Current state of gaming

[Boomer78]

Hey guys,
First time poster... long time lurker. You can sometimes find me posting over at the AGEOD forums as Boomer. Love this forum here, and Matrix Games as well.

Rome 2: Total War recently came out to not so good reviews. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that the game is a beautiful disaster, with a moronic AI and a terrible interface, just to name a few problems (like removing old good features and inserting new bad ones).

So far this year we've also seen horrible releases like Aliens: Colonial Marines, the debacle that was Sim City, Omerta, etc. The list is surely objective, but one would have to be hard pressed to find a lot to find positive about this year's gaming releases as a whole.

Now, as a gamer who refuses to use Steam, the problems with Rome 2 don't bother me all that much since I won't be playing it. I am a total mark for older Total War games, though, and this problematic release, it has brought up questions in my mind as to where the gaming industry is going. I gotta say, it kinda scares me. Are they just spending too much time on advertising? Are devs worried more about how games look rather than what's under the hood? The qualities of games in the past seem to be lacking in the current roster. While looking and sounding great, many of the big A list releases seem to be falling like lead bricks. I can't imagine how half of these titles are even making it past QA. Any ideas as to the underlining reasons?

[DSWargamer]

You answered the question, yes they are worried how they look.

Every time a great game is made, everyone just assumes their opinions are magically valid, and wise, and well thought out and in the end, we so often get version 2 and 3 and 4 ad naseum and really all the companies are doing in most cases is milking an idea to death. It rarely works with movies too.

Most of the great wargames, were made a loooooong time ago, and all of the clones have failed as in the end a clone is just a clone.

Steel Panthers, it escapes me why it hasn't been re released with a new name and able to play nice on a new computer. But I recall Combat Leader, and the reason it failed, they actually thought they needed to 'improve' it. No, they just needed to re make it exactly as it was, but with new code, new proprietary code that is merely the same game inasmuch as looks were concerned. I'd be playing Steel Panthers Mega Campaigns right now, if it was a program made in the last year of so not the last decade or so.

I have seen no small sum of games which were really just lame repeats, and in the end, nothing more than joe developer thinking they were magically capable of doing such a better job than the other guy. It's possible this level of arrogant belief is the problem with gaming as a whole, too many people with the attitude, 'oh the market always has room for another of the same damned game'. Maybe the truth is it doesn't.

The only reason great games get to be great, is when they do something great and no one else has done it before.

You can laugh at games like Angry Birds, but, it was at least not copying anyone.

You might not like a specific version of Civilization, but the truth is, it owns that slot.

Sim City is the same thing.

But there comes a time when the industry really doesn't need a slightly different colour of the same damned game.

And just because computer hardware gets a bit faster, does not mean you can release a new version of the same old game, and pretend that it matters that is is a teeny tiny bit graphically more intensive.

[Boomer78]

Yeah, there does seem to be some sort of creative bell curve that has been hit. While some indies are doing amazing stuff (FTL, Plants vs Zombies, Minecraft, etc) the big publishers just seem to spit out the same crap over and over again. I know it's based on the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach, but what gets me is the amount of success they've had with the 'more of the same' method. Sure, everyone bitched and moaned about the Sim City server disaster, but they still put up with their $59.99, same for all the others. If you look at it from the financial aspect, these companies are doing very well. If you look at QA, price models, customer support, or product longevity, it would paint a totally different picture.

Many of these titles are being released in barely functional form, yet they're being gobbled up like the first keg of beer at a frat party. If a car maker released a car that had a body and tires but no engine or faulty transmission, they'd be burned alive in the PR department, not to mention I'm sure by countless lawsuits. Same goes for printers, cell phones, or power tools. While we do hold a different standard to gaming? Is it just something as simple as the caveat-emptor rule? Are gamers just that foolish to fall for the same thing over and over again?

[PipFromSlitherine]

Well, I think the industry hasn't looked so good in a long time [:)]. It's always natural to look at problems and say "that never happened in the old days!", but the truth is we had different issues, and different flops or debacles. For every Sim City (which, not having played it, was at least trying to do different things) there are gems like The Last of Us.

So while it's definitely good to keep calling out problems and issues from games, I think that things will keep getting better and better - perhaps haltingly, oddly, and erratically, but better.

/optimism [:)]

Cheers

Pip

[Orm]

I feel that graphics improve steadily. But other areas are lacking. Improvement on the AI opponent is a rare thing. I feel that the AI opponent in old games could easily match the opponent in many new games.

Matrix games do make a effort to improve the AI opponent but I feel many other developers ignore this.

[DSWargamer]

I dunno Pip, I think the only good thing to happen to gaming in 3 years is the tablet.

Now people can have their game anywhere they want it, and not be stuck with just a puny screened toy. As much as the controls on a DS are superior, it is still what it is, a small screen. Almost wonder if I should change my account name to tablet gamer

I get reeeeeally tired of listening to dummied down this and dummied down that, and when I think about a thread I read about War in the East and I have a hard time not laughing. I am sure sales will be fine for War in the West, but, I hope I am able to refrain from knee jerk buying into it again. I feel like an idiot for getting the rest as it is.

I think we wargamers are really good at lying to ourselves. The dummest thing to happen to computer wargaming, is it has fallen for the same trap that happened to board game wargaming in the late 80s. They got the idea that excessively fancy graphic content made a game better. Fact is, the entirely boring map, and very bland counters of Advanced Third Reich are still making board game looking computer grand strategy wargames eat dust. Because all the fancy hasn't translated to anything of substance.

Look at Strategic Command, except for a few design gaffes, the first release was excellent. SC2 was a BAD idea and I couldn't care less how that sits with anyone. Yeah it might have some benefits under the hood, but the body of that vehicle is an eyesore. I am glad they have decided to release it as SC3 minus the visual disaster. I just hope they don't get too carried away with the makeup, I just want a solid simulation. I want something as good as Advanced Third Reich or I might as well be playing Advanced Third Reich.

Ok enough banter, I have some baking to do

[GrumpyMel]

I find the really big developers underwhelming at best....I won't use the kind of adjectives that really describe some them on this board. However, the smaller to medium developers which include most of the ones featured here at Matrix seem to be consistantly knocking things out of the park, as they have been ever since I've been purchasing games here. There are a few that I haven't much cared for....and a few that seem a bit like retreads of earlier designs, which isn't actualy a bad thing in many cases. Mostly though they are very high quality....and equaly important they don't come with alot of the consumer unfriendly baggage that some of the major developers like to delve into.

I think I could officialy be labled a Matrix fan-boy at this point. There are alot of exciting titles that appear to be in Development at this point as well. At this point my real issue is more limited gaming time then anything else....that's especialy vexing in terms of PBEM or Live PvP matches. Even though those tend to be the most fun, it's unfair to saddle the other player with slow turn-around times or the need to logoff during a match...so I find myself mostly playing against the A.I. when I do game these days.

[Boomer78]

Well, I'm sure many of us might disagree on Matrix's pricing model, but they at least release WORKING games. Sure, a patch here or there streamlines the product, but I don't think I ever have seen a Matrix game get the kind of treatment that games get whose publishers have 10 times the manpower and money as Matrix does. So in that sense, it is very much a 'poop rolls uphill' analogy.

Will there be a crisis moment? Could there be another gaming industry collapse like the one in 1982/83? Or is there just too many mouths at the feeding trough to stop the ride?

[wodin]

DS..yet one of the most common complaints on this forum about the games is the graphics. I really believe you can have lovely 2D graphics, 2D doesn't have to be bland and boring. I don't like 3D icons\units in my wargames as I think a MASSIVE tank thats bigger than a city kicks me so far out of immersion compared to a lovely well done counter.
I do agree though that other aspects of gaming has been neglected like the AI and no one is willing to take a risk or experiment with mechanics..wargames are particularly guilty of this..WEGO was the last innovation...no one is willing to fund a game on a lesser known conflict (though I think the way around this is by make the core game set in a War that will sell well..then make sure the engine is flexible enough to cover other eras and sell scenario packs of the lesser known wars the game that seemed to do this well was TOAW but back then you got extra scenarios for nothing included in a patch or something;). Anyway going off track abit here..

Back in the days of the BBC B, Spectrum,Commodore and Amstrad the developers found better and better techniques to squeeze as much out of those machines as possible..and you could tell the games got better not because of tech upgrades but due to coders skill...these days tech increases so quick that no one really needs to find ways to get the most out of the current machines. It's just become about graphics and little else esp the big AAA games, it's all visual. We have now got to the stage of nostalgia with games, probably for the first time and retro is the rage. I say great to that as some of the old genres like the RPG's still had plenty of evolution to go through but sadly where over taken for the mad rush for 3D graphics. Aslong as when we go back we take the old genre a step further and no just a clone I see some great games coming out of it. Look at the sudden love in the mainstream for turn based, yet us lot always knew turn based = gameplay, tis a shame that people are so fascinated by the latest sparkley thing rather than working on and improving what we already have..until it comes to the point you can do no more with it..then move on.

Sorry this was a long ramble with no real point to it. I suppose there are always the exceptions like OBD who develop Wings Over Flanders Field, a true labour of love and you can tell. They have pushed well beyond what anyone would have thought possible with the tools and engine they have. They are also going to announce some first in simming with regards to the AI. There are a few other projects being developed that seem to be made by people with real passion and love for the game they are making and I have high hopes for these games aswell. The future classics that will have ground breaking mechanics will come from small indy teams that self publish and the games they develop are products of their dream\passion.

[jday305]

I agree with Boomer and many of the responders to this post; new games are not all that they could be. With all the disasters that have come out over the past few years I no longer rush out and buy a game at $59.99. I will now wait patiently for a year to eighteen months and see how well it holds up with the players and read their views on it. In fact I just recently bought Elder Scrolls V Skyrim and actually love it. I especially love the fact I not only new a lot about how well it played before I even tried it but only paid $14.99 for it. [:D] The same can not be said for March of the Eagles that I bought as soon as it came out. Talk about a waste of my hard earned money. [:@] I should have followed my own advise but thought it would be worth it. I learned my lesson...hopefully.

[catwhoorg]

Outside of Matrix games, the only things I have bought recently have been through gog.com

I think that's very telling of my opinion of the current mainstream games.


I did put up for a couple of kickstarters, but as I don't have those games yet, I don't think that quite counts. That's truly buying on a promise.

[Boomer78]

That's one area where things have improved. In the old days, when a game came out there would be little in the way of information aside from maybe a small pitch or two in gaming mags, maybe a flyer or poster in a software shop window. Nowadays, you get previews, beta tests, and early bird video reviews WAY before you need to worry about plunking down the money. The flipside to that coin is that the mines in the minefield have increased, so there is no longer that expectation that a game will be a labor of love, rather just a labor of pure labor... bottom line being the bottom line. I suppose it's a fair tradeoff, but I'd rather be ignorant of a game's potential, but still confident enough to know that I won't be getting a lemon.

[wodin]

Boomer to be honest I find we get told way too much about upcoming games so the magic gets ripped out of them and nothing is left to surprise.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

So far this year we've also seen horrible releases like Aliens: Colonial Marines, the debacle that was Sim City, Omerta, etc. The list is surely objective, but one would have to be hard pressed to find a lot to find positive about this year's gaming releases as a whole.

Except pick different games as examples, maybe? Bioshock Infinite? Metro Last Light? Splinter Cell: Blacklist? And getting a little more subjective maybe, I've really enjoyed Call of Juarez Gunslinger and the much under-rated Defiance as well. No great strategy game as yet, but there's still time. In short, I see no great difference from previous years, with the same mix of good games, bad games, rushed games, unexpected disappointments and equally unexpected surprises.

I'll offer one positive and one negative, though. The positive is the continued march of real quality indie titles - they get better and better compared with the big-boys every year. The negative is the arrival of 'early access', or at least its establishment under that name on Steam and equivalents elsewhere. The effect seems to be to drastically lower the quality bar of those games on release, and it IS a 'release' - we even have games on sale now while still in alpha, what's up with that?!

[histgamer]

Not sure how many people know but back in the mid 2000s people were writing about the death of PC gaming as well. Great wargames are few and far between but so really are great games for any genre. Still I feel there is definitely progress.

Scourge of War is a "new" wargame that is a pretty darn good game.

Crusader Kings II while a rehash of Crusader Kings I was a huge step forward and by far the best game ever released of it's kind.

War in the Pacific Admirals edition while a remake is a very well done one that makes massive progress.

Panzer Corps was a game that was a remake but it's hardly a re-hash as the original was more than a decade old, it definitely doesn't fit into the category that you're talking about.

DCS has some pretty high quality modern flight sims that are not all that old.

I'd say only a few games really come out every year but that's been the case for ever a decade, nothing has changed there.

[Agathosdaimon]

Why is CA falling so short on AI constantly? Is the company that brought out Wargame ALB and will be bringing our Dragon Rising next which looks to evolve it more, indie company. I think they do alot to get good performance - the graphis in their new game are great and move really smoothly while having alot going on in game. I am finding ALB quite hard in solo play and perhaps thats a good thing.

What happened to the company that made World in Conflict? that was a good game a few years back. What big name companies are actually still around? perhaps they dont innovate because they are afraid to take risks, addicted to whatever established market they believe they have. Indie developers are free to do their own thing on the other hand.

[Qwixt]

It's easy to forget about the failures of the past. Back in the DOS days of gaming, it was a real iffy proposition just getting a game installed at times. Windows made that a thing of the past. The worst game on my list is a game from Sierra called Outpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_%28video_game%29). A real swindle job. While you can hate in CA for Rome II, at least you know they will not abandon the game like I have seen happy to many other games.

As far as innovation games, I have read articles saying that for at least 15 years. The industry isn't falling apart or worse than it was. You are simply remembering the gems from the past and forgetting the embarrassments.

[Agathosdaimon]

oh yeah, there were alot badly made war and strategy games in the past too - one just has to look through CGW back issues (which you can find most of which at the CGW Museum - they are great old mags, full of a lot guides for playing old games which can now again on dosbox) and also the reviews by M Evans Brooks - i guess though there were alot of strategy games back then in the time prior to Doom and such.

[Boomer78]

Sure, there were a lot of failed games back in the day, but that was when there were no industry standards, software designers were making things up as they went along, and there was very little in the way of hardware compatibility... even computer hardware had to be invented and kept up to speed to match new 3D engines, processor demands, etc. So to me current failures are that much more poignant because they speak more to lack of human insight and creativity rather than just a lack of technology or resources (Daikatana, not withstanding LOL).

We've seen hardware tech/prices level off over the last few years, which has been great for software designers who finally have a chance to settle into working with cpu/gpu/os standards. Budgets have never been bigger for the big studios, some matching the budgets of movie studios even. Add to that the largest fan base gaming has ever had and it just doesn't make sense that something like a Rome 2 could even have a chance at failing.

I agree that we should highlight the recent successes, and there are many. However, to see large A list titles flop is just shocking and to me reveals some serious problems running behind the scenes.

[Greybriar]

Speaking of Windows, does anyone remember Plug and Pray? [;)]