theprof00 said: Xxain said: vanatos said: Xxain said: NES all had Stories too... Tetris is a example, but its not enough to prove your orginal point 1 out of billions? Out of what 1 billion? Do you know what you wrote? 'Games always had stories', do you know what this means? Games ALWAYS HAD STORIES means every game has a story. I dispute this. Obviously what you really mean is 'the game industry in Nes/Snes days always had story games' which is true, but thats not what you wrote. But then your forgetting the arcade times of the game industry pre 1960's. When virtually every game had no story and just had gameplay.   Arczdes yes?... I guess im more talkin about games during the birth of Home Console gaming Either way it's wrong ps1 and ps2 gens had much more mass market growth than ever during the birth or arcade generations.

Nope they never did.

Mass market would be like including girls and kids and old people.

the PS1 and PS2 market has ALWAYS been merely the leftovers of the SNES market, primarily male teenagers and 20+.

The only consoles which had mass market appeal would be NES, SNES and Wii.

vanatos said: Stop overanalyzing shit. Games which focus on fun and are quirky=most people enjoy Games which focus on being serious (and almost always will have story)=niche, only some people enjoy. To put it another way, after SNES, games started moving into serious mature mode (More and more blood and gore, focus on adult themes like war etc, focus on realism overt art). And the industry has been losing the mass market customers ever since

you kno... I should of read this debate Starter.... I had already disprove this theory long ago...you like me, were referring to Console not Arcades....now u jumped way back post Home Console gaming

 

the leftovers? I dunno about you, but food doesn't just magically appear in my fridge.

I do agree he didn't state the point quite clearly, and left a lot of room for misinterpretation.

So I'll just add I support his line in the sense that taking games in general too seriously has led to escalating costs while reducing mainstream appeal.

As in I don't say it's the serious games. I say it's the thought that serious games should be the dominant type. We got plenty of serious games in the 16-bit era, as noted. But not only was there a healthy mix of less serious games, the serious games were not so expensive.

Now the thought of a AAA game isn't that it's really good, but that it costs a lot of money and looks it. That is the kind of serious that is hurting the industry.

Xxain said: vanatos said: Stop overanalyzing shit. Games which focus on fun and are quirky=most people enjoy Games which focus on being serious (and almost always will have story)=niche, only some people enjoy. To put it another way, after SNES, games started moving into serious mature mode (More and more blood and gore, focus on adult themes like war etc, focus on realism overt art). And the industry has been losing the mass market customers ever since you kno... I should of read this debate Starter.... I had already disprove this theory long ago...you like me, were referring to Console not Arcades....now u jumped way back post Home Console gaming

When i was talking about when the game industry was losing customers, it was after SNES.

When we discuss whether gaming always had stories, that includes the whole of gaming, not just NES+ days, which is not the total history of gaming, not even console gaming really.

LordTheNightKnight said: I do agree he didn't state the point quite clearly, and left a lot of room for misinterpretation. So I'll just add I support his line in the sense that taking games in general too seriously has led to escalating costs while reducing mainstream appeal. As in I don't say it's the serious games. I say it's the thought that serious games should be the dominant type. We got plenty of serious games in the 16-bit era, as noted. But not only was there a healthy mix of less serious games, the serious games were not so expensive. Now the thought of a AAA game isn't that it's really good, but that it costs a lot of money and looks it. That is the kind of serious that is hurting the industry.

"As in I don't say it's the serious games. I say it's the thought that serious games should be the dominant type. We got plenty of serious games in the 16-bit era, as noted. But not only was there a healthy mix of less serious games, the serious games were not so expensive.Now the thought of a AAA game isn't that it's really good, but that it costs a lot of money and looks it. That is the kind of serious that is hurting the industry." I can agree with this

LordTheNightKnight said: I do agree he didn't state the point quite clearly, and left a lot of room for misinterpretation. So I'll just add I support his line in the sense that taking games in general too seriously has led to escalating costs while reducing mainstream appeal. As in I don't say it's the serious games. I say it's the thought that serious games should be the dominant type. We got plenty of serious games in the 16-bit era, as noted. But not only was there a healthy mix of less serious games, the serious games were not so expensive. Now the thought of a AAA game isn't that it's really good, but that it costs a lot of money and looks it. That is the kind of serious that is hurting the industry.

Ok, this I can get behind.

Serious games shouln't be the dominant type. However, I think you're being generous with your interpretation. Malstrom wants these games to disappear, but there is quite a big market for it.

Devs make story based games because there is a market for it. Sure, maybe the market is shifting to a more balanced state, but tbh story games will always be here because stories and games interract well together.

Story is killing Zelda, Mario and Sonic. The 3D ones. We need less emphasis on story and laser beam focus on expanding gameplay innovations, not gimmicks (trains, boats and the promise of planes in Zelda). Dear God, smite Aonuma for his wicked ways.

vanatos said: Xxain said: vanatos said: Stop overanalyzing shit. Games which focus on fun and are quirky=most people enjoy Games which focus on being serious (and almost always will have story)=niche, only some people enjoy. To put it another way, after SNES, games started moving into serious mature mode (More and more blood and gore, focus on adult themes like war etc, focus on realism overt art). And the industry has been losing the mass market customers ever since you kno... I should of read this debate Starter.... I had already disprove this theory long ago...you like me, were referring to Console not Arcades....now u jumped way back post Home Console gaming When i was talking about when the game industry was losing customers, it was after SNES. When we discuss whether gaming always had stories, that includes the whole of gaming, not just NES+ days, which is not the total history of gaming, not even console gaming really.

ok, so there actually was a misunderstanding.

We are talking about home consoles. Nobody wanted a story on an arcade machine because they were on the go.

Maybe instead of "devs always wanted to have stories but were limited by the space of the media" I should have said, "devs always wanted to have stories but were limited by the space of the media and consumer indifference"

I think Maelstrom exaggerates alot which leads to misinterpretation, but we have to remember he is just posting blog posts.

I dont think he wants serious games to be totally gone, just not to be the focus of the industry.