Thoughts on innovation during the next console generation

[BoneSnapDeez]

It's not just this thread (or you), it is several of them over time that have slogged on contemporary gaming as being shit for, essentially, not being exactly like gaming "used to be" in some "ancient time of purity and glory" or some such. This one just happened to catch my ire because I am in a pissy mood today...

But the point stands that the tenor of the OP's post and several of the others was that, compared to the now-mythical past, there are some major problems with innovation, imagination, variety, etc. in the contemporary gaming industry. It's bollocks.

I'm not sure you're listening to everyone here. When people say "older games are better" that statement isn't synonymous with "all new games are shit." I fully enjoy many modern games, just because I don't they're on par with the games of previous generations doesn't mean I think they suck.

In addition, you may have noticed that a lot of criticism regarding the modern state of gaming has less to do with the quality of actual games and more to do with bullshit tactics pushed by developers: DRM, DLC, forced online play for single player PC games, the fight against used games sales, etc. These are problems that many of us agree will get exponentially worse with time and literally didn't exist during previous generations.

[Erik_Twice]

It's not just this thread (or you), it is several of them over time that have slogged on contemporary gaming as being shit for, essentially, not being exactly like gaming "used to be" in some "ancient time of purity and glory" or some such. This one just happened to catch my ire because I am in a pissy mood today...

I know, and it's pretty obvious there's a good amount of nostalgia googles, like complaining about generic shooters and forgetting about what happened with platformers.

That said, I think the industry has severe innovation or imagination problems, they are just not new problems but old problems that have gotten worse by inbreeding design and a lack of scope or influences. Rather, the new problem is that the industry no longer understand it as a problem, Call of Duty isn't worse than Zero Wing compared to Gradius, the problem is how the industry treats it.

[dsheinem]

I'm not sure you're listening to everyone here. When people say "older games are better" that statement isn't synonymous with "all new games are shit." I fully enjoy many modern games, just because I don't they're on par with the games of previous generations doesn't mean I think they suck.

There's a lot of shitty older games, too. The point is that claiming an entire generation is somehow better than another is just completely pointless. The technologies and capabilities change, the economics of the industry change, the audiences change, you as an individual change, etc. It's a silly argument because you are trying to decontextualize.

In addition, you may have noticed that a lot of criticism regarding the modern state of gaming has less to do with the quality of actual games and more to do with bullshit tactics pushed by developers: DRM, DLC, forced online play for single player PC games, the fight against used games sales, etc. These are problems that many of us agree will get exponentially worse with time and literally didn't exist during previous generations.

I won't disagree with this, but that's also a different argument than the innovation/quality debate about the games themselves. That said, the explosion of internet connectivity has also resulted in many positive things for the industry that also "literally couldn't happen in previous generations".

[Menegrothx]

There has NEVER been a time in gaming history with a more profitable market for indie games.

This is true. Its the middle sized game companies that are dying. Indie games are available through Steam, Xbox Live etc and I do enjoy games like Super Meat Boy, but to me it feels like they are moving all the creative ideas to little flash/New Grounds-esque games, rather than making "proper" games that are sold alongside of the big AAA games in game stores. Maybe im nostalgic about it, but the way I remember it, there were a lot more small/mid sized game studios making AAA games back in the 1990s, all the greatest titles were not made by the biggest studios. Its probably mostly because game worlds are so huge these days. Like I said you get more bang for your buck these days. If gamers expect hundreds of hours from every game they purchase and are too used to sandbox games and such, the smaller companies with less people working just cant keep up it with anymore. They need to hire more people and merge, so they can deliver that.
Many people were complaining when Rayman Origins came out that the title does not deserve the 60 dollar price tag. Its a 2D platformer, its an arcade game. You pay 10 dollars for them, not 60. Its not a "real" game like Skyrim, GTA 4 and Just Cause 2. If theres no online game to keep you occupied or a humongous world to explore, its just not worth the money unless the storyline is absolutely phenomenal.

Wasnt Another World/Out of this world made by one single person? He later on made Heart of Darkness, another great cinematic platformer game.

None of the criticisms in this thread or countless others we've had on the forum about the "sorry state" of modern gaming makes ANY FUCKING SENSE. All I can do is chock it up to nostalgia or some kind of defense of personal identity as tied to a particular era/console/etc.

I enjoy games like Red Dead Redemption, Half Life 2, Bioshock, Portal, Alan Wake etc as much as the next guy and I regularly play on my Xbox 360 and Wii. I just personally feel that games today lack feeling, they are maybe too polished in a way, like a hospital.
I did say that the overall quality of video games has risen over the years. The kind of utter garbage games that ruined childhoods in the 1980s would never get released today.
I just dont get the same kind of kick out of new AAA titles like I do from late 1990s games that were developed by relatively small studios that turned out to be real gems. Maybe I personally am just "growing up", but Im not the only one who feels this way. Its not just the games I played when I was growing up, often when I discover a game (or an animation for that matter, as the 1990s/early 2000s was the second golden age of American animation), it has that certain feel to it that most modern games dont have.

[Erik_Twice]

[There's a lot of shitty older games, too. The point is that claiming an entire generation is somehow better than another is just completely pointless. The technologies and capabilities change, the economics of the industry change, the audiences change, you as an individual change, etc. It's a silly argument because you are trying to decontextualize.

It's not silly, just hard to do in most cases. Fortunatedly gaming eras aren't as easy to compare as animation in the 40s and animation in the 70s are.

I'm willing to accept there's not too much research of actual comparison in many caes, tough.

[dsheinem]

it feels like they are moving all the creative ideas to little flash/New Grounds-esque games, rather than making "proper" games that are sold alongside of the big AAA games in game stores.

You realize big AAA titles cost millions and millions of dollars, right? Even given that, there has been no shortage of new IPs and new ideas from big studios this generation (some of which I alluded to earlier).

Maybe im nostalgic about it, but the way I remember it, there were a lot more small/mid sized game studios making AAA games back in the 1990s, all the greatest titles were not made by the biggest studios.

Can you give some examples of what you mean?

games today lack feeling

What many of them lack is the opportunity to use your imagination to fill in missing details, since graphics now show so much. Is this what you mean by "feeling"?

Its not just the games I played when I was growing up, often when I discover a game (or an animation for that matter, as the 1990s/early 2000s was the second golden age of American animation), it has that certain feel to it that most modern games dont have.

yup, that's nostalgia.

[Menegrothx]

You realize big AAA titles cost millions and millions of dollars, right? Even given that, there has been no shortage of new IPs and new ideas from big studios this generation (some of which I alluded to earlier).

Maybe I shouldnt use the term AAA, as I mostly meant defining games of that era.

Can you give some examples of what you mean?

Another World/Out of this World, the first Crash Bandicoot game and Abe's Oddysee for example. Maybe you could count in even Max Payne? Googling out how much employees Naughty Dog had in 1996 and then finding out how many people it took to take Red Dead Redemption seems a bit redundant to me.
Like you said, making AAA games takes a lot money and many game studios have grown in size considerably.

Basically what I mean is that some of the defining games were made by game studios that werent big, some were even newcomers. I cant think of any defining Xbox 360 games that werent made by big studios, although Im happy to hear one if you know some. And like you said, it is hard to make historical comparisons like this as the industry and the money involved in it has grown considerably.

What many of them lack is the opportunity to use your imagination to fill in missing details, since graphics now show so much. Is this what you mean by "feeling"?

yup, that's nostalgia.

A feeling is something that you cant measure, its not really an objective or scientific term. For example driving 120 km/h on a crowded city highway on your way to work in your minivan, listening to the weather report compared to driving 120 km/h on an empty desert road or on top of a frozen lake with a Camaro, 1980s metal blasting on your radio. The speed is exactly the same but the feel is completely different. These are also highly personal things, some times tied to a historical context or personal memories.

Im just saying that a game like 3DOs Slayer with its generic mid 1990s graphics and music and sound effects has a certain charm to it over a game like Skyrim. That doesnt mean its better that Skyrim or that I cant enjoy Skyrim. Some times I want to play a game like Skyrim, but overall I might prefer the 3DO game because it has that certain magical feeling in it that games of its era had. Or pen and paper RPGs. All eras have some defining features and its a personal preference which you find the most appealing. Crude graphics and sound effects when presented in a certain way can create a better atmosphere than photorealism, it depends on the person.
Some small Japanese car is technologically superioir in every way to some big old Cadillac from the 1950s, but Id still rather have the unsafe and too large gas guzzler if I had the choice. Nothing to do with nostalgia, im too young to be nostalgic about that old technology. It just has the sort of charm that a modern car doesnt have, atleast in my eyes.

[Xeogred]

Not surprised this thread spiraled a little out of control.

As for the Xbox 720, PS4, and Wii U... I expect more DRM, DLC, American Hollywood games, etc. No thanks.

Yeah, I definitely think I missed out on a bit by not paying much attention to the DS and PSP. It's kind of a personal issue though, ever since I was in a wreck a few years ago, it's just simply really bad on my neck playing handhelds for more than 30 minutes at a time or something. But after seeing my friends Vita, I think it could renew my faith in actually being able to play handhelds again. The screen was very big, very vibrant and colorful, the sound was amazing, etc, I think it just might be the first handheld I'd be able to use comfortably in years, and that's pretty exciting to me. I've seen the 3DS as well, and although I'm not nearly as interested in it yet, I can definitely say it looks comfortable to use as well.

So thinking about it, maybe this new gen coming up here... I should pay more attention to the handhelds. If that's where the JRPG's have flocked, I need to jump in.

[Menegrothx]

Not surprised this thread spiraled a little out of control.

My original point of interest was to especially hear peoples ideas on the next console generation. No one else finds the idea of third similiar console generation in a row worrying or weird?
I guess the situation is better than during the peak of NES era when Nintendo had about 90% market share in the US (although there was C64, ZX spectrum etc), but if you look at the 80s and 90s as a whole, there were more contenders in the console market. If we assume that third console generation has the same 3 big brands competing and it will end at around 2021 or 2022, it would mean that the Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft-trio held the market in their grasp for two decades, which is a very long time when talking about game consoles.

[J T]

I tend to agree with dsheinem on this one. I've been playing videogames since the days when Atari, Colecovision, and Intellivision were the big dogs of the console market. This time period is a remarkable period for videogames because the industry is simply bigger than ever. If you look around, you will find games that play just like the retro games of old, you will find quirky and innovative games that do something new, and you will find big budget blockbuster games that have lots of polish, you'll even on a rare occassion, find a big budget blockbuster game that really innovates (like Portal, The Witcher 2, Heavy Rain, or Catherine), or a big budget blockbuster game that plays like the retro classics (like Rayman Origins, Sonic Generations, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Zelda: Skyword Sword). You'll find DRM, DLC, F2P and all those other annoying acronymed vices along the way too, but if you know what you're looking for, you can find it. And if you don't know where to find it, just ask on the boards here and someone will know.