Will there be another video game crash?

[GMer]

I have been going through the game stores lately and have discovered something startling.
The games are basically split into 2 molds: Dark (Xbox 360, PS3) and light (Wii). There is nothing in between. The games are all starting to look alike too, even sound alike. (e.g. main character is a guy in cool armor and he must stop monster things before they take over the world). With all these games that look the same, One may think:
"Hmmm, why do these look the same?"
The reason is that the games today are stagnating. Rehashing the old game ideas and just putting a new twist on them (find an alien artifact, destroys research base, main character stops it). What is needed are some people who think outside the box. Nintendo has done that with their Wii, but the graphics lack: it is a redressed gamecube with a new controller.
Another example is the FinalFantasy series. Granted the graphics are good and all that, but they lost the spirit of Final Fantasy: it is supposed to be the company's final fantasy. What I mean is the first few FF's Square Enix has almost gone into bankruptcy when making FF, now they just seem to float along. The spirit from the games of old are lost, while their stories are being eaten like a thanksgiving dinner.
Putting aside observations, I have arrived at this conclusion: there is going to be a crash (or at least recession) if video games keep within the same boundaries. The ideas from the 90's are getting old, come up with new stuff. This is the message I send to you: Think outside of the box, play the old games: remember them.
What say you?

[Destron]

Saying that video games are split into two molds and other than that look alike and have the same stories is a complete misrepresentation of the media.
Granted, Nintendo's target lately has been casual/family gaming, and since that's the audience that normally buys the Wii, those are the types of games that are made for it. Microsoft and Sony target hardcore gamers with the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, and that's why there are so many 'hardcore' games for them.

Still, though, let's look at a few of the top games of 2008.

Spore: Strategy, construction and conquest
LittleBigPlanet: "build your own" customizable world with online co-op
Fallout 3: Open world, post-apocalypse action RPG
Mirror's Edge: First-person freerunning and hand-to-hand combat
Fable II: Fantasy "guns 'n' magic" RPG
Braid: 2D side-scrolling puzzle game
Metal Gear Solid 4: Third person stealth gameplay with a convoluted storyline
Dead Space: Survival horror in space

For the most part, these are all completely different titles with separate and distinct gameplay, visual style, and story.

So, no. There won't be another video game crash. Not any time soon.

[GMer]

What I mean by looking the same is the first impression. If game B looks like game A, and game B is more expensive, why buy game A, even if the storyline is different, how can one tell in the store?
Especially since most games have some sort of zombie thing. (weird, eh?)
Maybe not so much of a crash than a recession. Graphics can improve (yes, I've seen gears of war 2... still not enough eye candy for me) by expanding some console games to 2 or 4 discs (like in the ye olde days of games). People just may get tired of the endless aisles of dark covered games (but I do not have psychohistory, so I wouldn't know for sure) and odd game consoles (with Microsoft, they just added a "360" to the Xbox namewise, and don't get me started on Nintendo's name choice for the wii! Think about this "I'm going home to play with my Wii", sounds wrong, doesn't it?)
Anyway, It just seems that the spirit of computer/console games was lost a while ago. Then the companies just seemed to try to be different, instead of going with what was popular. A larger diversity (besides shooters with zombie things and RPGs with a bad guy that will destroy the world) of games would benifit the gamers, because sometimes even they don't know what they want until they try it.
What I am saying is that people will eventually get tired of the niche that games have gone into.

[Destron]

What I mean by looking the same is the first impression. If game B looks like game A, and game B is more expensive, why buy game A, even if the storyline is different, how can one tell in the store?

It's all about branding. Most of the popular games last year were sequels to previous games (e.g. GTA4, MGS4, GoW2, Fable 2, CoD:WaW) and were targeted at their respective audiences. But you're right, if a game doesn't have it's own identity, it can easily get lost in the shuffle.

Especially since most games have some sort of zombie thing. (weird, eh?)

What's wrong with zombies? People like zombies. Valve made a particularly good multiplayer shooter based on the subject, and Call of Duty: World At War included a bonus multiplayer zombie survival mode, both of which were very popular.

Graphics can improve (yes, I've seen gears of war 2... still not enough eye candy for me) by expanding some console games to 2 or 4 discs (like in the ye olde days of games).

Graphics are, and probably always will be improving. But saying that Gears of War 2 didn't have enough eye candy means that you have you standards set too high.
Still, though, I suggest you look at a few anticipated games coming out this year. Heavy Rain, Rage, and Resident Evil 5 are three very, very good looking games coming out for this generation of consoles and PCs.
And the reason that there are few console games that use more than 1 disc is because of pricey restrictions by the console manufacturers. I'm betting most developers would love to have 2 or 3 discs full of uncompressed art and high quality sound, but the truth is that it's just too expensive. iD Software came to this problem when they tried to work out a deal with Microsoft to ship rage on 2 discs.

People just may get tired of the endless aisles of dark covered games (but I do not have psychohistory, so I wouldn't know for sure) and odd game consoles (with Microsoft, they just added a "360" to the Xbox namewise, and don't get me started on Nintendo's name choice for the wii! Think about this "I'm going home to play with my Wii", sounds wrong, doesn't it?)

The console naming discussion is, as far as I'm concerned, over. Nobody really cares about the fact that the Xbox 360 is named that, and just about everybody knows what a Wii is now.

Anyway, It just seems that the spirit of computer/console games was lost a while ago. Then the companies just seemed to try to be different, instead of going with what was popular. A larger diversity (besides shooters with zombie things and RPGs with a bad guy that will destroy the world) of games would benifit the gamers, because sometimes even they don't know what they want until they try it.
What I am saying is that people will eventually get tired of the niche that games have gone into.

I more or less agree with you on that point; the reason that there are more sequels and variations on previous games is because in a world with multi-million dollar budgets and 100 person teams, publishers don't want to spend that much money and manpower unless they are sure it's going to make that much back. However, I still don't think you give the industry enough credit on the diversity aspect - I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of games with generalized gameplay and story, but I've found that the ones that are the most diverse and just over-all good games get pushed to the top of the charts.

[Juutis]

A larger diversity of games would benifit the gamers, because sometimes even they don't know what they want until they try it.

Note that gamers != game developers and publishers. Developing commercial games is business. Making money. And that means you gotta cover the expenses with the incomes. Most of the time it's better to play it safe and take the concept that has always worked, spice it up a little and sell the game, as opposed to taking the risk and develop an innovative game.


I'd also like to say: No, just no. I can't agree with any of your points. Except for that original games tend to be more fun to play than the ones with recycled ideas. That ain't always true, either.

[GMer]

COD 5 zombie survival is a good twist (one person claims to have made it to level 99 )
To me, video games are becoming rather monotonous- the first impression I get of one video game is as good as the rest, but not often any higher
Gears of war 2 uses alot of textures with height maps (bumpmapping, is it) on their models (yes, I have a good eye for that, I love yelling "polygons!" or "pixels!" whenever I see them in a game).
My standards for professional video games are rather high I guess.
Though as Game Makers on G4 explained: "Gameplay is one third, graphics another third, and music the final third."
Just why is it always that in games humanity has either gone downhill or fighting against relentless alien-thingys? The gamers (yes, I am somewhat phrasing an Issac Asimov Sci-fi magazine, the dec. 1984 edition, if you must know) don't know what they want until they try it.
I guess (and hope) there will not be a crash, but if the corperations keep rehashing ideas that have been around sine Akalabeth, the future of video games would be interesting (since rumors claim George Lucas has accomplished 3d movies without 3d glasses, a true 3d game!).

[Destron]

To me, video games are becoming rather monotonous- the first impression I get of one video game is as good as the rest, but not often any higher

If you're looking for more variety in video games, maybe you should play other genres - you seem to focus mostly on FPSs. While even in this genre there are many very interesting and different titles (BioShock or Portal for example), it's no secret that many FPS titles look the same as you have pointed out. Gears of War 2 and Resistance 2 are honestly very much the same.
I would suggest you play different types of games if you are bored with FPSs. You could even take a look at games from other countries - I'm a fan of games from eastern europe. The experience I got with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was different than anything I would've gotten with western developers.

Gears of war 2 uses alot of textures with height maps (bumpmapping, is it) on their models (yes, I have a good eye for that, I love yelling "polygons!" or "pixels!" whenever I see them in a game).

No offense, but calling a game out because it uses excessive bump-mapping is just ignorant. Despite what you may think, bump mapping is not a "cheap workaround" at all - it's necessary for the game to run at a playable framerate. If modellers and artists could just disregard any polygon count limitations, bump mapping would be thrown out the window and we'd be seeing Pixar quality games all around.

My standards for professional video games are rather high I guess.

Higher than you think.

Just why is it always that in games humanity has either gone downhill or fighting against relentless alien-thingys? The gamers (yes, I am somewhat phrasing an Issac Asimov Sci-fi magazine, the dec. 1984 edition, if you must know) don't know what they want until they try it.

Once again, you're generalizing. Yes, these are two very popular "base" settings found in lots of games, but you're forgetting how different they can be from game to game.
Examples:

"Aliens invade Earth"
Gears of War - While technically not aliens (I think the they came from beneath the Earth's crust or something), they are battling humans in a "true war" sense, with armies on both sides fighting.
Half-Life 2 - The Combine invades but instead of fully occupying the planet enslaves the planet and "pulls the strings", so to speak, from their homeworld (in another dimension).

"Humanity has gone downhill"
Fallout 3 - Nuclear war has ravaged the Earth leaving it as a wasteland, and survivors are left to fend for themselves.
BioShock - In a optimistic attempt to create a truly free market and a city without ethical or moral restrictions, Andrew Ryan's underwater world of Rapture descends into chaos and anarchy.

[paradoxnj]

Gameplay is one third, graphics another third, and music the final third

I don't agree with this statement AT ALL. Gameplay is everything. Graphic quality is insignificant. Sound is only important if your game relies on it (e.g Splinter Cell). If your gameplay is solid, it doesn't matter if you have crappy graphics and no sound. If you take the sound away from Pac-Man (it already has simplistic graphics), it's still fun to play. Same with Pole Position, Jungle Hunt, Unreal Tournament, Quake (Graphics and sound suck in this franchise. It wasn't until Doom 3 that the id franchises started focusing on graphics and sound before that, it was all about technology). Hell Pong was a simple as they come and it was still fun to play.

I think sound and graphics enhance the experience, but they do not make a game.

[Allanon]

I agree with paradoxnj to a point. Yes, Doom was fun to play and even for it's time the graphics were not very good compared to 2d games from the same time period but the thing that made it fun was the game play and the uniqueness of being in a 3d world. But the problem is everything is relative, the other day I downloaded the demo of Duke Nukem for the Xbox 360 because I have very fond memories of playing this game but when playing I couldn't believe that I ever found that game fun. Compared to today's FPS the graphics sucked, the controls were basic, and the game play wasn't as fun as I remembered. If that game was released today as a new game it would be a total failure. So my point is game play, sound, and graphics are all relative to the standards of the the day and even if the game play is great there is a limit to what people will put up with in terms of graphics and sound.

[Destron]

Yes, Doom was fun to play and even for it's time the graphics were not very good compared to 2d games from the same time period

That's entirely incorrect; DooM had some of the best graphics that the early 90s era had to offer.

[Allanon]

That's entirely incorrect; DooM had some of the best graphics that the early 90s era had to offer.

Incorrect? Doom had average 3d shooter graphics for the time but compared to other 2D and 3D simulated graphic games at the same time it just didn't compare. Just check out screen shots of Myst, Wing Commander, All the 2D and 3D fighting games, MS Flight Simulator, etc.

[Mark in 2-D]

despite wether the graphics on DOOM were the best at the time or not the game was so successful because of its gameplay. I still play it now and so do hundreds of people online. I think (and yes I know its not the first FPS) that Doom was the most revolutionary game for First Person Shooters.

[Destron]

That's entirely incorrect; DooM had some of the best graphics that the early 90s era had to offer.

Incorrect? Doom had average 3d shooter graphics for the time but compared to other 2D and 3D simulated graphic games at the same time it just didn't compare. Just check out screen shots of Myst, Wing Commander, All the 2D and 3D fighting games, MS Flight Simulator, etc.

Doom's primary distinguishing feature at the time of its release was its realistic 3D graphics, then unparalleled by other real-time-rendered games running on consumer-level hardware.

[Allanon]

Doom's primary distinguishing feature at the time of its release was its realistic 3D graphics, then unparalleled by other real-time-rendered games running on consumer-level hardware.

That might have been true for about 4 months but then System Shock came along which was a true 3d engine that allowed you to look up and down plus it had better graphics than Doom. But Doom went on to be a much more popular game than System Shock, so that just might prove that game play wins over graphics.

[paradoxnj]

Don't forget that Wikipedia is a wiki which can be edited by your average joe. That just may be his opinion and not fact. Fact is that there were games (like the ones Allanon mentioned) that were released but had better graphics. Compare the original Doom to the other games released in the same year. Doom has mediocre graphics compared to the rest. id was not known for their art, they were known for their technology.

Betrayal at Krondor (released same month as Doom):

So my point is game play, sound, and graphics are all relative to the standards of the the day and even if the game play is great there is a limit to what people will put up with in terms of graphics and sound.

I still play Doom on DOSBox today. I also play Myst and Wing Commander, XWing vs Tie Fighter. A great example to my point is the new Metal Gear Solid game. The graphics are absolutely beautiful in that game, but people don't like it because of the 30 minute cut scenes and cinematics. You spend more time watching the game then you do playing it. A nice medium is Resident Evil 4. Graphics are stunning, sound is bar-none, and gameplay is fantastic. It could be the "perfect" game.