By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Parting Post: GTA V's success is bad for the videogame industry.

iamdeath said:
curl-6 said:
I agree.

To me, GTAV typifies the kind of bloated AAA production that's draining money and attention away from more creative games.


GTA is more creative then most.......The 3 characters, and wealth of gameplay options, dialog put most games to shame....GTA online looks as robust as many online only games. Sorry, but strongely disagree with your post. ROCKSTAR are on of the shining stars of the industry.

I don't think it takes much creativity to mimic real life.

Nor do I think much of Rockstar; their games I've played have been loaded with filler and were overall rather tedious and dull.

But to each their own.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
iamdeath said:
curl-6 said:
I agree.

To me, GTAV typifies the kind of bloated AAA production that's draining money and attention away from more creative games.


GTA is more creative then most.......The 3 characters, and wealth of gameplay options, dialog put most games to shame....GTA online looks as robust as many online only games. Sorry, but strongely disagree with your post. ROCKSTAR are on of the shining stars of the industry.

I don't think it takes much creativity to mimic real life.

Nor do I think much of Rockstar; their games I've played have been loaded with filler and were overall rather tedious and dull.

But to each their own.


?? Mimicing real life in a game is incredible hard to do, people have tried for years. Rockstar basically created the open world game and have made innovations more then most. Name another game you can seamlessly switch between 3 protagonist, who also happen to be integrated into the story?

 

GTA online is more ambitious then many Online only games....

 

Sorry, but you can think what you want, it is clearly not fact.



Chrizum said:

That's like saying lions are bad for the eco-system because they eat all the smaller animals. You're an idiot to look at the world this way. I'm guessing you were bullied by tougher kids in school when you were young. And now you're leaving on such an overdramatical note.

Grow a pair, sir.


You're statement beautifully self-embarassing.  In an ecosystem, if one element of it is unbalanced, it does wreck havock.  GTA is not like a lion, but more like a human being that is responsible for wipeing out endless number of other species while destroying our own planet.  Or like a Hemlock tree that grows large and toxic, making the soil below unsuitable for other plant life.  Should Rockstar not make GTA as good as possible?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not destroying its own environment through excellent evolution.



Short version. GTA5 having better AI and stuff like police chasing NPCs etc. And adding some new features to a known formula bad for the industry that is used to becoming rich without actually working by bringing out the same repetitive shit every year.

Yeah I see how a game that at least to some extend evolves is bad for the industry. The industry should actually collapse imho.

The thing is  not  AAA games like GTA are the cancer  its more games like FIFA and COD  anual shit.  And mainstreamers.  One call of duty dev gave an interview a few days? ago  and said  Call of Duty gamers are not gamers. They might play Fifa and COD and thats it.  He is somewhat right most are mainstreamers and there is like a 9:1 ratio when it comes to mainstreamers and real gamers today.

 I am not saying that Fifa and COD are only played by mainstreamers   but the majority of the people who play it are so no offense.

I mean look at great games and how alot of them miserably fail in terms of sales   and then look at the marketing monsters with tons of effects boom and violence and how many TV ads they have etc.  This gen made games "cool" and people play them to feel cool  not to play games nowadays. 
Just look back

BTW I dont have GTA5  and dont plan to buy it in the near future so I am not defending it I am just saying that compared to other games GTA is a gift to the industry (not shareholders or greedy people that want easy money  for them its toxic)



iamdeath said:
curl-6 said:
iamdeath said:
curl-6 said:
I agree.

To me, GTAV typifies the kind of bloated AAA production that's draining money and attention away from more creative games.


GTA is more creative then most.......The 3 characters, and wealth of gameplay options, dialog put most games to shame....GTA online looks as robust as many online only games. Sorry, but strongely disagree with your post. ROCKSTAR are on of the shining stars of the industry.

I don't think it takes much creativity to mimic real life.

Nor do I think much of Rockstar; their games I've played have been loaded with filler and were overall rather tedious and dull.

But to each their own.


?? Mimicing real life in a game is incredible hard to do, people have tried for years. Rockstar basically created the open world game and have made innovations more then most. Name another game you can seamlessly switch between 3 protagonist, who also happen to be integrated into the story?

 

GTA online is more ambitious then many Online only games....

 

Sorry, but you can think what you want, it is clearly not fact.

Mimicking reality to the degree GTA does is indeed difficult, but it does not require much creativity.

And there's nothing factual about game quality, it's all just opinion, because quality is entirely subjective.



Around the Network

I think GTA V is good for gaming, someone who doesnt have the passion to improve doesn't deserve my money. I only go for games that are the best of their relative genres usually. (short dev-cycle sequels are not it, for me)

Theres lot more games coming just from kickstarters that are going to innovate gaming and bring new kinds of games to the table with much less than these big budget companies. Star Citizen, Stonehearth and Planetary annihilation come to mind right now.

People do want new experiences, but many are willing to pay a premium for a very small advances so the big players dont need to change. I really like the current state gaming is going towards, even indies can make something impressive and never done before.



Pretty awesome Game Over post. And I'm sure you're reading the responses in the gaming forum afterlife.

I agree pretty much entirely with what you said. People disagreeing are generally missing the point. It's not that Rockstar is doing something wrong by making a great game, but this great game does cripple the industry somewhat. Games like COD, WoW and GTA can be all-consuming and limit the creativity and opportunities for others. None of them bring amazing new features to gaming, they just do established genres very, very well.

I would say GTA is not quite as bad as the others because it is a long time between releases (though it was nearly annual in its early days). WoW is all-consuming and has monthly fees and COD is annual, so they really eat up the market.

The aspect of moral ambiguity in GTA to me is separate from the issue of its sales dominance. I think they should be free to make a moral-free game, but it would be nice if they didn't. I think we can all use ethics in our entertainment.



TheLastStarFighter said:
Chrizum said:

That's like saying lions are bad for the eco-system because they eat all the smaller animals. You're an idiot to look at the world this way. I'm guessing you were bullied by tougher kids in school when you were young. And now you're leaving on such an overdramatical note.

Grow a pair, sir.


You're statement beautifully self-embarassing.  In an ecosystem, if one element of it is unbalanced, it does wreck havock.  GTA is not like a lion, but more like a human being that is responsible for wipeing out endless number of other species while destroying our own planet.  Or like a Hemlock tree that grows large and toxic, making the soil below unsuitable for other plant life.  Should Rockstar not make GTA as good as possible?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not destroying its own environment through excellent evolution.

Then tell me how exactly is GTA V destroying the gaming eco-system? Yes, it's had a huge budget and is extremely succesful. That doesn't mean games with a small budget don't have a chance to succeed. There are countless ways to be succesful. GTA V is just one of them. When the gaming eco-system is changing, people will adapt, the industry will adept. In any good eco-system, it's adapt or die. The rise of the indie market is a healthy example of this.

The only people saying games like GTA V are bad for the industry are people disliking big blockbuster games. I like original content from smaller devs as well. But they will always be there. How do you think Rockstar started out?



I don't think it's fair to assume that just because a title is indie that it has lower quality or is a buggy mess. Skyrim certainly wasn't indie, and it was a massively buggy mess.

That said, I have had a similar overall issue with the gaming industry as a whole these days--largely due to the apparent need to make every game about murdering people. It's low-brow, it's easy, and it's immature. It makes the industry, regardless of its growth, continue to look like a place designed for anti-social, sociopathic, adolescent boys.



TheLastStarFighter said:

You're statement beautifully self-embarassing.  In an ecosystem, if one element of it is unbalanced, it does wreck havock.  GTA is not like a lion, but more like a human being that is responsible for wipeing out endless number of other species while destroying our own planet.  Or like a Hemlock tree that grows large and toxic, making the soil below unsuitable for other plant life.  Should Rockstar not make GTA as good as possible?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not destroying its own environment through excellent evolution.

How exactly is GTA destroying its own environment? In a generation that has lasted almost eight years now there have been exactly two released. And while they have sold extremely well to the tune of millions of copies, there are many, many more gamers who never play GTA.

It's kind of a strange argument, tantamount to saying that there should be no super successful games because they hog all the market. But it's hard to argue that because if there were no GTA (or COD, or WoW, or LoL, or Minecraft, or whatever game you might feel like bellyaching about) you can't know how many of those dollars would just flow to other games. A good many of them wouldn't because those big event titles bring back lapsed gamers and bring in people who were never gamers before or who don't play games other than those. They are the subject of mainstream media stories and get people to think and talk about gaming who otherwise wouldn't. I mean, if Nintendo suddenly ditched Mario, would all of that Mario money just go to Metroid and Fire Emblem?

The problem isn't a few games hogging all the market, but too many games chasing the same dollars. Maybe that sounds like the same thing, but it's a distinction with a difference. It's understandable that every publisher wants to have the next COD. But they try to accomplish this by making something that appeals to the COD audience, which is already well served by a game called Call of Duty. There are more audiences than just males between the ages of 18 and 35, and not every 18-35 male wants to play GTA or COD. So increasingly AAA gaming becomes about winning over that smallish but enthusiastic audience. If you can do it, you'll have a smash success. If not, you'll have a flop. And more and more games become bastardized versions of themselves as Splinter Cell and Dead Space and Dead Rising and Resident Evil and on and on all throw what made them unique under the bus to appeal to that one single audience.

Meanwhile something is happening in the non-AAA space where guys like Jasper Byrne and Jonatan Söderström and Jonathan Blow and Mike Bithell and Vlambeer can all practically (or sometimes literally) work out of their bedrooms and make games that sell hundreds of thousands of copies because they are unique and creative: i.e., everything that AAA gaming isn't anymore. You have new studios cropping up by the day, formed by refugees from Naughty Dog and Rockstar and Ubisoft and Bioware, who are finding success in this space. To believe that everything is bad and the GTAs are eating gaming you'd have to completely ignore this increasingly unavoidable phenomenon of game creators escaping shareholder-driven game development and being successful at it.