Are videogames actually maturing?

[MattYg1]

http://theanonymousgamer.wordpress....re-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/

Having a debate with my brother the other night, well more so a discussion as we mostly agreed.

Playing Deus Ex Human Revolution and while so much attention has been paid to the story to be an epic, conspiracy driven transhumanist tragedy and it does the job well. But the further and further you progress the gameplay does begin to mimic old arcade attitudes and values.

Things become more challenging simply by adding more foes with more armor etc, this leads to frustrating deaths and more loading screens and ultimatly for people like my brother giving up.

So do you think games are actually maturing?

 

[Eelectrica]

No. If anything they're going backwards. I guess that's to be expected when companies pump millions into producing games these days meaning they have to be accessible to the masses.

These days you get the occasional game that adds some complexity and depth like Witcher 2. Most games these days seem very shallow and created by the numbers.

I plan on starting HR tonight and see how it measures up to the original which I think is still a masterpiece today. No it wasn't perfect, but it had complexity, character development, a multitude of locations to explore. Even on my recent play through I found things I hadn't discovered before.

So far my favorites have been Witcher 2 and Portal 2, have barely been interested in much else. Especially after Dragon Age 2 got destroyed by EA!

 

[Pierced Soul]

it's a mixed bag, in terms of storylines some have been great, really loved the gears storyline, in terms of gameplay most games use a simple formula cos it's acessible. having a milion different options just confuses people and makes it less enjoyable. take the pro evo soccer series of games, there seems to be a million control options which i never use (i'm more interested in an arcade game though than realism), tap backwards twice whilst running for the ball then push B 5 times and he'll do a feint....

i agree with your assessment of gameplay difficulty these days being either throw more guns or armoured goons at you. what happened to the AI being ramped up so they dont all blindly walk into a corridor where you're waiting with a machine gun?

if a forumla works they stick to it, less development costs, people know what they're getting -look at movie sequels

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Matured? No. I played better, original games in the 1990's and early 2000's than some of the shit released today. Most games aren't challenging in the sense that you need to be careful with what you do they're hard and "challenging" by ridiculous means like endless spawn and opponents who can sprint 10 x faster than on World Class (FIFA!!)

Video games have become the leading industry out there and the consequence is the flooding of the market with half arsed games, hitting the consumer up with DRM and now we have online passes coming out the arse (or, in the case of Rage a single player pass!)

We've had a Codemasters rep say they intentionaly put out half finished games because they only want the money from the consumer, an Activision rep said he would charge every single person who bought the game for multiplayer to get as much money as possible and now somebody at EA was thinking out aloud that every year a Battlefield game should be released to capitilise on the market and get some of that CoD money.

Then you have Capcom. They blamed the fans for not continuing with MML3 despite making them pay for the prototype in advance and continue to shit on the fans of that series. They are releasing Ultimate MvC3 despite only releasing the proper game a few months ago. They've f**ked up DMC. They've banned people from their forums who criticise anything they do. Seriously, Capcom represent everything that is foul about the industry.

We all saw the NBA Elite Jesus glitch right? How can a game be released as a demo and be unplayable to the point that the game was canned IN THE REVAMP YEAR?

The idea of DLC has severely dampened the quality of games and has made developers rush release and effectively turned game releases in to beta testing with a quick patch on the way, Black Ops for example. Most of the DLC that is released should have already been released on the disc, LA Noire for example which released DLC that was shitty and was merely cases pulled from the game. Map packs are the same, worked on during the main testing.

Video game consumers have suffered at the hands of the publisher who seek CoD release numbers but also because the casual gamer is the intended target.

The few games that are worthy of purchase are by no means justified by the half arsed bullshit that floods the market, imo it is a 20/80 split on quality to shite and that's being highly generous.

The days when video games were released to a "niche market" where quality and originality was the main objective are over. Much like the industries that video games have surpassed it's all about making the $ and the quality has suffered.

Pretty off topic rant, my bad.

 

[adamkungl]

lol if you think there weren't shitty cash-in games released in spades back in the 90s...80s...70s.

On topic - maturing how? Gameplay/innovation-wise there is always new ground being explored if you know where to look (CoD is probably not the right place to look :lol: ). Xbox Live Arcade has heaps of interesting, innovative games. That said, I guess it makes sense that as time goes on it becomes harder and harder to come up with that new amazing idea that no one has ever done before.

Story-wise, again depends what you're looking for. There is no doubt that some games are presenting deeper and more emotionally driven stories...but many aren't, and don't need or want to, because they're the equivalent of the hollywood blockbuster.

Are movies maturing? Doubt it.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

lol if you think there weren't shitty cash-in games released in spades back in the 90s...80s...70s.

How many of them cost $100 and were half finished?

 

[MattYg1]

Haha... Mate your bad? Not at all...

I posted this mainly because I wanted to get reactions like I have... Your response I was expecting.. I was expecting you to fire up on this topic and I agree with you big time...

I find it mostly interesting that we are spoon fed this idea of "maturity" in gaming but it couldn't be further from the truth for various reasons that a lot of people have mentioned already...

Even on a very basic level and I hate to bring up deus ex again (I am actually loving it I really am) but for all the effort put into it about the great story and your gameplay choices yet flip the box over ane we see quotes like "brutal combat takedowns!!!" it instantly reminds me of action figure commercials where we as children were told "Batman Now with Arm swinging takedown action".

I love videogaming but the industry has a real identity problem and this comes from the creative minds vs the business minds argument...

(apologies if this post has any errors I am posting in my car on my iPhone lol)

 

[afinalsin666]

I think the industry is trying, but is somewhat stifled by producers who think that gamers need something actiony, and can't play a whole game without being pandered to. Couple of examples: *SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD*

Heavy Rain: A brutal game, that did not beat around the bush, punches you in the face with messages and subtext. Mature? To a certain extent, but they throw a dream sequence with the lead female protaganist in her underwear fighting off robbers.

Reason? The only thing i could think of why this happened, was the game was more relaxed until then, and they needed something to capture the audiences limited attention, rather than think we could handle something that breaks the mold. Action and story really kicks into gear not long after then anyway, so the whole sequence is nonsense.

L.A Noire: A game that tried something new, interrogating people, a no nonsense, adult look at nudity and death. Showed the protaganist as flawed, and doesn't give him many relatable qualities. Then over the course of the game, the audience slowly starts accepting him, and relating to him. No mean feat, honestly. The audience had been playing a mature game, under the hood of the most traditionally immature genre there is, the sandbox. And gamers accepted it, and played it through.

Until the end, where all pretence of trying to be mature and different end. The end of the game, rather than folow with everything that made the game, they decided to just give the player a flamethrower. And turn it into a corridor shooter. No conversations, no learning motivations, no nothing. Go in a tunnel with a flamethrower and torch people. Why this sudden shift in genres and tone, and why, for all that is good and holy, give the lead a flamethrower? I think they run out of ideas to have the gameplay be the same, conversations, arrests, etc. and still have the greek tradgedy ending. The reason this ending is immature, is not because it is poorly designed, or heavy handed, or even the genre shift, but because the game falls back on something it knows gamers will push on with, despite playing 20+ hours on the game beforehand. Rather than back itself, it turned itself into what 15 year olds would like, despite them same players would have turned the game off hours ago. I believe the studio still thought, after succeeding at making a mature game for the last 20 or so hours, that it was still a game for gamers, and that gamers are 15.

This is a confusing and pervasive trend, that still sticks with the industry, that somehow, all the kids who played SNES, or the Playstation, gave up when they hit puberty, like they would action figures or barbies. The average age for a gamer, i think, is 37. Yet the industry still thinks it is 15. People don't just "give up" on gaming. Oh, some do, but not you know what i mean. I believe most developers are slowly coming to terms with their market audience, but the publishers, the hives of scum and villainy, force them to make the games like every other game, in order to maximise profits.

So, rather than the games themselves becoming more mature, even though they slightly are, i belive the perception of games maturing, comes through eyes that themselves are maturing. We as players slowly percieve the world differently, so look deeper into games than we might once have. This is the same with movies and books. The game industry needs to catch up with the perceptions and maturity of gamers before they can become mature.

Jesus that was a long one.

 

[MattYg1]

I think the industry is trying, but is somewhat stifled by producers who think that gamers need something actiony, and can't play a whole game without being pandered to. Couple of examples: *SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD*

Heavy Rain: A brutal game, that did not beat around the bush, punches you in the face with messages and subtext. Mature? To a certain extent, but they throw a dream sequence with the lead female protaganist in her underwear fighting off robbers.

Reason? The only thing i could think of why this happened, was the game was more relaxed until then, and they needed something to capture the audiences limited attention, rather than think we could handle something that breaks the mold. Action and story really kicks into gear not long after then anyway, so the whole sequence is nonsense.

L.A Noire: A game that tried something new, interrogating people, a no nonsense, adult look at nudity and death. Showed the protaganist as flawed, and doesn't give him many relatable qualities. Then over the course of the game, the audience slowly starts accepting him, and relating to him. No mean feat, honestly. The audience had been playing a mature game, under the hood of the most traditionally immature genre there is, the sandbox. And gamers accepted it, and played it through.

Until the end, where all pretence of trying to be mature and different end. The end of the game, rather than folow with everything that made the game, they decided to just give the player a flamethrower. And turn it into a corridor shooter. No conversations, no learning motivations, no nothing. Go in a tunnel with a flamethrower and torch people. Why this sudden shift in genres and tone, and why, for all that is good and holy, give the lead a flamethrower? I think they run out of ideas to have the gameplay be the same, conversations, arrests, etc. and still have the greek tradgedy ending. The reason this ending is immature, is not because it is poorly designed, or heavy handed, or even the genre shift, but because the game falls back on something it knows gamers will push on with, despite playing 20+ hours on the game beforehand. Rather than back itself, it turned itself into what 15 year olds would like, despite them same players would have turned the game off hours ago. I believe the studio still thought, after succeeding at making a mature game for the last 20 or so hours, that it was still a game for gamers, and that gamers are 15.

This is a confusing and pervasive trend, that still sticks with the industry, that somehow, all the kids who played SNES, or the Playstation, gave up when they hit puberty, like they would action figures or barbies. The average age for a gamer, i think, is 37. Yet the industry still thinks it is 15. People don't just "give up" on gaming. Oh, some do, but not you know what i mean. I believe most developers are slowly coming to terms with their market audience, but the publishers, the hives of scum and villainy, force them to make the games like every other game, in order to maximise profits.

So, rather than the games themselves becoming more mature, even though they slightly are, i belive the perception of games maturing, comes through eyes that themselves are maturing. We as players slowly percieve the world differently, so look deeper into games than we might once have. This is the same with movies and books. The game industry needs to catch up with the perceptions and maturity of gamers before they can become mature.

Jesus that was a long one.

A long one... but a good one.

Totally agree about your last point - either the gamers are still immature or the publishers wont allow the developers and creators to actually move ahead. And i dont think the numbers add up if you look at the stats for who are gamers nowdays.

Interesting story that turns what you wrote on your head for one example at least - LA Noire developer Team Bondi or more specifically Director Brendan McNamara spoke out quite a bit after the game was released stating that Rockstar who published the game held him back from putting more things in like the end of the game.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

LOL the Batman figurines, exactly right. I feel for a lot of these developers because it comes down to the publishers who aren't video game fans doing what they can for money.

'kungl is right, in the 70's and 80's a lot of shit games were released and tried to milk money BUT the difference compared to now is those games made no money, companies folded and the industry crashed and burned until Nintendo came out and Mario Bros saved the game like a memory card

IMO the industry needs a crash.

Check out EventStatus the dude is a video game voice that needs to be heard by the masses

http://youtu.be/HCeyXSftztI

As for the actual topic lol I don't think games have evolved in to anything special. Not many games released in the last few years are as good as MGS. The pursuit of realism is coming at the expense of creativity and originality. Not enough risk for doing different things because the safe option is to fall back on to a FPS and make some money.

Uncharted 2 and ME2 are perfect examples of games slanted to the FPS market.

I think the industry is trying, but is somewhat stifled by producers who think that gamers need something actiony, and can't play a whole game without being pandered to. Couple of examples: *SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD*

Heavy Rain: A brutal game, that did not beat around the bush, punches you in the face with messages and subtext. Mature? To a certain extent, but they throw a dream sequence with the lead female protaganist in her underwear fighting off robbers.

Reason? The only thing i could think of why this happened, was the game was more relaxed until then, and they needed something to capture the audiences limited attention, rather than think we could handle something that breaks the mold. Action and story really kicks into gear not long after then anyway, so the whole sequence is nonsense.

L.A Noire: A game that tried something new, interrogating people, a no nonsense, adult look at nudity and death. Showed the protaganist as flawed, and doesn't give him many relatable qualities. Then over the course of the game, the audience slowly starts accepting him, and relating to him. No mean feat, honestly. The audience had been playing a mature game, under the hood of the most traditionally immature genre there is, the sandbox. And gamers accepted it, and played it through.

Until the end, where all pretence of trying to be mature and different end. The end of the game, rather than folow with everything that made the game, they decided to just give the player a flamethrower. And turn it into a corridor shooter. No conversations, no learning motivations, no nothing. Go in a tunnel with a flamethrower and torch people. Why this sudden shift in genres and tone, and why, for all that is good and holy, give the lead a flamethrower? I think they run out of ideas to have the gameplay be the same, conversations, arrests, etc. and still have the greek tradgedy ending. The reason this ending is immature, is not because it is poorly designed, or heavy handed, or even the genre shift, but because the game falls back on something it knows gamers will push on with, despite playing 20+ hours on the game beforehand. Rather than back itself, it turned itself into what 15 year olds would like, despite them same players would have turned the game off hours ago. I believe the studio still thought, after succeeding at making a mature game for the last 20 or so hours, that it was still a game for gamers, and that gamers are 15.

This is a confusing and pervasive trend, that still sticks with the industry, that somehow, all the kids who played SNES, or the Playstation, gave up when they hit puberty, like they would action figures or barbies. The average age for a gamer, i think, is 37. Yet the industry still thinks it is 15. People don't just "give up" on gaming. Oh, some do, but not you know what i mean. I believe most developers are slowly coming to terms with their market audience, but the publishers, the hives of scum and villainy, force them to make the games like every other game, in order to maximise profits.

So, rather than the games themselves becoming more mature, even though they slightly are, i belive the perception of games maturing, comes through eyes that themselves are maturing. We as players slowly percieve the world differently, so look deeper into games than we might once have. This is the same with movies and books. The game industry needs to catch up with the perceptions and maturity of gamers before they can become mature.

Jesus that was a long one.

Good points.

LA Noire ending annoyed the shit out of me and really killed the game for me.

Heavy Rain was a very bold attempt and while it was buggy at times (my game froze the first time I played as the FBI guy) it was a very satisfying experience but there just is not enough support out there from publishers to push an untested game up against a yearly CoD game or the yearly roster update EA sports title.

Catherine smashed Atlus sales.

Gamers want their CoD because it is fun but gamers also want a Heavy Rain or Catherine because it is different and variety is only a good thing.

 

[MattYg1]

lol if you think there weren't shitty cash-in games released in spades back in the 90s...80s...70s.

On topic - maturing how? Gameplay/innovation-wise there is always new ground being explored if you know where to look (CoD is probably not the right place to look :lol: ). Xbox Live Arcade has heaps of interesting, innovative games. That said, I guess it makes sense that as time goes on it becomes harder and harder to come up with that new amazing idea that no one has ever done before.

Story-wise, again depends what you're looking for. There is no doubt that some games are presenting deeper and more emotionally driven stories...but many aren't, and don't need or want to, because they're the equivalent of the hollywood blockbuster.

Are movies maturing? Doubt it.

hey adam... Not sure if you clicked on the link and read my article but i go into detail in there by what i mean about gameplay "immaturity" if you will. Its probably more so evolution rather than a matter of maturity. At its core most games still have the same progression of their distant arcade relatives. While thats not a bad thing its a little confusing when so much is spoon fed to gamers about growth, change and maturity.

You mention XBLA and I agree there are some absolute gems on there but they are pushed as cheap, quick concepts to keep you occupied before the big titles come out- same level of attention as say Angry Birds on IOS. And thats about where people stop with XBLA and PSN titles. Though I will admit Microsoft have done a lot better with this with their summer/winter of arcade promos.

Further to this you have people who think graphical and technical improvement equals maturity - which im sure you would agree is not always the case - look at a title like Rayman Origins and tell me its not a gorgeous game or going back to XBLA games "Outland" or "Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet".

Also in the article I discuss that some games like "Shadows of the Damned" and "Duke Nukem" have stories that suit the vibe of their gameplay which is perfect, and of course yes games like "CoD" are designed to be hollywood blockbusters and pull it off better than Hollywood blockbusters.

Are movies maturing? no - but take a look at television nowdays with shows like Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter and shows like The Sopranos...

 

[MattYg1]

As for the actual topic lol I don't think games have evolved in to anything special. Not many games released in the last few years are as good as MGS. The pursuit of realism is coming at the expense of creativity and originality. Not enough risk for doing different things because the safe option is to fall back on to a FPS and make some money.

this is why it makes no sense to me why a game like "Shadows of the Damned" wasnt in the slightest advertised by EA!

A game made by Shinji Mikami, Suda51 and Akira Yamaoka which is exactly what it is, it doesnt try to be a dramatic story where you care about the characters and infact is a parody of that very thing. It is such a great old school throwback videogame in a modern game wrapper.

And I just know the same thing will happen with "Lollipop Chainsaw"

Your 100% variety is a great thing and it is needed.

I don't know if we have quite reached the stage where the industry needs to crash, i think it needs a fresh face and I still contend that Apple will be that face as we head towards Digital distribution. But if the Activisions and Capcoms and EA's of the world aren't careful we aren't far of a fall and that would piss me right off because I still hold out hope for the future of gaming moving away from the direction its headed in and finding a better balance and with that balance will come a clear identity about what the industry actually is.

That is why I mention in the article the rise of television and the Golden age that television is having at the moment.

 

[afinalsin666]

Mario Bros saved the game like a memory card

Haha, great call. This is a great thread, love reading the different veiewpoints and stuff. For those interested in in depth analysis of the state of gaming go here and watch the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtraCreditz

They were on the escapist but all their vids got taken down, hopefully they upload them there.

 

[IanG]

Well maturing or not they've come a long way since Pong

 

[Pete Cash]

I think we need to differ between something that is aimed at adults and an artwork that is mature. Not that there is anything wrong with Mortal Kombat (its awesome) but its not a mature game. its a game aimed at adults.

Video games are trying. You can see it in games like LA Noire and Heavy Rain as afinalsin666 pointed out above. Where video games falls down a bit is the writing tends to lean towards the shit. In afinalsin666 post he says the player was not supposed to identify with Cole well if thats the case than why is he the protagonist. I enjoyed it as a game and I am a fan of adventure games so even if it was easy it was a step in the right direction for story driven gaming but Cole as a protagonist left a lot to be desired because he wasn't a deep character. We spent the game with this man and I can't understand why he was such a psychopath. If we compare it to a media that is somewhat mature in literature and probably the most on the surface dislikeable protagonist I can think of off the top of my head with Nabokovs Lolita and Humbert Humbert. HH is an actual paedophile/wife beater/professional jerk who married a woman simply to have access to her daughter and does many a bad thing but because Nabokov was a good writer (one of the best of all time) he created a realistic deep character. HH was quite detestable but he had a sense of humour and he was self depreciating whilst having a sense of arrogance about him. He would do bad things but be able to charm the reader where Cole would just shout like a maniac and do terrible things for no real reason at all.

It was an admirable attempt to create an artistic game or a mature game but at the end of the day as far as Noir style adventure games go it was less mature than Grim Fandango a game starring a talking skeleton.

 

[Eelectrica]

The problem is big companies like EA swallowing up the creative companies like Bioware, Westwood and forcing them into the EA way which is release a sequel every year and try to make it a blockbuster. Game developers being forced to play it safe and not take risks.
Some of the innovative classics like Thief and Deus Ex wouldn't have been made by EA. Actually EA cancelled the game that eventually turned out to be Deus Ex.

Look at Deus Ex - Invisible War where they tried to create a game aimed at the mass market. all they really achieved was an average game which was a very watered down version of the original.

 

[perverse]

The problem is big companies like EA swallowing up the creative companies like Bioware, Westwood and forcing them into the EA way which is release a sequel every year and try to make it a blockbuster. Game developers being forced to play it safe and not take risks.
Some of the innovative classics like Thief and Deus Ex wouldn't have been made by EA. Actually EA cancelled the game that eventually turned out to be Deus Ex.

Look at Deus Ex - Invisible War where they tried to create a game aimed at the mass market. all they really achieved was an average game which was a very watered down version of the original.

this, in a nutshell. there are only 2 big game developers left that i will trust to not shit on my dreams when they release a game, and those 2 are Valve and Blizzard. every single other "AAA" game release i approach with intense skepticism... and i'm usually justified once i play it.

EA is creating a massive, massive black hole where innovation used to reside in game development. after all, it's profitable to churn out COD 12 to the mindless dicks that keep eating it up. if you look at your games shelf, and see 7 copies of Fifa, 5 copies of COD, every Sims expansion known the man... etc... i'm talking to you. note that all of these are EA releases. EA are an absolute scourge on game development. i find it so disheartening that so many people enjoy playing the same rehashed shit over and over again. perhaps i shouldn't be blaming EA, perhaps i should be blaming the aggregate IQ of the general gaming population.

yeah, this topic makes me angry. EA have destroyed a lot of IP's that were close to my heart. Command and Conquer was the first PC game i ever owned... what they've done with that franchise is absolutely shameful.

 

[Parra Pride]

The problem is big companies like EA swallowing up the creative companies like Bioware, Westwood and forcing them into the EA way which is release a sequel every year and try to make it a blockbuster. Game developers being forced to play it safe and not take risks.
Some of the innovative classics like Thief and Deus Ex wouldn't have been made by EA. Actually EA cancelled the game that eventually turned out to be Deus Ex.

Look at Deus Ex - Invisible War where they tried to create a game aimed at the mass market. all they really achieved was an average game which was a very watered down version of the original.

If that's the case I wish EA would hurry up and make Bioware come out with Jade Empire 2.

 

[Eelectrica]

this, in a nutshell. there are only 2 big game developers left that i will trust to not shit on my dreams when they release a game, and those 2 are Valve and Blizzard. every single other "AAA" game release i approach with intense skepticism... and i'm usually justified once i play it.

EA is creating a massive, massive black hole where innovation used to reside in game development. after all, it's profitable to churn out COD 12 to the mindless dicks that keep eating it up. if you look at your games shelf, and see 7 copies of Fifa, 5 copies of COD, every Sims expansion known the man... etc... i'm talking to you. note that all of these are EA releases. EA are an absolute scourge on game development. i find it so disheartening that so many people enjoy playing the same rehashed shit over and over again. perhaps i shouldn't be blaming EA, perhaps i should be blaming the aggregate IQ of the general gaming population.

yeah, this topic makes me angry. EA have destroyed a lot of IP's that were close to my heart. Command and Conquer was the first PC game i ever owned... what they've done with that franchise is absolutely shameful.

Agree with all that. C&C was one of my favorite franchises as well. Ah the hours I spent on that when I probably should have been studying. :lol:

EA don't care about the quality of games they release, for them get it's all about getting it out there and let the marketing team handle the rest.

The joke that is Dragon Age 2 sums up EA in one. Take a popular franchise, get it out, don't worry about quality, upgrade the graphics, market the crap out of it with pre-sale bonuses. Make it look 'cool' so little Johnny can pester mum and dad who don't know any better to buy it. And to take one step further, slap the Bioware name on it, a name gamers had come to trust over the years as a company that released quality. :crazy:

I think the reason Valve can operate the way they do is because of Steam. Publishing games means they keep a steady income and can take the time to work on their own games and release it when they feel it's ready.

Financial problems force Origin to sell out to EA and killed Looking Glass who created some classics as well like the original Thief and Thief 2.

 

[boxhead]

I don't think they are maturing at all, if anything they are steadily declining in such terms. Classics like Shadow of the Colossus and ICO were avoided mostly because they were different and broke with the conventions of modern video games; the only reason they get such prominent attention now is that the masses have read the hype from people who did play those games. CoD and EA are ruining the gaming landscape for me; most games are mindless, albeit 'fun' or visually impeccable, and are lacking in qualities that would entertain a more studied audience. Even the occasional game that does something different is often restricted or hampered by the very conventions that define modern games, like Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire. My definition of 'maturing' might be a bit different though.