Game Over?

[Avatar]

End of game as industry 'dies'

San Jose - The electronic game industry is dead, veteran computer software designers in the heart of Silicon Valley have lamented.

Chris Crawford, whose experience creating electronic games dated back to when he went to work for Atari in 1979, sounded a death knell for the industry during a gripe session at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose.

"Nothing better can be done about the game industry, because it is dead," Crawford groused. "It is a body that has a beating heart, but is essentially brain dead."

Interactive story telling was the future, Crawford said.

"Games are about things, while story telling is about people," the game designer and author told an audience of 500 during a session titled "Burn baby burn - Game developers rant."

Lack of business sense kills creativity

Many in the audience of game designers and enthusiasts challenged Crawford, while others agreed and suggested ways the industry might be resurrected.

"People are things," someone shouted.

Crawford was backed by rants from five other game developers who, in a panel discussion, pointed out why the game industry seemed lifeless.

Seamus Blackley, a game developer with Creative Artist Agency, contended a lack of business sense by game developers was killing creativity because it left them relying on corporate publishers to market their ideas.

"We have great ideas," Blackley said. "What's happening is that we dont make a good business around the ideas.

"Think about money and consider how the audience is going to purchase independent games."

The game industry should be more like the movie industry where daring independent films such as "Brokeback Mountain" have a chance of being made, Blackley said.

What do you all think about this? And what sort of games could you envisage coming from it if it works out that way?

--A

[Loredoctor]

I doubt the games industry will die; many companies are beginning to do away with the middle man and thus have more financial freedom.

[Avatar]

While I agree with you, I don't think he meant that no more games would be made. Rather, that it was dying "spiritually."

Still hopefully this search for greater freedom will revitalise things. *shrug*

Perhaps it's pending the next tech breakthrough, I don't know.

--A

[Loredoctor]

While I agree with you, I don't think he meant that no more games would be made. Rather, that it was dying "spiritually."

Yeah, it is. It's also becoming massively-hyped: trash like Halo 2 hyped to death and everyone waits at midnight to buy it. Not about gaming really - it's all about marketing. Though Oblivion is a great game despite it being hyped.

[Avatar]

That was the sort of thing I was thinking about too. The hype, the rehashing of existing games, the reliance on a great concept that gets done, redone, and overdone, the relatively small number of innovative game types.

--A

[Marv]

i kind of disagree with the that Chris Crawford guy. this is the way its always been done. maybe the margins have become smaller over the years so the lines between 're-tweaking' already existing games and pioneering new games has become blurred but there are new exciting games coming out, you just have to look for them.

maybe it's a pretty puerile thing to say but thats capitalism mate. all innovative thinking will be manipulated until it makes money.*shrugs*

[Avatar]

Aaah, the joys of capitalism. Whatever happened to Art for Art's Sake?

*shakes head*

But those lines are getting very blurred I think Tazz. Hell, even the marketing is taking advantage of similar previous ideas now, along the lines of "Did you love X? Then you'll love Y!"

--A

[Nav]

The one big problem I see is that games are costing more and more to make, so eventually developers will only bother with what they percieve as 'banker' titles. I can see the innovation getting sucked out of the industry as we get spoon-fed Halo 7, Ghost Recon 9, Civilization 6, Grand Theft Auto 13 and World of Warcraft: Rise of the Murlocs.

[Warmark]

I agree there is a distinct lack of new titles out and mainly just sequels.

I guess its seen as too much of a financial risk.

[Avatar]

Agreed. And the pickier gamers get, the more difficult it's going to be to break a new concept in.

But then, are there still new game concepts to be had? What's left? Even given a new tech breakthrough, they're likely going to be variations on a theme.

--A

[Loredoctor]

But then, are there still new game concepts to be had? What's left? Even given a new tech breakthrough, they're likely going to be variations on a theme.

--A

True, but how are we to know that?

[Avatar]

Very true. It's impossible to predict the emergence of genius, and impossible to foresee a new concept before it appears. (Unless of course you're coming up with the concept.)

Open-ended play seems to be in vogue now. I predict that this will be a theme for some time to come.

--A

[Revan]

While I agree with you, I don't think he meant that no more games would be made. Rather, that it was dying "spiritually."

Yeah, it is. It's also becoming massively-hyped: trash like Halo 2 hyped to death and everyone waits at midnight to buy it. Not about gaming really - it's all about marketing. Though Oblivion is a great game despite it being hyped.

I liked Halo 2, and I am yet to play Elder Scrolls 4.

Nah, the gaming industry will never die I think.

But I do see this guys point though. Knight of the Old Republic 2 was a class game. Darker and better than it's predecessor; but the ending was nothing short of awful. And the reason wasn't because the complany was lazy or that they couldn't think of anything better. It is because Lucasarts wanted the game out before Christmas to make as much money out of it as possible - therefore the company who made it was forced to cut loads out story out the ending - ruining what would have been an amazing all round game.

It was all about the money - which is kinda sad. But I suppose, in the end, that's what keeps this industry going.

[Avatar]

Agreed on both points Darth. But then, as much as money, it's the gamers who keep it going as well.

The solution is don't buy games that are crap, or rehashes, or lousy spin-offs or just overhyped.

They'll learn. It's become, as you point out, a driven industry. Driven by the demand of gamers as well as by cash.

It's up to the gamers to tell the industry what's acceptable and what's not. And the only way to do it is to withold money.

--A

[Queeaqueg]

Games will never die, give me a good old shooter or RPG, they always different and if they are not well doesn't matter.

[Loredoctor]

It's up to the gamers to tell the industry what's acceptable and what's not. And the only way to do it is to withold money.

--A

Unfortunately, that didn't work with the cinema industry; games may go the same way.

[Revan]

It's working with the music industry - which has pretty much been permently damaged by the ability to downlad songs.

[Loredoctor]

Yeah, though the console industry is less affected by piracy.

I honestly think that's where gaming is headed.

[blackholearmy]

Well...yeah. The Xbox360 annoyed me to no end.

You see, for me, being fairly young, gaming started with the NES generation. I didn't actually own one, but it was awesome fun, there were games that the Atari hadn't even thought of, and it was a innovation in its own right.

Then came the SNES generation. It was more of the same. But it was a brilliant more of the same. It was the NES/Master System, refined, and improved, with far better graphics, sound, and more gameplay. Games were bigger, and more fun.

So, we've had revolution, and refinement.

Then came the N64/Ps1. 3D gaming. It existed before that, but these two consoles really kicked it off. It was another revolution, so to speak. 3D made FPSes bloom (I'm discounting the PC here, obviously), created a whole new style of platformer, and really kicked off a new generation of gaming.

Flick foward to our generation. GCN, Dreamcast, Ps2, and Xbox. When you compare the GCN with the '64, or the Xbox with the Ps1, the different is marked. That's our improvement. We've seen 3D come sheepishly onto the stage, and now, it's become a true star, and, all in all, graphics are of amazing standards. We can make out facial expressions with ease, and, although some characters may occasionally look a bit blocky, it's amazing, compared to the Ps1 generation.

Now, we have the Xbox360. What's this? Graphics that look more realistic? Better sound quality? More storage space to put shiny attacks on? Right, right. I'll be over here, playing Crystalis on my NES.

The simple matter of the fact is that the new hardware pushed developers to do new things. The price of game development meant everyone could have a small piece of the pie.

What we see now is horrendously expensive game development, as, as a result, games that cater to the lowest common denominator. I mean, when you look at this generation's consoles, innovative and new ideas are far and few between, and, when they're implemented well, like Eternal Darkness, the sales are pitiful, in any case.

I mean, publishers are out to make a quick buck, (Well, not necessarily quick, and some of them care more about a good game them money, but...) however, eventually I'm hoping they'll realise that not every gamer wants Final Fantasy XIXVIXICXIXCVLIXLCXIVCICXCXVI.

Nintendo's taking an interesting approach this generation, and, really, it's the only thing that's still got me interested in the gaming scene. If they manage to make the Revolution work so it actually is a Revolution, it might make this generation worth taking part of...

[Loredoctor]

What is so special about the Revolution?