The Decline (not the death) of Gaming

HAL_404

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,240
what do you think about the following video content? I agree it has declined, not in last throws before death

 
Given that videogames made more money than movies and TV last year, i'm not worried.

It's the last year before a new console, the years before a new console reveal/release are ALWAYS light years when it comes to game content, everyones gearing up the best studios for the new big thing.
 
Given that videogames made more money than movies and TV last year, i'm not worried.

It's the last year before a new console, the years before a new console reveal/release are ALWAYS light years when it comes to game content, everyones gearing up the best studios for the new big thing.


LOL thanks, ... you just proved the accuracy of that video's content:

"Given that videogames made more money than movies and TV last year, i'm not worried."

Main theme of that video? "All About making $$$, not content"
 
Greed-schmeed. Sure, certain companies overdo it with their monetization schemes, but you don't have to give those companies your business. I'm playing Disco Elysium right now; it's is such a unique and engaging gaming experience. So long as games like it are being produced, I'm not going to bemoan the current state of gaming.
 
Basically all the gamers that made the good stuff were programmers in the 80s 90s they grew up around malls with arcades or helped develop arcade games themselves.
With the mobile market I think there will be a slight deline in games which will improve but there is only so much you can do to move pixels around on a monitor before
you get the treadmill effect of going nowhere. I'm almost 45 years old the only hope that might hold out the industry is maybe the younger fornite crowd.

Cellphones PCs TVs and Monitor do one thing that is your mind light and brain hitting on the screen. People people are addicted to their phones they are hitting up the light not really the content.
 
30 minute video is a bit long for many to watch. Have a good summary? Sounds like it is talking about the creativity decline in pursuit of maximized profits. Do I have that right?
 
COD basically ruined the modern FPS in my opinion. Before they started pumping them out along with a new Battlefield revamp every year... we seemed to be getting unique interesting shooters regularly I distinctly remember watching an interview with someone that was developing a hyper realistic WW2 shooter and they said all of their focus groups complained about the game constantly because "this wasnt like COD" and "Hey, you should make running more like COD" or "You should be able to take more shots like in COD".

Nowadays it seems like every good game is ruined with the next installment as they add micro-transactions and/or other pay to play elements to give people an advantage.

I loved the Dead Space series... when Dead Space 3 dropped with micro-transactions I didnt even finish the game, promptly stopped playing and eventually uninstalled.
 
Given that videogames made more money than movies and TV last year, i'm not worried.

It's the last year before a new console, the years before a new console reveal/release are ALWAYS light years when it comes to game content, everyones gearing up the best studios for the new big thing.

Honestly, I don't really care how much money the studios make.

Games just aren't what they used to be.

I blame loot boxes, microtransactions, DLC, streaming and "official servers" with automatic matchmaking. All of these things have contributed to ruining the experience.

Games aren't going away any time soon, as long as someone can figure out a way to make money off of them, they will be around, but the great game experience we once had? That is all but dead at this point.
 
COD basically ruined the modern FPS in my opinion. Before they started pumping them out along with a new Battlefield revamp every year... we seemed to be getting unique interesting shooters regularly I distinctly remember watching an interview with someone that was developing a hyper realistic WW2 shooter and they said all of their focus groups complained about the game constantly because "this wasnt like COD" and "Hey, you should make running more like COD" or "You should be able to take more shots like in COD".

Nowadays it seems like every good game is ruined with the next installment as they add micro-transactions and/or other pay to play elements to give people an advantage.

I loved the Dead Space series... when Dead Space 3 dropped with micro-transactions I didnt even finish the game, promptly stopped playing and eventually uninstalled.
Those problems are mostly conflated by the different kind of groups of gamers there are.

Hobbyist [and hardcore] gamers are a minority, but can get into all kinds of games and don't mind diving into more complicated/punishing systems and/or pushing their skills on games that require planning, lengthy/heightened concentration, and/or learning. Sadly, there aren't many big developers that still value these customers, so many just slap on half-assed difficulty modes and call it a day (luckily there are indie devs that continue to target hobbyists).

The vast majority of gamers are casual and games that can easily be picked up and put down in short sessions fit their lifestyle. These guys are the target market for most companies since they're likely to make the most sales; games aimed towards them are usually tuned to be rather simple to figure out and understand with rather quickly attainable goals. Hobbyist can easily enjoy a lot of casual games too, but casuals won't normally enjoy a lot of hobbyist games because of the additional effort necessary. Unfortunately a lot of the developer add-in BS has come from this focus as well (micro-transactions, loot boxes, paid [micro]content releases, early access passes).
 
Games aren't going away any time soon, as long as someone can figure out a way to make money off of them, they will be around, but the great game experience we once had? That is all but dead at this point.
Maybe for you, I'm having a fantastic time with games. I just avoid the AAA bullshit. There's more good games than ever right now.
My issue for the past decade has always been having TOO MANY good games to play, I have thousands in my backlog.

Hell, i've avoided buying consoles not because I can't afford them or because they don't offer something I want. I haven't bought a console outside of the switch simply because I don't have enough time to play all the games I want on it. The PS4 has a ton of stuff that I'd love to try (Horizon, Uncharted, etc.) but fuck if I can find a way to fit that into the other 100 games that came out this year I want to play.
 
Sure there are a lot of uninspired crappy games these days and the average quality is in decline. But that doesn’t matter cause there are also a lot of fun, challenging, unique, creative and memorable games too.

There are certainly more good games being released each year than I have the time to play.
 
COD basically ruined the modern FPS in my opinion. Before they started pumping them out along with a new Battlefield revamp every year... we seemed to be getting unique interesting shooters regularly I distinctly remember watching an interview with someone that was developing a hyper realistic WW2 shooter and they said all of their focus groups complained about the game constantly because "this wasnt like COD" and "Hey, you should make running more like COD" or "You should be able to take more shots like in COD".
Battalion1944 was never meant as a hyper realistic game, but a highly competitive fast fps shooter.. This was precisely what the developers were going for, but they fooled a lot of people with their kickstarter and the early alpha video they released.
 
COD basically ruined the modern FPS in my opinion. Before they started pumping them out along with a new Battlefield revamp every year... we seemed to be getting unique interesting shooters regularly I distinctly remember watching an interview with someone that was developing a hyper realistic WW2 shooter and they said all of their focus groups complained about the game constantly because "this wasnt like COD" and "Hey, you should make running more like COD" or "You should be able to take more shots like in COD".

Nowadays it seems like every good game is ruined with the next installment as they add micro-transactions and/or other pay to play elements to give people an advantage.

I loved the Dead Space series... when Dead Space 3 dropped with micro-transactions I didnt even finish the game, promptly stopped playing and eventually uninstalled.


Agreed. So many of these COD fools review bombed one of the best FPS titles of all time, Red Orchestra 2 because movement was "slow", and shots weren't accurate.

The developer then caved and developed other game modes that made the game dumber.

If I had one wish, it would be that 100% of all twitchy unrealistic fast paced shooters and arena style shooters would disappear, with only the tactical shooters remaining.

Call of Modern Battlefield ruins everything.

Don't get me started on garbage like Fortnite and Overwatch. Even Counter-Strike (though I once loved it) is trash.

At least PUBG - as farfetched as it is - was reasonably tactical when it launched.


All of these unrealistic fast paced garbage titles drag down the bar for all the good titles by giving 80 IQ lowest common denominator console idiots expectations that all titles should play like them.
 
Given that videogames made more money than movies and TV last year, i'm not worried.

It's the last year before a new console, the years before a new console reveal/release are ALWAYS light years when it comes to game content, everyones gearing up the best studios for the new big thing.

So videogames quality is directly related to how much money a company made?
Man makes it easier to buy games just go for the most expensive it gotta be good
The more money I pay in micro-transaction the better the game right/
 
Agreed. So many of these COD fools review bombed one of the best FPS titles of all time, Red Orchestra 2 because movement was "slow", and shots weren't accurate.

The developer then caved and developed other game modes that made the game dumber.

If I had one wish, it would be that 100% of all twitchy unrealistic fast paced shooters and arena style shooters would disappear, with only the tactical shooters remaining.

Call of Modern Battlefield ruins everything.

Don't get me started on garbage like Fortnite and Overwatch. Even Counter-Strike (though I once loved it) is trash.

At least PUBG - as farfetched as it is - was reasonably tactical when it launched.


All of these unrealistic fast paced garbage titles drag down the bar for all the good titles by giving 80 IQ lowest common denominator console idiots expectations that all titles should play like them.
Csgo is the most skill based fps there is.
Perfect blend of strategy and reflexes.
 
Agreed. So many of these COD fools review bombed one of the best FPS titles of all time, Red Orchestra 2 because movement was "slow", and shots weren't accurate.

The developer then caved and developed other game modes that made the game dumber.

If I had one wish, it would be that 100% of all twitchy unrealistic fast paced shooters and arena style shooters would disappear, with only the tactical shooters remaining.

Call of Modern Battlefield ruins everything.

Don't get me started on garbage like Fortnite and Overwatch. Even Counter-Strike (though I once loved it) is trash.

At least PUBG - as farfetched as it is - was reasonably tactical when it launched.


All of these unrealistic fast paced garbage titles drag down the bar for all the good titles by giving 80 IQ lowest common denominator console idiots expectations that all titles should play like them.

I mean I personally get triggered when people use terms like "realistic shooters" when your interface is pressing letters and clicking a mouse while sitting in a slouched position in a chair. :p

So is anything you don't like just considered garbage?

Some of my faves were swat 3, ghost recon 2, original rainbow six. But I sure loved some doom style quick shooters as well. Try to not look at the world as garbage, but just different people like different things. You aren't better than the rest because of what video games you play versus others.
 
Csgo is the most skill based fps there is.
Perfect blend of strategy and reflexes.

I never said it didn't involve skill. It's just not a type of skill I am interested in. I played it and ran several highly ranked public servers for years. I was into it because it was one of the first games that offered "real" guns, and had a comparatively "realistic" gameplay, when compared to other titles at the time, but as other more interesting titles came out and it stayed mostly the same I lost interest.

I see Counter-Strike as an amazing revolutionary game (or mod as it were) for 2000, but totally uninteresting 20 years later.


Translation: only my taste matters. You are all playing the wrong games.


I mean I personally get triggered when people use terms like "realistic shooters" when your interface is pressing letters and clicking a mouse while sitting in a slouched position in a chair. :p

So is anything you don't like just considered garbage?

Some of my faves were swat 3, ghost recon 2, original rainbow six. But I sure loved some doom style quick shooters as well. Try to not look at the world as garbage, but just different people like different things. You aren't better than the rest because of what video games you play versus others.


I have no problem with other people liking other things than I do.

If they want to stay in their corner and do their thing, that is fine by me, which is why I don't rag on the LoL and Dota folks, or the WoW folks despite the fact that I have absolutely zero interest in their style of game.

When I start to have a problem is when the kids start coming into my corner and try to change the games I like to make them less like how I like them and more how they like them.

The way I see it, the hordes of adolescent controller wielding CoD players are a threat to the very existence of the type of gaming that I appreciate, and I will push back HARD.
 
I have no problem with other people liking other things than I do.

If they want to stay in their corner and do their thing, that is fine by me, which is why I don't rag on the LoL and Dota folks, or the WoW folks despite the fact that I have absolutely zero interest in their style of game.

When I start to have a problem is when the kids start coming into my corner and try to change the games I like to make them less like how I like them and more how they like them.

The way I see it, the hordes of adolescent controller wielding CoD players are a threat to the very existence of the type of gaming that I appreciate, and I will push back HARD.

you dont own gaming, its not your corner.
wanting to remove other ppl games just because you don't like them is a huge case of entitlement.
Mot liking them is fine but that was not what you said.
 
So videogames quality is directly related to how much money a company made?
Man makes it easier to buy games just go for the most expensive it gotta be good
The more money I pay in micro-transaction the better the game right/
No, not at all. But a healthy market means that more people are playing games and more developers are able to develop games.
I rarely, if ever, buy anything from EA, Ubisoft, etc. Maybe after a couple years when it hits $20 or less, but I do buy hundreds of indie games a year and a ton of other titles from other developers. If the market wasn't big enough for all of them, they would have a much harder time existing.
 
Those problems are mostly conflated by the different kind of groups of gamers there are.

Hobbyist [and hardcore] gamers are a minority, but can get into all kinds of games and don't mind diving into more complicated/punishing systems and/or pushing their skills on games that require planning, lengthy/heightened concentration, and/or learning. Sadly, there aren't many big developers that still value these customers, so many just slap on half-assed difficulty modes and call it a day (luckily there are indie devs that continue to target hobbyists).

The vast majority of gamers are casual and games that can easily be picked up and put down in short sessions fit their lifestyle. These guys are the target market for most companies since they're likely to make the most sales; games aimed towards them are usually tuned to be rather simple to figure out and understand with rather quickly attainable goals. Hobbyist can easily enjoy a lot of casual games too, but casuals won't normally enjoy a lot of hobbyist games because of the additional effort necessary. Unfortunately a lot of the developer add-in BS has come from this focus as well (micro-transactions, loot boxes, paid [micro]content releases, early access passes).

The issue is also a result of changing demographics, both for game developers and gamers.

Game developers - Largely used to made up of nerds. Making money always was a drive, but equally important was doing something cool that would make someone stop and think "they actually did that in game?!". Problem is many aged and are more concerned with paying the bills now which is understandable. In addition, the gaming industry grew and it is now a respectable industry with lots of jobs. We can argue that game developers make little money for the hours/work they do compared to other types of software development but fact is the industry is a respectable industry with a wide reach. That means you'll find less genuine game developers who are in it to make a good game and more who are simply looking for a career with steady income and a compatible day to day work routine. A year or two back I watched a video about EA games and what it was like to work there. Some woman recommended it as a great place to work and mentioned you didn't have to know much about games or be good at playing them. When you're a huge company with thousands of people to hire, chances are not all of them are really huge gamers. You can expand this to any industry though.

Gamers - Many have grown up with the cut down options. Many don't know about mods, server browsers, can't fathom a game with a focused art aesthetic and can't imagine a stream lined game with quality over quantity. They're more concerned about how many hours their Steam/Xbox Live profile shows than the enjoyment they got out of a single player game, and in an MP game they don't care about anything as long as it isn't pay to win. Back in the early 2000s if you sold a military themed game and then started pumping out soldiers wearing clown suits gamers would have gotten pissed, demanding refunds and sworn off the developer. These days gamers are asking for more. "As long as it is cosmetic I don't care" is the popular mantra. Aliens, cross dressers, cowboy cossplay uniforms in a AAA military FPS game? Perfectly fine for many gamers in 2019.

Game developers, Gamers & Profit - As mentioned previously, game developers themselves are more diverse with more non-gamers joining their ranks. As such, while they may have little care about the content of the game pushing for inclusiveness to maximize profits at the cost of theme or quality is more important. A nitty-gritty military shooter might make money, but if you make playable female characters and neon alien suits you'll probably pick up a sale or two. The increase might only be 3-5%, but more profits are more profits. Will it hurt the aesthetic, theme and accuracy of certain games like Battlefield? Yes, but profit margins win out at the end of the day. Inclusiveness and diversity is huge in gaming currently. Anything to make a buck goes. We'll probably never see a mainstream AAA, non-simulator game that goes for an authentic look or feel.

Agreed. So many of these COD fools review bombed one of the best FPS titles of all time, Red Orchestra 2 because movement was "slow", and shots weren't accurate.

The developer then caved and developed other game modes that made the game dumber.

It was really the other way. TWI wanted to make it much more arcadey themselves. The standard mode was "relaxed realism" and they had an arcade mode at launch. The map designs were based around smaller fast paced maps. They wanted to put in experimental weapons, player progression, unlocks and whatnot.

Eventually they made a "realistic" mode which felt more similar to the first game but it was not that popular. But the running animations were not synced for the slower pace and it looked... awkward. You could even hold a Mosin Nagant over your head, sideways, to blind fire Gears of War style.

BF3 came out at a similar time and was more realistic in terms of movement. In RO2 you glide/however above stairs, in BF3/4 each step is registered and running up stairs is slower than running across a floor like in real life. Even a lot of the shooting characteristics were more realistic.

TWI dumbed down the game on their own. I do think RS2 Vietnam is much better and enjoy it. Wish it was on UE4 though.
 
Last edited:
He is not entirely wrong. After all, when was the last time you could buy a good or any Star Trek game on the computer and no, Star Trek Online is not..........
 
Bridge Crew.

That is VR and at least for me, does not entirely count. ;) I was thinking of Star Trek: Bridge Commander. :) The thing is, there used to be Star Trek games every year for a long while and then suddenly, nothing.
 
I refuse to play any title that encourages ongoing payment to 'level up faster' online. I'm also sick to death of paying for online subscriptions re: Consoles, all these little charges along with media streaming services add up to literally break the budget.

Essentially, I'm opposed to being treated as a money pit cash cow and will boycott any platform/developer that does so.
 
Last edited:
Once you've invested the time to get completely used to COD controls its hard to play any other FPS since the controls just feel off. The nice thing about COD is you can always get the new version and dominate if you play at a pretty high level because the control scheme was always consistent (other than cranking up the sensitivity). BF V had great graphics and the frostbite engine was awesome, but the controls felt too "off" based on the COD standard for me to invest any significant time learning / playing it.
 
Calling it "the decline" instead of "a decline" is pretty pretentious, anyway.
 
The issue is also a result of changing demographics, both for game developers and gamers.
Some woman recommended it as a great place to work and mentioned you didn't have to know much about games or be good at playing them. When you're a huge company with thousands of people to hire, chances are not all of them are really huge gamers. You can expand this to any industry though.

This is not necessary a problem, if this person worked in - say - purchasing, or accounting, or HR or some function like that which doesn't directly touch th eproduct being developed. It is a huge problem if this person was an actual programmer, artist or game level designer...

Gamers - Many have grown up with the cut down options. Many don't know about mods, server browsers, can't fathom a game with a focused art aesthetic and can't imagine a stream lined game with quality over quantity. They're more concerned about how many hours their Steam/Xbox Live profile shows than the enjoyment they got out of a single player game, and in an MP game they don't care about anything as long as it isn't pay to win. Back in the early 2000s if you sold a military themed game and then started pumping out soldiers wearing clown suits gamers would have gotten pissed, demanding refunds and sworn off the developer. These days gamers are asking for more. "As long as it is cosmetic I don't care" is the popular mantra. Aliens, cross dressers, cowboy cossplay uniforms in a AAA military FPS game? Perfectly fine for many gamers in 2019.

Yeah, this pisses me off. It just becomes a huge pissing contest of people showing off their knife skins, or how much money they spent buying virtual clothing for their in game character, and it ultimately winds up detracting from the game. A game is only good, IMHO, if everhyhting is kept thematic, and nothing detracts from the aesthetic, or theme keeping the world that they have constructed as real and believable as possible. In most cases the addons from microtransactions are anything but.


Game developers, Gamers & Profit - As mentioned previously, game developers themselves are more diverse with more non-gamers joining their ranks. As such, while they may have little care about the content of the game pushing for inclusiveness to maximize profits at the cost of theme or quality is more important. A nitty-gritty military shooter might make money, but if you make playable female characters and neon alien suits you'll probably pick up a sale or two. The increase might only be 3-5%, but more profits are more profits. Will it hurt the aesthetic, theme and accuracy of certain games like Battlefield? Yes, but profit margins win out at the end of the day. Inclusiveness and diversity is huge in gaming currently. Anything to make a buck goes. We'll probably never see a mainstream AAA, non-simulator game that goes for an authentic look or feel.

Yuck


It was really the other way. TWI wanted to make it much more arcadey themselves. The standard mode was "relaxed realism" and they had an arcade mode at launch. The map designs were based around smaller fast paced maps. They wanted to put in experimental weapons, player progression, unlocks and whatnot.

Eventually they made a "realistic" mode which felt more similar to the first game but it was not that popular. But the running animations were not synced for the slower pace and it looked... awkward. You could even hold a Mosin Nagant over your head, sideways, to blind fire Gears of War style.

BF3 came out at a similar time and was more realistic in terms of movement. In RO2 you glide/however above stairs, in BF3/4 each step is registered and running up stairs is slower than running across a floor like in real life. Even a lot of the shooting characteristics were more realistic.

TWI dumbed down the game on their own. I do think RS2 Vietnam is much better and enjoy it. Wish it was on UE4 though.

My memory is a little hazy here, it has been a few years after all. Are you sure the Arcade mode was there from the very begining? I pre-ordered the game, and was one of the hardcore fans of Ostfront who thought the new default game mode (interestingly named Realism) was too fast and wasn't quite realistic enough, but I remember Arcade mode quickly being thrown together and coming out in a patch a few weeks (or a couple of months?) after launch in response to those who complained the new light realism mode was too slow and boring.

But yes, you are right, there were those of us also lobbying in the opposite direction, to bring back the old game mode, which they eventually did in "Classic" mode. Sadly at this point the game was so fragmented between Arcade mode, Realism (light) mode and Classic mode that there wasn't enough of a player base to support it. For a few months there we had a solid full 32 player classic mode server going which was amazing, but as mentioned, it didn't last long, and eventually all that was left was the original "realism" mode.
 
Just like the change in movies from artistic thought pieces of the 70's to big explosion and blockbuster fests of the late 90's to today. THIS IS NOT DEATH, just transformation, large projects with huge budgets need guaranteed returns to be financed, thus everything ends up the same COD-Battlefield-Battle Royal, etc.

Indie games exist in abundance, and with a small amount of effort consumers can separate the garbage out, and those indie games will drive the mass market (like PUBG did and the mods that came before). Creativity isn't dead, its just not as front and center as when gaming was young.
 
The biggest threat to gaming is the publishers themselves who chase short-term fads instead of long-term franchises with quality-made games. See: Battle Royale modes in everything now.
 
The issue is also a result of changing demographics, both for game developers and gamers.

Game developers - Largely used to made up of nerds. Making money always was a drive, but equally important was doing something cool that would make someone stop and think "they actually did that in game?!". Problem is many aged and are more concerned with paying the bills now which is understandable. In addition, the gaming industry grew and it is now a respectable industry with lots of jobs. We can argue that game developers make little money for the hours/work they do compared to other types of software development but fact is the industry is a respectable industry with a wide reach. That means you'll find less genuine game developers who are in it to make a good game and more who are simply looking for a career with steady income and a compatible day to day work routine. A year or two back I watched a video about EA games and what it was like to work there. Some woman recommended it as a great place to work and mentioned you didn't have to know much about games or be good at playing them. When you're a huge company with thousands of people to hire, chances are not all of them are really huge gamers. You can expand this to any industry though.

Gamers - Many have grown up with the cut down options. Many don't know about mods, server browsers, can't fathom a game with a focused art aesthetic and can't imagine a stream lined game with quality over quantity. They're more concerned about how many hours their Steam/Xbox Live profile shows than the enjoyment they got out of a single player game, and in an MP game they don't care about anything as long as it isn't pay to win. Back in the early 2000s if you sold a military themed game and then started pumping out soldiers wearing clown suits gamers would have gotten pissed, demanding refunds and sworn off the developer. These days gamers are asking for more. "As long as it is cosmetic I don't care" is the popular mantra. Aliens, cross dressers, cowboy cossplay uniforms in a AAA military FPS game? Perfectly fine for many gamers in 2019.

Game developers, Gamers & Profit - As mentioned previously, game developers themselves are more diverse with more non-gamers joining their ranks. As such, while they may have little care about the content of the game pushing for inclusiveness to maximize profits at the cost of theme or quality is more important. A nitty-gritty military shooter might make money, but if you make playable female characters and neon alien suits you'll probably pick up a sale or two. The increase might only be 3-5%, but more profits are more profits. Will it hurt the aesthetic, theme and accuracy of certain games like Battlefield? Yes, but profit margins win out at the end of the day. Inclusiveness and diversity is huge in gaming currently. Anything to make a buck goes. We'll probably never see a mainstream AAA, non-simulator game that goes for an authentic look or feel.
I'd break it down a bit further and go as far to say that companies shifted the focus of their marketing target around mid-late 2000 to '10, when playing videogames shifted to become more socially accepted. Up until that point most gamers were hobbyist and many had been for a decade or longer, but I want to say the release of the PS2 and Xbox (also Gamecube and Dreamcast to a lesser extent) as not just game systems but entertainment systems that could play games, movies, music, and access the internet, introduced more non-hobbyist to gaming than ever before (and consoles becoming normal household names).

This wasn't just a sudden shift though; it took about a decade of modern consoles being in more homes than ever, along with a development boom to produce a lot of new games for these new and now popular consoles, to change popular opinion. But, now it also wasn't an odd thing to find more parents playing videogames with their kids either, because a lot were somewhat familiar with some of the older consoles (og/super/64 nintendo, sega systems, atari, ect.) and they wanted to find another simple way to spend time with their children. With a quickly growing number of people who were familiar with consoles, "I play videogames." was something most people would only tongue-in-cheek tease about rather than turned up their nose to.

The development boom also led to a ton of bargain-bin games with many seeing acceptable success; this led to trends that were unexpectedly popular like retro-styled games and refreshes, abstract and highly[/poorly] stylized, simple and crude/crass, but also poor development trends like releasing unfinished games that needed to be patched or were content-incomplete just to meet deadlines. And, with a newer generation (PS3 and Xbox One), companies would realize it was even more acceptable to rely on what was previously exclusive to PC game development (releasing unfinished games) since internet connectivity was more prevalent than ever and nearly all these newer consoles would be connected with the storage space available to accommodate such practices.

All-in-all, videogaming is in no trouble at all, but AAA quality hobbyist-level games have become niche and almost rare because of gamings' wide popularity.
 
Play fun games, ignore bad ones. I got this gaming thing on lock down.
 
In fact, up until recently, that was my definition of what a game was.

I didn't even include the fucking casual low budget crap in the definition of what a game is at all.
I just sit on the fence most of the time. Some are entertaining, but nothing more than that.

One of the saddest parts is that a whole market has grown [almost] entirely on casual games with very little innovation (mobile); That can almost entirely be attributed to almost all developers never having been hobbyist gamers, and it's blatantly obvious. The most innovative mobile game designs haven't come from the root of gaming, but from augmenting reality, while everything else has been hacked up reskins of existing console or PC games.
 
Back
Top