bouzane said:
noname2200 said:
bouzane said:
Why does the industry need to continue expanding? There are already hundreds of millions of people playing video games and the influx of new gamers are mostly playing casual games. Many studios have learned to cater to the audience that have adapted to this controller design. These studios are creating core experiences that haven't benefited from the current crop of motion and touch controllers as far as I can see. I can understand how the current controllers are an obsticle to new players but as I said, hundreds of millions of peopl ehave gotten by until now. You know, as I was reading how "super-precise actions are essentially impossible" I remembered the time I got the platinum trophy on TimeSplitters: Future Perfect's sniping challenge with maximum aim sensitivity. I've never encountered any motion controller that was anywhere near as accurate as proper joystick controls and both are a joke compared to a mouse. Just my two cents.
PS. I'm selfish so the current controllers aren't broken to me and that's all that really matters :P
|
There's the financial reason, for starters. Games are becoming increasingly expensive to make, distribute, and market, and those costs are already high enough to drive great numbers of developers and publishers out of business. Growth of the marketplace is the easiest way to counter this trend. In other words, it's basically grow, change, or die.
I also think we're in danger of stagnation if we don't attempt to expand beyond the relatively narrow niche we're currently in. This chain of thought would take more time to develop than I have to devote to it right now, but in a nutshell the byline is similar to the financial argument: what doesn't grow, eventually dies.
But I can appreciate your final sentiment. I'm not being sarcastic or joking when I say that I admire your honesty. I strongly disagree with you on this point, but I appreciate that we can be forthright about where we stand. 
|
I have to disagree with the need to expand the industry to offset increasing development costs. 1) The problem should be addressed directly as development costs should be reigned in. The next generation systems should focus on being developer friendly while only increasing the processing power incrementally. 2) I fear that simply making the gaming industry more mainstream is just going to destroy much of its artistic merit in a similar fashion to the music and film industries. 3) Also, how can you call the second biggest entertainment industry niche? 4) As far as the already disgustingly high development costs that we see now I have to say two things. The industry moved sharply in the wrong direction this generation, I personally believe that with the exception of online console gaming, things were much better last generation. Secondly, by far the best games I have played this gen are not the big Hollywood-esque blockbusters but the downloadable titles, especially Super Meat Boy.
|
I've taken the liberty of numbering your points, and will address them in order.
1) That's easy to say, and in fact I 100% agree. But so far reality has not coincided with that ideal. Developers constantly feel the pressure to make their game polished enough to keep up with the Jonses. They were offered a means to avoid that constant escalation this generation. I assume from their response that they are simply not interested in reining in their costs, at least not at the expense of production values. Even if costs merely remain steady with what they are at this very moment, one flop can destroy many a studio, because the costs are too high and the audience is not broad enough to support everyone.
2) Since you did me the courtesy of being completely forthright earlier, I shall do the same here. I don't care about "artistic integrity." I've always thought that phrase was merely a thinly-veiled excuse for a content's creator to revel in self-indulgence without feeling beholden to the content's consumers. I've never thought of videogames as "art" in any real sense. And I don't think any less of games for that. This part of the discussion could be interesting with a different conversation partner, as I think this fear is overblown, but in general this point simply carries no weight with me.
3) Because while the young men of the world are generally happy to throw their spare cash at our hobby, damned few other people are willing to do the same. Gaming looks broad in terms of dollars spent because many people in the niche are fanatically devoted to it, to the point where spending $60+ on a single peice of entertainment is considered normal. But young men form only a fraction of the populace, and most of the people who aren't in that narrow subsect tend to avoid gaming altogether. And if you have your way, they'll do so in even greater numbers.
4) There's not much I can say to rebut this statement, because it's an entirely subjective one. It's also largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, save from a purely selfish perspective (and again, I don't mean that as a knock against you).
Essentially, I don't think we're going to convince each other to change our tunes today, because we're coming from radically different perspectives. I think gaming is a commercial enterprise that needs to grow because its doomed otherwise, both financially and in terms of content. You think it's an art form that's best served by remaining static and exclusive. Shall we agree to disagree for now?
