge advocate of companies not needing to waste time trying to create bleeding edge technology, and perfectly emoting human expression is one agenda they're wasting WAY too much money on. Sure it's come a long way. But if they'd went with something stylish and passable and perfected that instead, they'd have done it a lot faster, and saved a lot more money. And could have spent that money and creativity on things like story and user-interface innovations. Sad really

[Wolf Kanno]

Capcom - Capcom for me is like being in a on again, off again relationship. Depending on what year it is, I am either furious at Capcom or in love with them. SFIV, MvC3 and a few other gems has you hal;fway into my heart again. Especially since you've got people working towards making a Darkstalkers 4. On the other hand, it is sad to see DMC die (what is with the even numbered entries?) and you've lost some big names in the company whom I loved, making future quality of some franchises iffy... You get a B for now.

Konami - Well this is conflicting... on the one hand I kind of wish Konami would stop milking a few franchises. It seems like their are two or three Silent Hill and MGS titles in the works at all times. Especially concerning cause a lot of the SH games have not been so good. The MGS titles have been pretty good so far but I kind of feel like the series has run its course and its time to retire the franchise cause if it gets any more retcons and constant sequel/prequels/and interquals in the franchise, its going to be as bad as what happened to Resident Evil. Besides, I would like to see Kojima actually work on a creative level on either a new property or see him try to go back to an old one like ZoE and Snatcher. The man needs a break from games with "Snake" and "Metal Gear" in the script. I also can't believe you tried to "reboot" Suikoden, by stripping away almost every element that made the series interesting and turn it into some silly fluff about parallel worlds. You get a C-

Atlus - Keep up the good work and sorry you lost out on rights to the Demon's Souls sequel... Also, stop milking P3. I love the game and yes each new installment improves on the last one but I'd rather be hearing about porting over P2:Innocent Sin or P5. Also, when am I going to see another MegaTen game on an actual console? Can't wait for Catherine in the Summer. A-

Squenix - You seriously need to clean house and get it in order. I keep hearing about lay-offs, more high priority people are leaving, and I'm watching you kill franchises (Mana, Front Mission), while trying to resurrect others (Parasite Eve, Lufia, Tactics Ogre). You've publicly apologized about the last two FF games you've released. Something is going on here and you need to fix it before you become more of a soulless corporation like the one you made a game about. I'm happy you're going back to some of your non-FF/DQ/KH IPs but if you don't seriously start marketing them better, their going to flop and you'll just repeat what you've done for the last decade which is hide behind FF/DQ/KH and just release some crappy sequels and spin-offs that no one was really wanting in the first place.

On the subject, stop milking the franchises, and get on with making the games people want. Make KHIII so I don;t have to walk into a KH thread about any new non-KHIII KH game and listen to twenty different posts whine around about wanting KHIII instead despite the fact that it's only because of these spin-offs and prequels that the series is actually getting something that makes a sequel necessary cause KHII could have easily been the last game in the series since all but two plot threads were resolved and no one even remembers or cares about them them.

Also, remake VII. Not because I want it, in fact I hope you remake it and change lots of things to make the game fit with that retcon mess you call the Compilation and then the game utterly fails cause you screwed it up with all your milking. I just want you to remake it so I can go one console generation without having to listen to whiny VII fanboys whine around about wanting a remake. They've been bitching about it since VIII was released.

Also, shame on you for skipping five of the FFs in Dissidia Duodecim. You may have an argument why two of them wouldn't have worked but II, VI, and IX don't have an excuse for being passed over. smurf you. Overall, C-/D+

Sony - Doing better since the price drop. I still wish your in-house developers made games I like. I don't care about Gran Turismo, Killzone 3, or the next WipeOut title. I'm looking forward to the Last Guardian but it's still in no man's land in terms of when it's going to get released. The PSP has improved as well but it feels to me like "too little too late". Also, stop copying the Wii and start shaking down some of the third party developers to start releasing their old games on PSN. I'm looking at you Konami... Grade B

Nintendo - Thank you Nintendo, thank you for wasting another console generation to settle for mediocrity. The Wii could have been an interesting console with some great games (and in truth it is) but you found a new market and have decided to basically flip off the rest of the gaming community. Fragile Dreams, Twilight Princess and No More Heroes have been some of the best gaming experinces I've had this console generation but I feel like I'm crossing a desert here with ages passing before I find another game that I truly love. The fact that I may not see Xenoblade or The Last Story, probably the only two JRPGs I've been really excited for in years, is another few points against you. I would probably disown you if it wasn't for the DS and the fact the 3DS has a promising lineup.Grade C

I'll do general gaming trends later. I just wanted to chew out the companies first.

[Slothy]

Konami - Well this is conflicting... on the one hand I kind of wish Konami would stop milking a few franchises. It seems like their are two or three Silent Hill and MGS titles in the works at all times. Especially concerning cause a lot of the SH games have not been so good. The MGS titles have been pretty good so far but I kind of feel like the series has run its course and its time to retire the franchise cause if it gets any more retcons and constant sequel/prequels/and interquals in the franchise, its going to be as bad as what happened to Resident Evil. Besides, I would like to see Kojima actually work on a creative level on either a new property or see him try to go back to an old one like ZoE and Snatcher. The man needs a break from games with "Snake" and "Metal Gear" in the script. I also can't believe you tried to "reboot" Suikoden, by stripping away almost every element that made the series interesting and turn it into some silly fluff about parallel worlds. You get a C-

I think you're being pretty generous with the C-, because I really think Konami is in a lot more trouble then they or most other people realize. The only in house development team they have that's really making successful games is Kojima productions, and I really wouldn't be surprised if he leaves if the constant stream of MGS games doesn't stop. He certainly has the name recognition and the talent to leave and do whatever he wants in the industry. Beyond his games, all they really do is milk their other franchises to death, and if he goes they'll be left with outsourcing their big franchises to western developers and that's clearly going so well for Japan.

On a side note, Japan really needs to stop milking their franchises to death. It's bad business in the long run, but I guess when you don't have the talent in house to make anything new, what can you really do but milk for as long as it lasts?

[ljkkjlcm9]

My only thing to say about the game market is that it is over saturated. There are just too many games in every genre. Something like the first modern warfare stood out as a FPS but now there are so many very similar games that we don't see anything special about any. This is happening with every game type out there. There are just so many of the same game but different coats of paint, whether good bad or in between. And the problem is that with so many good games, not great, they all just seem worse.

For years i went to the movies and would walk out and think how bad something was and how did it ever get in theatres etc. But after having netflix so long and seeing A CRAP ton of movies that never want to theatres, most of which are far far worse, i give those movies more credit. i find this to be the same thing with games.

And trust me, i get easily bored and rarely finish half my games these days. But when i get a truly bad game, i appreciate those good ones i stopped playing more, and sometimes even go back and finish.

Do i think the game industry is getting worse? No. There are just as many great games as ever. I find there are many good/decent games that make us expect more however compared to the old days.

THE JACKEL