I want to discuss the gaming industry with you guys, and seriously. Serious talk, not "oh this game is cool" I mean: "This is the state of the industry, and this is where it is heading."
Basically, what I will do, is bring up a topic, we discuss it for a while, and then, if conversation starts to dwindle, I will bring up a new one.

Topic #1:Modern military shooters.
I want to hear your thoughts on modern military shooters. It seems there is always a new one being released, for example: Homefront, CoD, and Battlefield.

Do you feel the market is oversaturated with these games?

What do you feel are the key problems with this genre, and how would you go about fixing them?

Alternatively, you might believe that the genre is fine as it is, and I would like to hear your justification as to why you actually like these games.



For discussion!

_________________
Every other one of my Aliases: some variation on the word "Mahogany"

Yes.Lack of innovation in nearly every regard.Innovate. Experiment with new gameplay and thematic elements.

Sorry, I know that's not really a conversation sparking answer, but that's what I think
I'll go out on a limb here and say you agree?

MMS games are just a bit of dumb fun for me, once a year.
I'll pick up a CoD game within release month, it's brainless, stupid, dumb fun.
I don't care much for innovation, to be honest, as long as the base gameplay is of an acceptable standard.

_________________
Every other one of my Aliases: some variation on the word "Mahogany"

I've never liked FPS but that's only because I feel sick when playing or watching them being played. Which is kind of a shame as I would love to try out CoD and Battlefield etc.

_________________
Midian: Real authentic stuff is the pizza the Teenage mutant Ninja Turtles eat. Fast, cheap and sloppy
Midian: Like NA
CurryKing: I wanted the title to be: This image is in no way grooming you for Thor's mighty hammer

I used to have this problem with certain games as well. One of the reasons I prefer TPS games to FPS games.

_________________
Yeah man I conquered this sucka! -Mac
Attitude check...Yeah, I'm really high! -Zoe

http://ssx.ozmonet.com/user/215479529

Yeah. Too many developers/publishers trying to cash in on CoD's success. Thought to be fair to EA Medal of Honor and Battlefield existed before CoD (but with Medal of Honor they changed too much with the series to make it a CoD clone and it lost its sense of identity)


Too much focus on copying the competition. Yearly installments in the same series is a problem as well.


Spent more time on perfecting a game. Spend time with the game's/series' community to fix problems with the game (like what and the SSX team did with Merqury City)

_________________
Yeah man I conquered this sucka! -Mac
Attitude check...Yeah, I'm really high! -Zoe

http://ssx.ozmonet.com/user/215479529

Hi All:

I believe that the gaming industry has regressed. The logic behind my opinion lies in the fact that, ever since the world was introduced to the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), gaming companies have placed an intense focus on ameliorating the challenges of their games, and marketing them towards people which enjoyed such products because these games tested an individual's skill level. Nevertheless, Nintendo's new gaming console, the Nintendo Wii Entertainment System (NWES), is designed to play the following games, ones which cater to pop culture fanatics, rather than the traditional gaming establishment: Just Dance 2, and Guitar Hero. In my opinion, Just Dance 2 is designed to make a profit off everyone who either is infatuated with celebrities or wants to become one. Guitar Hero is geared towards the same persons who are described herein. Perhaps the Nintendo corporation has decided that they no longer have to produce games for conventional gamers, individuals who appreciate challenges. Rather, the Nintendo company has discovered that they can reap tremendous fiscal dividends from the insecurities of those which deify celebrities, or those who watch pop stars with little talent and an ungodly amount of cash, and are planning the most rapid route to fortune, one which consists of putting in the least amount of effort possible to earn the largest attainable increase. It should be duly noted that the Nintendo industry is fully aware of the growing amount of people who think that they have finally mastered global economics: the easiest path to success is the one which entails getting the biggest yield from the smallest input. The irony, though, is that the Nintendo corporation might be using the same philosophy to acquire astonishing sums of wealth from persons who believe that they can reduce the complexities of worldwide economics to a simple equation. What is even more laughable is that the people who buy Just Dance 2 and Guitar Hero to affirm their oversimplified philosophy on how to earn money are actually losing their dollars and cents to the Nintendo company that sells them products which flatter their sophistry, who uses the same formula to become rich themselves. I must reemphasize that a true gamer would probably not buy games for the reasons stated above. Let's hope that the trend which I outlined during the latter portion of my commentary discontinues, and gaming corporations once again begin to engineer games for those who yearn for challenges which test their physical and mental acuity.

Take care.

Best Wishes to All,
QuotidianPerfection

Well, yeah, QP, was wondering when you would arrive :-P
It's quite clear that nowadays games are more focused on the "casual" market, such as the games you have described, rather than "core" games such as, for example, Dark Souls or Tekken.
These games are not easily accessible, and require time and effort to "get good" as it were.
This turns off such described "casuals" yet is a highly desired feature to a "core" gamer.
Unfortunately, the "core" gaming market is much smaller than that of "casual" gamers, as we can see, "casuals" include people of all ages and from all walks of life, anyone can pick up a motion controller and choreograph to a screen, and enjoy doing it.
Meanwhile, "core" gamers (such as myself) are generally ignored in the mass market, as the casual market is so much larger.

But we still get our fair share of core games, (For example-XCom and Counter-strike:GO) so no need to be upset, core gaming isn't "dying".

_________________
Every other one of my Aliases: some variation on the word "Mahogany"

Hi Salariedcat7507:

Thank you for your response.

Actually, in my last post, I was expressing concern, rather than indignation, over today's gaming market. Let me add the following: I do not want the gaming industry to take a cue from music corporations, who have turned songs, which formerly were an expression of one's feelings, into a popularity contest. The problem with thinking in this manner is that poorly produced music gets more widespread acclaim than superbly engineered tunes just because a substantial percentage of the world identifies with a certain topic which a particular track addresses. For example, an artist can take considerable time to compose a phenomenal song, only to be trumped by a song thrown together in fifteen minutes, and marketed towards everyone around the world who likes going clubbing. Here is the formula that music companies currently use to sell their products: we know that many people enjoy clubbing, so let's put out tunes which reinforce the message that says soon everyone will go clubbing; so, if you are a club owner, buy our tunes, so that more people come to your club, and, if you are a clubber, buy our songs, so that you can get the authentic sense of clubbing at home. Years ago, however, the music industry never catered to these people--they sold products to people who appreciated music and lyrics. It is not the music industry's fault, though, since they are simply targeting potential customers off whom they will earn the biggest yield. I think it is time for gaming consumers, as a whole, to look at what happened to the music industry, and understand what might happen if they fall in the habit of playing video games to belong to a popular movement, rather than doing the preceding to test their skill level.

Best,
QP

Quotidian, I'll petition to have Maverickeast put in a Lounge King/Queen award for GA XI, and you will win it by a landslide.

Also I agree with you but I don't blame anybody, including consumers, companies, reviewers, or marketing. It's just the natural trend of something becoming popular and people wanting to make money off it.

A gaming crash+rebirth would be nice.

Dammit QP, I can only aspire to your level of eloquence :-P

Not sure how well a gaming crash would go down....but lower production costs would be a good thing.
Gaming being big money is bad for it at it's core.

_________________
Every other one of my Aliases: some variation on the word "Mahogany"

Hi Marcus Annex and Salariedcat7507:

Thanks for your input, as well as for your kind words!

My concern about gaming production is that companies which formerly produced quality games are start to put cheaply made products on the market that will prove salable due to shock value, rather than how well-made they are. When I refer to shock value, I am not singling out games which use profanity and violence, as I am fully cognizant of the fact that, in the context of a war game, for example, characters will curse to illustrate contempt for enemies, and kill adversaries to ensure survival. Such games mirror both the language and actions of army members in realistic war environments. The problem I have with certain games some corporations are composing is that their only purpose is to astonish customers with gratuitous sexual acts featured in their storylines. While I am sure some pornography addicts might buy such games to fulfill some of their sexual fantasies, others will probably speak strongly against these products. The issue becomes more complicated as children persuade their adult siblings to buy such X-rated games for them so that youngsters will attain a high approval rating among other peers who have also bought adult gaming material to demonstrate how much they know about what society considers a socially taboo topic: sex. Yet, while pornographic junkies purchase sexual video games to satisfy their fantasies, conservative watchdog groups buy such material to incinerate publicly to emphasize their view that such material is smut, and children convince their brothers and sisters to pay for such games so that they have a sense of belonging among their companions who have acted in a similar fashion—as well as tangible proof that they are cognizant of sexual themes which society thinks they should be wholly ignorant of at their given ages—all the revenue is going to gaming corporations who have ignited these controversies. Certain music companies today construct tunes and music videos to cater to the same individuals highlighted above. However, while the highly sexually charged content of the music industries is delivered to the people described herein through passive oral-aural means, video games are geared towards a similar crowd through the same type of reception, except that it is active, rather than passive, in nature. In other words, whereas customers of songs and music videos containing gratuitous sexual concepts merely listen to these tunes and watch these videos, consumers of X-rated sexual video games must play them, implying that they are actively involved in bringing about the explicit sexual conversations and gratuitous sexual conduct in the game as they progress through certain situations and levels. I am a proponent of free speech and am respectful of others' pursuit of happiness; hence, I am in no way claiming that the X-rated sexual products made by gaming and music industries should be outlawed. In both these corporations, marketing think tanks have probably told their companies that producing smut, and then putting X-rated sexual material on the open market, will effectuate in substantial financial yields. In a nutshell, what is occurring is basic capitalism: a producer of a given item sells it to the portions of the globe who appear most enthralled by the product. Hence, capitalism relies on symbiotic parasitism. What I am concerned about, though, is that gaming companies will emulate music corporations, and manufacture an overwhelming amount of pornographic material, rather than challenging games, complete with high-resolution graphics, the latter of which traditional gamers have always enjoyed.

Take care,
QP

Relevant feature on Homefront and what the current hype about modern military shooters can do to a smaller developer:

http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/1/3560318/homefront-kaos-studios-thq

Super good read!

_________________

That was an amazing article, I had no clue about the troubles behind the development behind Homefront.

"Homefront is an example of how AAA publishing and production encourage bad judgment and mismanagement. It discourages creative risks, but doesn’t bat an eye at blowing millions of dollars and months of development time on a glorified E3 demo."

That pretty much sums up a lot of problems with the industry, the fact that millions of dollars are involved.

_________________
Every other one of my Aliases: some variation on the word "Mahogany"

Hi flexx and Salariedcat7507:

Let me first thank flexx for the link. It provides a background for what is transpiring today in the gaming industry: it involves, to paraphrase Salariedcat7507, an emphasis on money, and a deemphasis on creativity. No one can fault the gaming industry for this because, although well-constructed games might be prized by conventional gamers, contemporary gamers might be looking to purchase a product which is reflective of the world in which they live. Hence, whereas traditional gamers seek games which challenge their coordination in idealized settings, such as when the Super Mario Brothers try to rescue Princess Toadstool from Bowser, newer gamers believe that it is imperative that gaming companies produce realistic games to illustrate that they identify with the realistic struggles of the commoner. An example of the preceding would be consumers who buy Grand Theft Auto, an realm where imperfect humans replace the old-fashioned video games, which consisted primarily of hereos and villains. (Anyone who is interested in society's turn away from ethical absolutism and towards moral relativism should read the interview with Paul Jay, filmmaker and writer of Wrestling with Shadows: The Bret Hart Story.) Reality-based themes, though, are less imaginative than ideal-based themes; certainly, one would find Robert Frost's poetry far more intriguing than a police report. However, many people can relate more to realistic games than superbly engineered idealistic ones which promote the tension between heroism and villainy. Therefore, I can hardly fault gaming corporations' decision to construct an overwhelming amount of games cemented in realism, rather than idealism. The gaming corporations are, as capitalistic institutes, only doing what every other industry does: putting out products that will gross the highest amount of profit.

Take care,
QP

Although reading your post feels like reading something from a scholarly publication, you make some interesting points.

I remember the days when all you had to know was the main premise of the game, and you could enjoy it, and that premise was usually based around the game's core mechanic. It was simpler, but I don't really know if it was because of some changing view on morals. Wasn't it just because video games as an art form was in its infancy? Isn't it simply a consequence of evolving technology and increasing maturity among players?

I mean, you can say all you want about what happens to a medium when the budgets, and thus the stakes go up, but damn if it doesn't produce some cool stuff. If you compare with film, for every Avatar there's 100 deep and interesting films made with a thousandth of the budget. And for every Modern Warfare 3 there's 100 cool indie games with deep stories and quirky mechanics. And with the recent trend of crowdfunding good ideas, their budgets are quite substantial sometimes too. I think it's all good for the players, and quality will always sell. There's only a certain amount of cutting corners and being uncreative you can do before the players move on to something else.

_________________

Hi flexx:

Thank you for your kind words!

I remember playing Ms. PacMan at arcades in the mall in the 1980's. It was a one-dimensional, single joystick game [i.e., if you discount the start buttons for one or two player(s)] However, the game, which would be considered primitive by comparison to games such as SSX3, is actually considered a classic, since it was one of the most technologically advanced products of its time. The trend in the gaming industry always was to engineer a game that took a classic game, and to make another game which proved superior in the following categories: theme, graphics, gameplay, and plotline. I hope you're right: that people will eventually become bored of some of the unimaginative games certain gaming corporations are currently manufacturing, and that they return to the formula mentioned above, a formula which has always worked and satisfied the needs of conventional gamers.

Take care,
QP