Whats does everyone think is missing from the gaming industry? excluding games.
Maybe blogs, websites, products etc..?
the gaming industry needs a fucking crash
We really don't need a lot a lot of things from a games or technological standpoint, but the biggest need of gaming in general is for a certain segment of the fanbase to start making up their minds on what they specifically want. They don't really specify what they really want aside from surface elements or nostalgic circle jerking, and about 90% of the time, it's only what they want themselves.
In all these kind of threads, no one really has specified what they really want aside from the basic level of "more new games" when there are plenty enough already for folks who are willing to look. I said it before, and I'll say it again, gamers as a whole have gotten spoiled in the last couple of generations, it's almost like we seem to forget how video gaming was viewed not that long ago from the outside and how far it has gotten since.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
People need to STOP pre ordering games and buying DLC that was clearly done before the game launched.
At 9/21/15 01:17 AM, oobooglunk wrote: Innovation, both in hardware and software.
then consoles really have to catch up to pc's which they never will.
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?
was her name tenneassi
omtish
At 9/21/15 06:52 PM, Tybia99 wrote: People need to STOP pre ordering games and buying DLC that was clearly done before the game launched.
I like the way you think.
At 9/27/15 01:57 PM, kazumazkan wrote:At 9/21/15 01:17 AM, oobooglunk wrote: Innovation, both in hardware and software.then consoles really have to catch up to pc's which they never will.
No, that's actually not necessary at all for consoles to do in order to be innovative.
Elitism aside, game companies need to stop pumping out sequels to their most popular games every year.
Yeah, I'm looking at you EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. It's 2015. We have DLC and internet access. We don't need a new Madden game every year anymore to get the updated rosters. You can just fix that crap for us online.
Less retards, less assholes and less capitalism. I get it that gaming is a huge business racking a humongous amount of money but that's not a reason to deteriorate a game or disrespect the buyers.
No dlc. Unless it is worthwhile for its cost and it was made after the game came out.
Less sequels. Some games like Legend of Zelda are still going strong after 20+ years but sometime you need to look at the number on your game packaging and think about how much you milk your franchise. This brings something else: new franchises and new characters, new concepts. Why not? And I'm not getting started on games that have one sequel a year, that's bullshit.
Originality. 'What's popular nowadays? Open world? Let's do that. Character customization? Awesome! Art? Ohmygod yes! Deep story? By all mean yes! Crafting? That's fucking great man, you're on fire!'
At the time you are planning your game, dozens of other games are doing the exact same thing. It's hard to be completely original but you gotta try harder. Chances are the devs are doing it just to get mainstream and secure themselves enough sales (preeeeeorderrrrrrrr), and because of this, most of the time it's either half-assed or they are trying too hard.
Oh and get your shit together with women. It's unbelievable how much people are having a hard time trying to fit female characters into their game. It's actually easier to create every cultural aspects of a fictional species than to make a decent person from an existing species. While I'm at it, get your shit together with men too. Most male protagonists look very similar and have a similar personality too. Why?
Although some of what I'm about to say has already been said in this thread I thought I would expand on it with my own opinions.
1. We Need Another Crash
The last video game crash we had many people would attribute to E.T. for the Atari 2600. Fascinating because that wasn't the cause of the crash, if anything that was the final straw. The cause of the crash was the market was overblown with so many video game consoles and video games in general, the public became alienated by this so video games became a turn off and Atari's name diminished.
This may sound familiar to some of you out there. Keep in mind this though, back then there was no real way to determine the quality of video games. We weren't really connected together yet to truly decide. We have so many ways to share our love, hatred, and passion for video games now.
True, this industry and market has been overflowing lately. However, we can't play every single video game that is out there and the market is just booming. There is a possibility that this could lead us to another crash where video games aren't seen as important.
The optimist's look on this is simply that video games will become commonplace due to the generation that grew up with them becoming parents themselves and know that there is no harm with said devices that provide us with a different form of entertainment.
2. Gender Roles
This is a moot point in some sense, but in a critical thinking sense is not. For the moot point. Talking about Samus' character in Metroid Other M in any sexism disposition is childish. Metroid Other M simply had bad design in terms of it's gameplay. That is it. Any way you wanna twist it in terms of sexism and character development is kind of cute really.
Saying that if we made Link from The Legend of Zelda a woman in one of the games is not a bad idea in theory. Link does reincarnate in some degree from game to game, thus giving us a new hero each and every time, so making one of the incarnations of Link female is not a bad idea. It wouldn't shake up anything or bring new foundation to the series, it would simply be an interesting idea -- or as Bender from Futurama would say... "NEAT!" Those who take video games A LOT more seriously than I do would be praising for a female protagonist in an other words "male dominated" market. While others would be well....
Granted for those of us who do take video games seriously, at least on a semi-sane level, would have our interests piqued. In a series like The Legend of Zelda though it would be meaningless seeing how the people of Hyrule seem to have equal rights down pat better than the real world... yeah, something not a lot of people bring up. For the average consumer though, there would be a few raised eyebrows, but for the most part the average consumer just simply DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK!
3. Adaptations
Much like how movies today are adaptations of different books and stories, video games can take a similar approach. Papers, Please is a great example of this and something that could be expanded on. The Assassin's Creed games take any interesting approach to this as well, but they tend to drop the ball a bit.
We need more books becoming video games. Not try to turn movies into video games for a quick crash grab (yes Lego I'm looking at you). There are many stories out there that could make for some deep and interesting video games.
At 9/27/15 03:33 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 9/27/15 01:57 PM, kazumazkan wrote:No, that's actually not necessary at all for consoles to do in order to be innovative.At 9/21/15 01:17 AM, oobooglunk wrote: Innovation, both in hardware and software.then consoles really have to catch up to pc's which they never will.
Elitism aside,
it wasnt elitism just a little sprinkle that these consoles do hold back gaming in many ways since there have been games with cut content and not because the publisher wanted the game out fast but because something wouldn't make it to the console version or all the games that have been downgraded or "optimized" in way to make it the best possible experience on consoles
game companies need to stop pumping out sequels to their most popular games every year.
i have no problem with consoles just that they feel sorta underwhelming this time around and it looks like they will not improve.
Yeah, I'm looking at you EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. It's 2015. We have DLC and internet access. We don't need a new Madden game every year anymore to get the updated rosters. You can just fix that crap for us online.
true but hey gotta gets thems moneys.
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?
was her name tenneassi
omtish
I do believe that I mentioned this earlier, but there are a lot of people keep mentioning new concepts or new characters in existing franchises, (despite the fact that it often makes no sense to do so) which would be fine, if people would actually support them and not just compare them to something that it really isn't. It's one thing to say that, it's quite another to actually do the deed, and it doesn't help that a lot of people don't want to pay $60 for a game that might be average.
Also, we need to at least acknowledge that gaming has always been following trends based on what is the most popular game, and that's not inherently a bad thing. The hypocrisy is in the fact that certain segments of gamers want to have it both ways of we want something new instead of the usual, only to turn around and buy the milked franchise because of nostalgia or whatever else. I've always been a believer of you don't know what you really want until you get it, and I can tell that a lot of folks here fall into that whether or not they want to admit it.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
I feel like the thing we could really use right now is some reliability, what i mean by that is so many companies as of late have been promising so many huge things: Open worlds like never before, spectacular stories, evolving characters, impacting choices, better graphics, interesting add ons, and etc. Yet we keep getting games that are unfinished, riddled with bugs, or that just couldent live up to their promises.
Now im not saying everythings on the companies, making games is hard and making dead lines can be harder. But you would think you would really give yourself the time and money to live up to your promises. Plan ahead, plan for possible delays, dont set any concrete dead lines till your sure. Destiny is an example of a game that promised so much and delivered so little (Partly because of who Bungie partnered with). The game was okay but they promised huge opens worlds, exploration; they promised us all these amazing things and gave us such a limited and lack luster game compared to what they promised.
Its a big thing that's happening with kick-starters, steam green-light, and the like. Publishers, companies, indie studios, solo developers; they all keep making these huge promises, stretch goals, pre-order bonuses, founder packs, etc and people just throw money at them. They get in so over their heads and they start missing dead lines, running out of money, no being able to give what they promised. Its our fault for blindly trusting them and throwing our money, but its also their fault for making this big dream that they didn't plan effectively enough for it to pan out.
I just feel like we could use alittle security, sometimes i want what was promised me. Alot of the time we do get what was promised, but its starting to become more common for things to fall short. Thats my opinion anyways.
"...The power it holds can bring either salvation or destruction at the whim of the user..."
At 9/21/15 02:50 PM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: the gaming industry needs a fucking crash
This.
Derp.
At 9/29/15 03:04 AM, thebitterroost wrote:At 9/21/15 02:50 PM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: the gaming industry needs a fucking crashThis.
Seriously, folks? It's absolutely disturbing that people would advocate a gaming crash a la 1983 and think it will solve all of the problems. This is exactly the kind of attitude on why gaming can never get the respect it truly deserves from the outside when we have a certain segment of gamers advocate fatalism because of their own selfishness.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 9/21/15 02:50 PM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: the gaming industry needs a fucking crash
No, it doesn't. In fact, that is a terrible idea. A crash won't solve anything.
At 9/29/15 10:50 AM, orangebomb wrote:At 9/29/15 03:04 AM, thebitterroost wrote:Seriously, folks? It's absolutely disturbing that people would advocate a gaming crash a la 1983 and think it will solve all of the problems. This is exactly the kind of attitude on why gaming can never get the respect it truly deserves from the outside when we have a certain segment of gamers advocate fatalism because of their own selfishness.At 9/21/15 02:50 PM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: the gaming industry needs a fucking crashThis.
Admittedly, it's a bit cynical, but it's also rather simplistic to think that the consequences would be 100% bad or that we assume it would "solve all the problems." Industry crashes can pave the way for newer, more innovative companies to rise up and gain a real foothold in an environment where they would otherwise be smothered by industry status quo, red tape, market saturation, etc.
I don't think gaming has to worry about its product quality or market status being the reason why it doesn't get respect. After all, it now grosses more than the world's film industry. If respect is what gamers seek, maybe they might wanna take an introspective minute and consider that the dominating voice of their "culture" is extremely immature, hostile, and fem-phobic?
Derp.
At 9/29/15 02:28 PM, thebitterroost wrote: Admittedly, it's a bit cynical, but it's also rather simplistic to think that the consequences would be 100% bad or that we assume it would "solve all the problems."
Still, that's not a good thing to have because you're going to punish the majority of gamers (especially the casual crowds) for supporting their favorite game franchise. (A good majority of gamers aren't going to give a rip about a publisher's business practices) In short, a crash will screw over the majority over the needs of the few, and ruin the rather fragile trust that the VG industry has with non-gamers. It took decades for the industry to fully get the respect it deserves after the '83 crash, and no one wants that to happen again.
Industry crashes can pave the way for newer, more innovative companies to rise up and gain a real foothold in an environment where they would otherwise be smothered by industry status quo, red tape, market saturation, etc.
In theory, but there is a huge possibility that gaming might not fully recover if there is a crash. This is exactly why I state that those who advocate for a gaming crash are selfish and even myopic, because there is a market of indie games already and this is the first generation of consoles that has opened the door for indie gaming (Not counting PC) instead of treating it as a novelty. I highly doubt that they would get another opportunity like this again if the industry truly crashed.
Basically, it's like going from a strict but stable civilization into the Wild West, which is why a lot of games of that era varied wildly and most of them who developed bad games then didn't get punished like they would today or even 10 years ago.
I don't think gaming has to worry about its product quality or market status being the reason why it doesn't get respect. After all, it now grosses more than the world's film industry. If respect is what gamers seek, maybe they might wanna take an introspective minute and consider that the dominating voice of their "culture" is extremely immature, hostile, and fem-phobic?
To be fair, most entertainment mediums also suffer from this problem too, the only difference is that TV and movies have been around for much longer. It also doesn't help that a lot of those who advocates change to the gamer culture are either those who either constantly change the goalposts or are dominated by SJWs who overreact to everything like it's a crime against humanity. It's no wonder why gamers and the game industry are reluctant to change, because few are willing to give them a platform to do so without the need to be ostracized for the sins that other mediums get a pass for.
I'm all for changing gamer culture, but if the outside world wants to keep disrespecting and minimalizing our attempts at doing so, then why even bother?
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
time, effort, full products on launch and quality over quantity
Gamers need to respect developers more.
The amount of childish anger over the smallest things and unwarranted self entitlement is fucking insane. But that's inevitable in an industry this big.
But that's one change I'd like to see.
Play my epic RPG - The Awakening - and your life will change forever!
... but I'm legally obligated not to say that.
At 9/27/15 08:23 PM, Luette wrote: Less retards, less assholes and less capitalism. I get it that gaming is a huge business racking a humongous amount of money but that's not a reason to deteriorate a game or disrespect the buyers.
I wanna talk about the less capitalism point there, what will this achieve? I think all that that would do is get rid of any mainstream audience, the mainstream is who capitalism is there for, it's who they want to appeal to. Sure, you'd get some great indie games in the top charts without the big publishers, but for every critically acclaimed game, there will be 10 stinkers that tried and a new concept, and for a myriad of reasons the game doesn't work very well. Maybe the story is non-linear and symbollic, some will love it, some will hate it, and they'll have their niches, but that's all they'll ever be; niches.
And It's not like we've got a lack of innovative games coming out now, Sony, Microsoft and Valve are HUGE on Indie games right now, they're the next big thing. Have you seens No Man's Sky? Undertale? The Binding of Isaac? bit.trip runner? Portal? Super Meat Boy? Mount Your Friends? Duck Game? There's no lack of originality in gaming, and I'd even argue that it's WAY more accessible than music or movies that try to do something more "out there".
No dlc. Unless it is worthwhile for its cost and it was made after the game came out.
Kind of a flaw statement there. I know the last few months of game development are largely polish and bug fixing, it makes complete sense to tell your storyboard workers to see if they can come up with something new, get your music guys on some new music, etc, etc. You can't have 100% of your workforce only working on the one product, it doesn't make sense, game development does not work like that.
I mean shit, some really great DLC starts WAY before the game comes out. GTA: The Lost & Damned (an expansion for GTA IV) was announced in 2006, 2 years before GTA IV even came out, and 3 years before the expansion itself came out.
Bethesda announced that there would be DLC for New Vegas days before it's releasing, and the first pack released just 4-5 months later, and the rest following before Fallout NV was even a year old, you can't expect that all of that DLC was made in only 10 months, they HAD to have started on it before New Vegas was finished.
But you're probably talking about the likes of Call of Duty? But it's not like Call of Duty has a lacklustre amount of maps at launch (usually around 15 or so?), and then you probably get another 12 or 16 over the following year. Look at the likes of Unreal Tournament or some other no dlc games, they have a similar amount of maps, usually less than 20, and sometimes as low as 10, in a full game! CoD offers you as many as any other game at launch, and releases the rest. You might not like it, but imagine having 30 maps at launch, although this would increase initial playtime, eventually people will get bored after a year of nothing but these maps. It makes sense to release them slowly over the year, even if it is in paid DLC form. Which is fine, you can spend your money on whatever you want, if you feel new maps + guns is worth the $10 go for it.
Less sequels. Some games like Legend of Zelda are still going strong after 20+ years but sometime you need to look at the number on your game packaging and think about how much you milk your franchise. This brings something else: new franchises and new characters, new concepts. Why not? And I'm not getting started on games that have one sequel a year, that's bullshit.
Zelda does get a new game every year though, sometimes you get multiple games a year in that franchise. Fair enough if they're all good (which all of them certainly are not), but I don't see it as hugely different from buying a new CoD every year.
Oh and get your shit together with women. It's unbelievable how much people are having a hard time trying to fit female characters into their game. It's actually easier to create every cultural aspects of a fictional species than to make a decent person from an existing species. While I'm at it, get your shit together with men too. Most male protagonists look very similar and have a similar personality too. Why?
We can probably blame this on the media, it's not just games that are getting women wrong, it's movies and TV shows too? It's been going on for decades, but I'm sure we will slowly get there. Speaking of that though there are exceptions, Lara Croft in the recent games is a very well fleshed out character, there's also Chell from Portal, and while her gender isn't really important in the game, that's kind of a good thing right? How often do you play a woman in a game and it's not drawn attention to?
illicit makes a damn good signature.
At 9/21/15 12:58 AM, DavidPaul8 wrote: Whats does everyone think is missing from the gaming industry? excluding games.
Maybe blogs, websites, products etc..?
Destroy the mobile market.
**SHIELDS HAVE BEEN RAISED!**
Time to bust a move and get it started. Time's wastin'.
-Mace 2.0
For Steam to have a quality control filter for games, as many great games go under the radar and utterly buried by trash, which gives a bad name for Indie games, which is why not as many people are interested in Indies. It's actually kind of too late to really fix it unless a lot of trash gets pulled off from the Steam store. I am aware that there are a lot of popular and successful Indie games out and well known, but I'm very certain there are many many more just like them that have been ignored.
This would also affect the libraries of the Xbox One, PS4 and even Wii U considering many successful Indie games start out as PC exclusives, as PC is the most accessible market for developers. Had there have been (or if it's not too late, a fix) quality control, we could have seen the console libraries flourish with good Indies.
There's also this issue with these developers all trying to make the next big go-to multiplayer, but they're not succeeding because well, a lot of them are competing for the same thing, and most of them are adding these ridiculous season passes. I'd imagine that most gamers aren't that wealthy to be buying all of these games, and all of the season passes. So some of these games have players that forgo the season passes because they bought passes for other games. And when players don't have the DLC for games but play them anyway, the communities are split within that game. Games that rely on DLC for content, with split communities tend to die very quickly, like Titanfall, Battlefield Hardline, Evolve. When players experience the game they paid for with the season pass die off, that ends up making them reluctant on buying utterly expensive season passes in the future (at least for games they're not diehard fans of the series), and the cycle continues.
The developers may have succeeded in getting a profit, but not the goal of having a healthy community playing their games.
One more thing, for the NX to be a success. I think the reason for why many consider the 8th generation of gaming to be one of the weakest is because it's mainly a competition of two companies in an evolved industry. Say what you will about the Wii U having the best games (multiplats count and I personally am not a huge fan of recent Nintendo games), but the Wii U just isn't suitable competition. I believe even Miyamoto has said that the Wii U has underperformed, and that he tried to excuse the company by saying that they don't compete.
During the 7th generation, the Wii was a different type of platform to the PS3 and Xbox 360. With the Wii's insane early success, Sony and Microsoft competed by making the PS3 and 360 as good as their capabilities let them be (graphics, online). I know there is the PS Move and Kinect, but that's not why the consoles shined. With three companies competing, the 7th generation was solid.
