Editorial: We Reap What We Sow

[Webs961]

The latest iteration of the series From the Editors' Desks provides a glimpse into the perceived declining creative quality of modern video games. But, the problem lies not entirely with the developers; read on to who all shares blame for this lapse in good development:

I remember the days when hope ruled the video game world. The days when Resident Evil, SaGa Frontier, Tactics Ogre, Valkyrie Profile and Xenogears were all coming out within a few years span. Before that, it was F-Zero, Star Fox, Chrono Trigger, Shining Force… The 90’s were truly a golden age of video games where innovation ruled. It was also during this time when the weak and unoriginal turds disappeared into obscurity, serving as reminders that it took originality to succeed. Were I to look to the Personal Computer for similar support, I found genre defining games such as Warcraft, Diablo, Fallout, Half-life, Counter-Strike, Thief, Total Annihilation, and Daggerfall.

Then the new millennium came, and something changed… With only a select few exceptions that have become classics as a result of their wonderment, it seems the gaming industry has spiraled out of control in the wake its own exponential growth rates. It seems we’ve all lost sight of what truly made video gaming so wonderful: Discovery. Industry leaders following in the footsteps of Mario and Sonic all wanted to create their own flagship series without offering anything genuinely new about that series beyond the artwork and plot. This past decade of console offerings gave us nothing more than storybooks with very little amusement attached. If this wasn’t bad enough, it seems as if every major gaming company just had to have their own piece of a truly successful franchise, making knock-offs faster than faux-gucci salesmen in the streets of New York City.

Continue Reading...

Be sure to leave your comments and thoughts either in this thread or in the blog entry.

~~Busted Analog is an editorial series meant to ventilate some of the more frustrating aspects of gaming, or to just poke fun at games. Whether it's a problem with publishers, developers, gamers or the games themselves, you can be sure to read about it here in the weekly to monthly updates. Just remember that the opinions you read here are the author's alone, and they are not representative of the entire Total Gaming Network.

[Obsidian Spire]

Re: Editorial: We Reap What We Sow

I think you might be embellishing the status of the "golden age of gaming." While I remember some really amazing games from my childhood, I also remember the really cruddy, uninspired lot that was still the majority of games. Developers were already falling into bad habits and re-releasing the same games with minor variances, or releasing shoddy ports onto the various systems. Any era can look great after you wade through the junk.

I do agree with your criticism about graphics. Too many people believe that graphics are the most important aspect of gaming. Most of this misplaced importance stems from the fact that graphics will always be the first information readily available about a game. Any moron can look at a game trailer and appreciate the effort put into the aesthetics of the game. I like to think of it as the "Oooh, shiny object" mentality.

In my opinion, developers want profits, so they follow successful formulas with the hopes of recreating the original excitement, fan base, and sales of their model. I can recall several games that not only were innovative and fun, but failed miserably in the sales department. Things like that provide truth to the last line of your blog. People apparently want repetition, and as long as people fail to recognize the path they walk, rehashes will succeed as the actually worthwhile, once-in-a-blue-moon games rarely gain the attention they deserve.

Also, kudos for mentioning Shining Force; I love that game to death, despite the trite amnesia plot.

[Dairuka]

Re: Editorial: We Reap What We Sow

I think you might be embellishing the status of the "golden age of gaming." While I remember some really amazing games from my childhood, I also remember the really cruddy, uninspired lot that was still the majority of games. Developers were already falling into bad habits and re-releasing the same games with minor variances, or releasing shoddy ports onto the various systems. Any era can look great after you wade through the junk.

Except the 80's. (This generalization does not include speed metal.)

I do agree with your criticism about graphics. Too many people believe that graphics are the most important aspect of gaming. Most of this misplaced importance stems from the fact that graphics will always be the first information readily available about a game. Any moron can look at a game trailer and appreciate the effort put into the aesthetics of the game. I like to think of it as the "Oooh, shiny object" mentality.

It is rather unimpressive to see the latest greatest realistic simulator come out, when all I really want is a game. While on that subject, I do feel that graphical quality has already gotten about as 'realistic' as it gets. It's about time we shifted off the importance of graphics, and moved on to something more substantial and satisfying. Longevity and Replayability would be great places to start. More multiplayer options, more stages, more exploration... all of that would equal more fun.

In my opinion, developers want profits, so they follow successful formulas with the hopes of recreating the original excitement, fan base, and sales of their model. I can recall several games that not only were innovative and fun, but failed miserably in the sales department. Things like that provide truth to the last line of your blog. People apparently want repetition, and as long as people fail to recognize the path they walk, rehashes will succeed as the actually worthwhile, once-in-a-blue-moon games rarely gain the attention they deserve.

Webs opened my eyes to a game that went completely under my radar when I first turned in this article for editing. He commented on my lack of support for "Savage", which was essentially the BF2 + WiC combination I've always wanted. Although, seeing as it was medieval based, I can understand why it slipped past my cross-hairs. I'm planning to buy it soon.

Also, kudos for mentioning Shining Force; I love that game to death, despite the trite amnesia plot.

I also had a lot of love for Fire Emblem. I just can't force myself to play the new ones, since it's pretty much that "been there, done that" feel.

Sometimes nostalgia is better remembered than practiced. Frankly, I just want games to evolve again.

[Obsidian Spire]

Re: Editorial: We Reap What We Sow

I also had a lot of love for Fire Emblem. I just can't force myself to play the new ones, since it's pretty much that "been there, done that" feel.

Sometimes nostalgia is better remembered than practiced. Frankly, I just want games to evolve again.

I think most of the appeal from Fire Emblem is solid gameplay, but with a deep, customizable story. In any case, it's just like any other series Nintendo works on/publishes; no real improvements in most circumstances, but a new area to explore and learn about, so most people won't care anyway.

I know what you mean with the bolded part. Although, I still enjoy some older games more than their new counterparts. Just look at Sonic.

[stilla-killa]

Re: Editorial: We Reap What We Sow

How far back do you consider the golden age of gaming? For some it goes back to the Atari 2600 age and before as with me. I remember getting an Atari 2600 for Christmas and actually being able to play video games at home on the television. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Nothing like playing Breakout IV for hours on end. It really is amazing how far video games have come.