Game Industry Report Card
Inspired partially by the feedback forms. Take the last decade of gaming and write your own report card for different game companies in the industry, different franchises, or even genres. Give some criticism, praise, or even your own ideas of what may help them trudge along to a better review by 2020. You only have to talk about things your familiar with.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
Game Industry: Unsatisfactory.
Writing: often terrible, nearly universally mediocre. Game writing at large is just a maelstrom of cliches and painfully juvenile plots. What passes for good is usually more laughable than the mediocre. Heavy Rain, for instance, is lauded for its original and moving story (from what I can tell). Now I can't argue with someone who finds it moving, but I will never be convinced that the game's story is actually good or original. Rather, it's disjointed scene after disjointed scene which often ends in (or centers on) a gratuitous fist fight, shootout, or nude session. It's quite possibly the stupidest and silliest movie that isn't actually a movie. And no, the fact that it's a game doesn't excuse it or even shift it into some other critical category. It wants and tries to come off like a movie but fails in almost every respect when it comes to telling a cinematic story. It's depressing that gamers settle for or even defend garbage like Heavy Rain.
Acting: CG characters can`t act and never will be able to act. Nothing can ever replace a real actor`s performance and it is absolutely laughable when developers try to render photo-realistic looking `actors` to say their lines. Gaming will always be (and should always be) considered a low form of entertainment as long developers fail to realize that they can`t squeeze humanity out of a bunch of ones and zeroes (no matter how `photo-realistic`).
I realize this is all negative, but I`ll come back at some point with some positives.
Grow up and start actually trying to take the medium seriously.
Where to begin....oh wait i know:
-The decay of the FPS genre. Seriously WTF?!?! We have an annualized COD franchise and that's pushing EA to annualize their Battlefields/MOH and now even Halo's following the trend. The sheer number of fps games in market is VERY BAD for the industry. Remember back in 2009, MW2 pushed sooo many games outside of the Holiday release window cause game devs and publishers were scared of loosing too much money in the quarter trying to compete with the billion dollar baby.
-Next would definitely be stories. Yes there's all this innovation and new gameplay types out there, but god the stories to push you thru the campaign are horrendous.
-The fall of PC gaming. This decade marks the dethronement of the almighty PC. Yes, it's true that if you want the best quality graphics and special physics you'd do right to pick the PC copy of your multi-plat titles, but there's not that many AAA PC titles being released. This is resulting in lower qaulity games, because the 360/PS3 are now the lead console for development and PC is getting ports. PS3/360 are starting to show their age and developers need to start keeping up. (yes i know, they're just gearing towards the majority that are on consoles)
-Piracy. The dreaded word in the gaming industry and will probably be the key factor why cloud gaming will be being pushed by third party developers soon. As of 2010 All major home consoles and portables have been hacked and are open to piracy.
-Merging Genres. Say what you want about ME2....Most of my friends tormentingly agree that its a 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. There are soo few single genre oriented games nowadays and that every big release has to have a "action-ish" feel to it.
All in all, I'm pretty dissapointed in the state of the industry right now, but future technologies excite me and the possibilities are truly endless! Sorry for being all negative and crap but to go out on a positive note:
Gaming has become alot more mainstream. Back in highschool everyone from the anime kids to the football team was playing games on a console. Most girls I know now have at least tried some form of HD console (a few are even better than me @ COD). Nintendo really opened up the market and with a larger appeal more money will flood back into the market
Thank you, yes! I loved a lot of games for their story, but the older I get the more primitive I realize that they were. It hasn't really improved much in the last decade despite almost every other facet of gaming making great strides. He'll, Deus Ex is probably still one of the best game stories told that really takes advantage of what sets games apart from a static narrative such as a book or film.Originally Posted by Flying Arrow
I don't think it's impossible, but it's damn near so. I think motion capture, especially the facial stuff, being used in L.A. Noire may be a step in the right direction.Acting: CG characters can`t act and never will be able to act. Nothing can ever replace a real actor`s performance and it is absolutely laughable when developers try to render photo-realistic looking `actors` to say their lines. Gaming will always be (and should always be) considered a low form of entertainment as long developers fail to realize that they can`t squeeze humanity out of a bunch of ones and zeroes (no matter how `photo-realistic`).
I realize this is all negative, but I`ll come back at some point with some positives.
This one is a no-win situation for the industry. Games that take themselves too serious won't sell that well. The demographic is as much to blame as the developers themselves. Bullet storm, a game that is ostensibly about shooting people in the d*ck is selling quite well. Even beautiful games like SotC don't match the Halos and CoDs of the world. They are popular to a certain crowd, but they lack wide appeal. Gaming is still an industry that is more about making a buck than pushing artistic boundaries and I'm not sure it has the bankroll to change that any time soon.
It's just the in demand thing. As much as gamers like to rag on casual soccer moms playing Wii Fit, the real enemy is the new breed of douchebag dude-bros. These are the guys who owned a console only to buy Madden once a year. Once military shooters got up to par, it sucked in a whole new demographic of these people. The live to buy the next military shooter and own nothing else. Some might call them hardcore, but thy are about as hardcore as the 30 year-old housewives that are addicted to Farmville.-The decay of the FPS genre. Seriously WTF?!?! We have an annualized COD franchise and that's pushing EA to annualize their Battlefields/MOH and now even Halo's following the trend. The sheer number of fps games in market is VERY BAD for the industry. Remember back in 2009, MW2 pushed sooo many games outside of the Holiday release window cause game devs and publishers were scared of loosing too much money in the quarter trying to compete with the billion dollar baby.
They are a casual market that can be caught in a wide net and they mean money for the industry, so of course the industry will keep pumping out military shooters. I agree, it's bad for the growth of the industry in terms of diversification.
I doubt we're going to fix this one. There will be games that continue to come out on PC only, but multi-plat titles are going to always be consolized. It's just where the money is at. This is partially because of the rise of the dude-bros. Their purchase of PS3s and 360s has created a new market saturation.-The fall of PC gaming. This decade marks the dethronement of the almighty PC. Yes, it's true that if you want the best quality graphics and special physics you'd do right to pick the PC copy of your multi-plat titles, but there's not that many AAA PC titles being released. This is resulting in lower qaulity games, because the 360/PS3 are now the lead console for development and PC is getting ports. PS3/360 are starting to show their age and developers need to start keeping up. (yes i know, they're just gearing towards the majority that are on consoles)
I'm sure many would disagree with me, but I think this one is overhyped by the industry. It also has a good way to fight piracy. It's called Steam. While Ubisoft goes out of their way to make their games as difficult as possible for people to play (due to DRM), Steam tries to make it so easy and cheap to play legit that it may be easier than pirating. A lot of piracy is springing up out of the disenfranchised gamers. "I can only get this content if I jump through your hoops? Well F**K you then... I'll just pirate it!"-Piracy. The dreaded word in the gaming industry and will probably be the key factor why cloud gaming will be being pushed by third party developers soon. As of 2010 All major home consoles and portables have been hacked and are open to piracy.
Valves philosophy that they offer a service rather than a product is the driving force behind fixing this. Make a service that is awesome and easy and people will use it. I think more piracy is coming out of people trying to thwart piracy.
I can't tell whether you feel this is a good move or a bad move. While it seems convergent on the surface, I think ultimately it leads to divergence. When genres marry we end up with a new breed of game but don't lose the originals. They can each evolve in new directions. I welcome this.-Merging Genres. Say what you want about ME2....Most of my friends tormentingly agree that its a 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. There are soo few single genre oriented games nowadays and that every big release has to have a "action-ish" feel to it.
It's easy to be cynical and I usually am. I can point out a lot of things I have problems with in the industry. EA and Activision make me sick; they are full of nickel&dime strategies to bleed players while churning the same garbage year after year. But we are also at fault. We vote with our money and we vote poorly.
I could say that there are too many sequels out there, but honestly, there are lots of new IPs too. It's just hard to release a new IP with the polish one gets from releasing the 3rd in a series of games. Look at Assassin's Creed. The original was a mess, but we forgave it then. The bar wasn't so high. Now the sequels are polished into an amazing experience built on the concepts and failures of the original. I hear a lot of great things about Alan Wake and Enslaved, but do you think these IPs are going to get a second wind? They were flawed and people don't have the patience to wait for them to be fixed. Instead everyone will grab the next iteration of whatever series they trust.
We can pretend we're above this, but most of you out there are playing sequels more than you are new IPs. You're even buying stuff like FFXIII despite the poor reviews.
The fact is, there's a lot of great stuff coming out of the gaming industry. It's just easy to have confirmation bias that tells you otherwise. The stinkers and the negative stuff are sticking out in your mind, but amazing games are being released at an unprecedented speed and we just can't keep up with them any more. We have to raise our standards to have a chance of sifting through them. There've already been several titles released this year that I want to give a try and a dozen others before years end... and that's to say nothing of my backlog of even recent games.
I think gamers are becoming a bit too entitled and petulant while developers are becoming increasingly greedy and loosing focus of the evolution of the medium.
I'll come back later with my own thoughts, but for the record, the PC gaming market grew 20% last year world wide: Gamasutra - News - PCGA: Global PC Gaming Market Grew 20% In 2010 To $16.2 Billion
People are often very quick to write off PC gaming these days, but not only does it get plenty of PC exclusive great games and in many cases the best versions of multi-platform games, they're ahead of the curve on digital distribution, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more indie titles making their mark on the platform, especially if someone manages to establish a solid digital distribution platform for indie games on the PC.
Haha, saw that this morning but Vivi beat me to posting it.
I'm not convinced that PC is dying away, but I think it is losing its identity as a platform. Very few games are PC exclusive these days and companies like Crytek have admitted that they are done pushing the boundaries of PC tech. People are done with the arms race of super fast video cards both from the industry and hobbyist side. People just don't want to go buy 2-3 $400 cards to put in a SLi/Xfire array simply to play a game. I don't see those days coming back any time soon either.
What I do think is significant is the potential of our console generation to last another 5 years. If this is truly the case it may be a boon for PC gaming. Already the PC versions of games are almost always graphically superior or at least have the option to allow them to be. To run a game at console equivalent or better is requiring cheaper and cheaper video cards. What will happen to video card tech in the next half decade before a new console generation. I'm not sure, but it will be interesting to see.
Currently game devs stay within the framework of the console limitations as there is no need to go the extra mile for PC gamers; when they do it's only by a small amount. I'm not sure I can see this changing. There are two directions this could take.
-console ports end up with requirements so laughably low (relatively) that $50 video cards will run them at max settings with power to spare
-certain studios might attempt to get back into the arms race to set up new PC superior
It could conceivably be a mix of the two.
It may not be perfect, but I will say that in Uncharted 2, I never once questioned the 'acting' of the characters. I think they're on their way to getting as close as a video game needs to get. As for 'close-up' bits, I'd say FFXIII did very well indeed. Obviously real-life actors will always be better - it's impossible for an imitation of life to be better than life itself. But you get the idea.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Nonono, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that it was dying away, I just meant that it is no long THE place for the big AAA games. Consoles nowadays suffice for major releases. But yeah I agree on the fact that PC exclusives still trump the others (Starcraft II, Diablo 3, Civ, Shogun: Total war, etc.)
Verses what? Should all progress in graphics just stagnate? Should we have stopped at 16-bit sprites? I don't understand this logic so many "old school" gamers have adopted.
Why? Why is gaming any less a legit form of entertainment than, say, films, or tv shows? Or animated film to use a perfect example? Or do those fall short of your "high forms of entertainment" list as well? I do agree that there's a long way to go, but I find your denial of endless technological posibilities through human ingenuity depressing.
That being said, I used to always say that gaming has been at it worst in recent years, but recently I've come to realize that in the last two years I've played more games than I probably ever have. And you know what? I've found quite a few of them damn good.
I'm too lazy to write out everything I find wrong and right with modern gaming (I could write a book, honestly), but I don't really like the way it's going...I'm looking at you motion controls replacing new console development.
Last edited by DMKA; 03-01-2011 at 08:53 PM.
I like Kung-Fu.
Have you seen Avatar? What were your thoughts on the acting of the Na'vi? Essentially, technology is getting to the point where motion actors and voice actors are allowed to use the entirety of their performance and graft it onto the work itself. I would disagree that video games or computers are a low form of entertainment especially when you consider the fact that technology is getting to the point where the performance of the actor is essentially intact.
I believe in the power of humanity.
But that's the thing - "needs to get" suggests that one is settling for less. The Uncharted characters are excellently rendered and acted puppets, but they're still clearly CG characters. I guess my problem is, really, what you say about the impossibility of mimicking life perfectly. My reasoning is that if it's impossible to imitate life, don't attempt to imitate it at all. (I'm also not entirely sure I see a lot of value in pulling off a successful imitation, either.)It may not be perfect, but I will say that in Uncharted 2, I never once questioned the 'acting' of the characters. I think they're on their way to getting as close as a video game needs to get. As for 'close-up' bits, I'd say FFXIII did very well indeed. Obviously real-life actors will always be better - it's impossible for an imitation of life to be better than life itself. But you get the idea.
What logic do you think I'm using here? I said that CG actors can never replace real actors. I never said anything about halting progress when it comes to graphics. My problem is that not only are developers reaching towards a pointless goal (turning their characters into actors) but that they are over-reaching and falling completely short. Heavy Rain is a good example and so is Mass Effect 2. It's one thing to attempt to create realistic looking NPCs, but it's another thing to create them in hopes of getting the audience to sympathize with or be moved by them.
Gaming is not a less legit form of entertainment. I said it's "low", as in it's trying to mimic things that are done in a superior way by another medium (not a superior medium, mind you). In this case (and it's always been the case) - film. Sure L.A. Noire looks great, but I still don't see the value in attempting to render photo-realistic characters. Is that what art designers should be striving for? To finally, one day, fool people into thinking something is real? Even though films can already do this (with no fooling involved, since actors are real)? You might find my denial of "endless" technological possibilities depressing, but I find it equally depressing that so much money, creativity, and man-power is constantly being poured into something that will never not be an imitation.Why? Why is gaming any less a legit form of entertainment than, say, films, or tv shows? Or animated film to use a perfect example? Or do those fall short of your "high forms of entertainment" list as well? I do agree that there's a long way to go, but I find your denial of endless technological posibilities through human ingenuity depressing.
(Looking back on it, I probably should have provided a definition for my use of the word 'low'. I guess coat-tail riding, or copying, etc.)
My thoughts are that it's a great looking cartoon, but I was never convinced that they were real. They're also blue and don't look like actual humans, so this generally isn't a problem for me. My issue is in regards to when humans are rendered unconvincingly. Even when it's eventually done in a completely Valley-less way, I'll still wonder why it's in any way better than a real actor. The perfectly-rendered human will no doubt come from a very skilled graphic artist - but, as far as gaming goes, I dislike how so much effort is being put forth to make a game look like a real life simulator.
Hope this answers everyone's questions. It's entirely possible that I am the only person around here who is completely put off by this.
Last edited by Flying Arrow; 03-02-2011 at 06:50 PM.
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!
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.My problem is that not only are developers reaching towards a pointless goal (turning their characters into actors) but that they are over-reaching and falling completely short. Heavy Rain is a good example and so is Mass Effect 2. It's one thing to attempt to create realistic looking NPCs, but it's another thing to create them in hopes of getting the audience to sympathize with or be moved by them.
Yes, but you can't control an actor in a video game.Sure L.A. Noire looks great, but I still don't see the value in attempting to render photo-realistic characters. Is that what art designers should be striving for? To finally, one day, fool people into thinking something is real? Even though films can already do this (with no fooling involved, since actors are real)?
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).My issue is that when humans are rendered unconvincingly. Even when it's eventually done in a completely Valley-less way, I'll still wonder why it's in any way better than a real actor.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Game industry needs to unsmurf themselves in terms of creativity. The first years of this console generation were great, with all kinds of new kinds of games coming out, like how Gears redefined the TPS genre. Nowadays it's the same smurfing thing over and over again. They're either making sequels or dull clones of the games that made this generation successful.
Also PC needs more exclusive titles and lessty ports. It was until a generation ago that PC versions of games were superior, because they utilized the power that only PCs could provide compared to the static and outdated hardware of consoles. Ports of console games were rare and they were usually criticized if they kept the console look and feel. Nowdays porting Xbox games has become the smurfing standard and that smurfing sucks.
Also they need to quit dumbing down games. I don't need a smurfing tutorial to understand that A makes me jump and I don't need every interactive part of the decor to glow like it's made of radium and I certainly don't want to be able to jump through a series of platforms by simple holding one button. I've also had it with context sensitive buttons and quicktime events. They used to be original and whatnot, now they're just lame.
This twenty-year-old boy was distinguished from childhood by strange qualities, a dreamer and an eccentric. A girl fell in love with him, and he went and sold her to a brothel...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
