Xbox has ruined gaming

[Original_Name]

I think the general course of Capitalism has contributed more than anything to the gradual erradication of what gamers like ourselves expected for video games to become in earlier years. See, with all due respect to Adam Smith (author of "The Wealth of Nations", which basically constructed the outline for Capitalism), Capitalism, while a spectacular system to create a well-sustained, profitable nation, sort of kills art on any large-scale. Let's take a step back, shall we? We'll look at the industry starting with its "reboot" in 1985.

The NES revives video gaming and brings forward such exciting and innovative classics as "Super Mario Bros.", "The Legend of Zelda", and "Metroid"; each of these games popularized or re-invented new concepts in gameplay and story-telling, yet were simple and accessible enough to become world-wide hits; Nintendo marketed its new product as a toy predominantly for children. Sega came into its own half a decade later with the Genesis, which pushed video games towards a slightly more mature adolescent market; sometimes cheaply in the case of "Mortal Kombat" with blood, and sometimes in a more sophisticated manner in the case of "Phantasy Star II". The Sony PlayStation materialized some years later and captured the attention of young adults; meaning more intricate and mature topics being explored in the form of RPGs such as "Final Fantasy VII" and "Xenogears", as well as narrative-driven action titles such as "Metal Gear Solid".

So now you see how video games "grew up", but notice our chronology - it goes Nintendo, Sega, then Sony. One of these is not like the other: Sony. See, while the Sony PlayStation was a tremendous triumph for gaming, Sony, unlike Sega and Nintendo, did not making its name as a video game company. They are a massive multi-faceted electronics corporation with no passion in particular; they make televisions, stereos, VCR's, DVD players, laptops, own a record label, and as you all know, video game systems. Needless to say, they have a ton of money. So, do you think that a company so hell-bent on making as much money as possible cares about innovation and art simply for the sake of innovation and art? Of course not. They will pander to the most profitable group readily available. See, the PlayStation wasn't popular because Sony created a bunch of great games for it; it was popular because it was the most accessible platform to develop for in the mid-1990's, thus third-parties flocked to it to make their high-end, sophisticated video games. Experienced gamers liked the console because it had SquareSoft and Konami's best work of the era; new gamers liked the console because it had Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon.

So now Sony (or more accurately, the third-party developers who have created games for the PlayStation) has created a massive audience for video games, and one that has become loyal to the PlayStation name-brand, no less. This means that big-name developers have access to tap a massive market, so for the sake of securing large sums of money for themselves, the big-name developers create games that, instead of targeting experienced gamers who thirst for more thought-provoking and truly innovative gaming experiences, target ordinary "Joe I-Gots-A-PlayStation". These broad titles are so meant to target a massive audience that they become less personal in two ways - they have less personal impact on each individual player, and they contain less personality of the development team.

The last attempt to really go back to that "personal" gaming experience was the Sega Dreamcast, in which Sega broke up its development teams into a dozen smaller ones and basically said, "Make whatever kind of game you want, and we'll market them to their demographics accordingly". This meant very personal gaming experiences; if "Crazy Taxi", "Samba De Amigo", "Space Channel 5", and "Virtua Tennis" weren't your thing, "Shenmue", "Skies of Arcadia", "Phantasy Star Online", and "Ecco the Dolphin: DOTF" might have been. Or maybe you were eclectic in your gaming tastes. It didn't matter, because every season yielded a host of great new games, and one was bound to be tailor-made to your specific gaming desires. But of course, they got crushed, so nowadays it's "Either you buy one of these three games, or it's uninspired shovelware for you".

So saying that Sony ruined gaming is a more valid response than saying Microsoft did. Microsoft simply copied what Sony did; offer a high-end box for developers to create games for, and provide marketing when they see fit. But that's not really the case either; see, Capitalism is all about supply and demand; to blame supply (Sony and Microsoft) is only half-correct. The market expanded, and thus demand changed accordingly. Video game production is no longer intimate to enthusiasts; it's to anyone who might pass up an Xbox 360 in the local Wal-Mart. Nintendo is just as guilty by literally marketing towards non-gamers, creating an absolutely HUGE market. The gaming industry has always suffered from high development costs, but you used to be able to create a "hardcore" game and be assured sales so long as it was good (being as your audience specialized in the field of art they were "demanding" in) despite the cost development. But nowadays the stakes are even higher with exponentially increased development costs and projected audiences. So if you want to make money off of your costly endeavor, you damn better market it towards "casual gamers" who really don't pine for artistic innovation in their video games, because the "hardcore" market is too small.

*EDIT* Sorry for all the edits, guys. To those who have stumbled upon this post and seen the "Edited 13 Times" denotation, I haven't changed anything substantial. I've only edited for clarity. I'm quite the type-A when it comes to writing. I've even edited this edit, hahaha.

[Original_Name]

^
I type alot.

[Xonticus]

I think you are right... All three major game console companies are guilty of this.

Maybe Valve should make a console? lol they'll be the next underdog like Sega once was.

All Sega can do anymore is drive away it's once loyal fans and whore out all of its IP's, and kill off the potentialy great IP's from being finished (Shenmue, Phantasy Star, Sonic) It is so sad to see..... 1st party Sega is the Sega I'll always remember....

[Mozgus]

Maybe Valve should make a console? lol they'll be the next underdog like Sega once was.

They already made a platform. Would be kinda interesting if someone would put out Steam branded gaming PCs that were pretty much idiot proof.

[DaGamingMonkey]

I hate when people bring exclusives up when they're talking about which console is better.

[GSZX1337]

I'm not bashing the ps3 its just not as good as the ps2 was.

No one can deny that.

The PS3 has only been out 2 years where the PS2 is on 9 and still going, so of course its not as good........yet.

In 2002, the PS2 had several big name titles such as: Jak and Daxter 1 and 2, Ratchet and Clank, Socom, Metal Gear Solid 2, Tekken Tag Tournament, Tekken 4, Sly Cooper, Final Fantasy X, Contra: Shattered Soldier, Burnout 2, the .Hack games, Gran Turismo 3, Onimusha 2, Red Faction 2, Star Wars Starfighter 1 & 2, Xenosaga, and some others that I can't think of at the moment. The PS3 is just really slow compared to its older brothers.

I think the PS3 is going to dominate in a couple of years.

So does Sony. My prediction for the PS3 is that by the time Sony profits off the PS3, it's not going to matter to gamers since M$ and Ninty will have their successors. Similar to where the PS2 is now, except without the early massive success.

Would be kinda interesting if someone would put out Steam branded gaming PCs that were pretty much idiot proof.

That would kick ass. Possibly make PC gaming matter again.

[the7k]

Would be kinda interesting if someone would put out Steam branded gaming PCs that were pretty much idiot proof.

That would kick ass. Possibly make PC gaming matter again.

Aren't Xbox 360s simply Microsoft branded gaming PCs that are pretty much idiot proof? If anything, that has helped keep PC Gaming from making a come-back.

I hate when people bring exclusives up when they're talking about which console is better.

So... what does make a console better? When it came time to decide which console I wanted, exclusive games weren't the only factor, but they were a pretty big one.

[GSZX1337]

Would be kinda interesting if someone would put out Steam branded gaming PCs that were pretty much idiot proof.

That would kick ass. Possibly make PC gaming matter again.

Aren't Xbox 360s simply Microsoft branded gaming PCs that are pretty much idiot proof? If anything, that has helped keep PC Gaming from making a come-back.

The Xbox (both of them) is Microsoft's attempt to homogenize gaming to make the market easier to monopolize.

What Moz (I'm assuming) was talking about is actual PCs with some kind of "Made for Steam games" branding. Maybe give studios something to develop around.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

yeah, whatever...

I don't think anybody has ruined gaming, although Sega didn't help by letting themselves go out of business. This generation is markedly different from previous generations in that there are less titles on playstation, more on xbox, and many more on nintendo.

In analysis, the Sony titles are generally fair to good quality, with occasional gems, but the development cycle appears significantly more protracted than was the case for PS2 - I understand this to be caused by the increased programming requirements of today's high powered consoles - in order to provide the increased graphic any physical modelling which gamers now demand, dev teams need more hours programming per title. This of course also applies to xbox 360, although I understand Microsoft to have done themselves a favour by making this title developmentally similar to a PC, and therefore programmers are relatively familiar with the work processess required to write for the platform. As a result of this, good dev teams are able to put out excellent titles after a more resonable gestation period, and shitty dev's are able to pump out more shovelware. Thus PS3 and xbox have a decent, if limited selection of cross platform releases, each have exclusives which tend to be quite different character (xbox having more exclusives), and the xbox has a bit more tripe to contend with.

The Wii... is obviously prime for shovelware being targeted at 'casual' gamers, and requiring the shortest development cycle. Motion control has thus far not delivered on it's initial promise, instead spawning a terrible genre of 'waggle' games fit only for imbeciles. The companies that write the best PS3 and xbox games don't write for Wii as this would sell them short - they don't have the tools required to showcase their product and writing low quality games for the wii may even harm their brand identity.

Similar analysis could be applied to previous generations (PS2 - easy to write for, good market adoption, therefore many varied titles, xbox, powerful but only really adopted by 'hardcore' and ex-pc gamers, therefore lots of FPS, nerdy titles and not much else, gamecube, made frompurple kiddy plastic with a silly controller, therefore everybody ignored it) all the way to SNES vs. Megadrive (sonic vs mario - one was cool, one was a plumber). BUT - the big difference this generation is DLC.

DLC bucks the trend for large development cycles by concentrating on delivery of modest sized packages. As a result companies can take risks which they may otherwise shy away from due to the development investment required by retail titles. I'd like to see Rockstar et al. put out standalone DLC releases akin to studio Liverpool's fantastic addition to the wipeout franchise. This type of game delivery is still in it's formative stages; people want to know what will happen when their console dies or following the end of this console generation, but it has opened up this generation to some innovative and otherwise not commercially viable gaming experiences. Whoever it was above that mentioned Steam for xbox may be onto something which could be the shape of things to come.

Also, the huge commercial uptake of retro and emulation of old games has further diversified the market. I don't think gaming has been ruined, there are more gamers than ever and a huge variety of product available for all of these gamers. Gaming has been opening up to those under 25 since the turn of the century - it would be unreasonable to expect all products to suit whatever demographic best represents the gamer who has been with consoles since year dot.

so yeah...

[JordanPlayer]

...there is only one 360 exclusive that I would buy if I had one, and that is Mass Effect. L4D might be a consideration, but I heard single player is lacking and I don't care much for multi.

Those aren't 360 exclusives, they are also available on the PC. I can't speak for Mass Effect, but I can speak for Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. These PC games are leaps and bounds ahead of their XBox brethren... the 360 games are what I consider ports of the PC game. Do they play relatively well? Yes, but they don't hold a candle to the real deal. The PC versions support better graphics, patches, FREE updated content, mouse and keyboard (hehe), etc etc. Left 4 Dead was not designed to be a single-player game, it was designed specifically with co-op and versus in mind from the beginning. If a FPS video game is available on the PC platform you should pick it up 99.9% of the time over a console version.