Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News) Using the word director here is funny because of their quick time event movies.
I mean it's a fact that since Modern Warfare the amount of FPS games has incredibly increased in number, likely trying to ride on the success and familiarity of the genre by newer fans to the gaming world. The diversity in games being produced has, in my opinion, been severely lacking in the big gaming industries in the last 5 years. Indie games and small time companies have been able to show creativity that was once valued in the gaming market, which is now diluted by the bigger studios. And I understand why they aren't being as experimental in games, it's because of money. Gamers these days are not buying new and creative games as they have in the past, heck I include myself in this to an extent, which is also diluting the gaming industry. We are the architects for what companies make, if we want a shooter we buy more shooters, if we want more point and click games, we buy more point and click games. I think, or maybe just hope, that this is a stage in the gaming age where shooters are dominant, and when the craze passes we can move onto more creative and diverse genres being pumped money and time into.
Because David Cage is soooo good at mature content in games. Oh I'm badly injured and mentally broken from trying to find my son. LETS HAVE SEX. While yes, "mature" content is games is pretty poor, as mature seems to amount to blood and swearing. Much like the phase comic books went into in the 80's. But it's kinda rich coming from a man who can barely create a good mature story himself. Heavy Rain was a plot-holed filled mess which fell apart at the end. David Cage to me comes across as a man who wanted to make films, couldn't. So he somehow ending up making games and resents it. But that doesn't stop the fact that Cage has some points. Diversity in games needs to happen, but it's not because it needs to grow up. It's because people need to be willing to take risks and making games needs to be cheaper. Games are so expensive already that companies go under as soon as the game is complete. Team Bondi closed down despite the fact LA Noire was a success. Risks doesn't mean just mean a different kind of story. it's about pushing the envelope of what makes a game a game. Embedding story into gameplay and telling a story that can only be told in a game. David Cage is just making bad movies with quick time events. I'm holding out for Beyond: Two Souls to be good, but he needs to stop being so preachy.
I mostly agree with DA here. Although, I differ what he thinks on David Cage and all. David Cage is definitely taking risks, as nobody knew if there would be a place for such a story-driven QTE game, but there is. And he is making some very unique games in the current market. However, like DA said, the thing is that it is just getting way too expensive to make games nowadays and people mostly just want shooters. So most companies won't take risks as there's a pretty decent chance it will flop and their company might just go under. It's happened a lot of times this generation already, and it will by no doubt happen next generation. The only way for someone to take risks now seems to be by working for Sony, as they are publishing a lot of very unique games. Both PSN and retail. But at this pace, it might not be too long until even Sony has to stop publishing all these unique games. It will be a sad day for gaming. Honestly, I still believe that we shouldn't have made consoles more powerful than the Gamecube. It was just graphically advanced enough for things to look good, but also keep budgets at a relatively alright price.
I disagree with that completely. If anything, indie games have seen an enormous boost of popularity over the past year or so. Games like Bastion, Amnesia and Minecraft being made by very small teams and still being very successful. Back in 2000-2007, there were small teams, but it's nothing like it is now. The technology is much better and easier to use now, so any one can make a game, and all they need is a little creativity to be successful. It doesn't even need solid game mechanics.
The way I look at it, modern consoles have the potential for the hyper-realistic graphics you may want to make, but there's nothing forcing you to go that route. For one, if it doesn't suit the game you're creating, don't do it. Secondly, a more creative art style that doesn't rely on the current industry's standards of "realistic graphics" will age very nicely, and won't look as gaudy in just a few years. Our games look nice today and we're really impressed by them, but there is always room to improve them. In five or so years, today's games that rely on realism will look woefully outdated, while games like Journey will be a visual joy no matter when you're playing them. Point being, if studios don't want to put money into developing realistic graphics for whatever reasons (budget concerns, doesn't suit the game/developer's wishes, etc), they don't have to. As for the actual article, I do agree, to an extent. It's nice to see experimentation and something that hasn't been done before in video games--but that doesn't mean I still don't like my generic fighting games that add very little between releases. It should be a mixed bag, and telling everyone else to "grow up" sounds, ironically, a little immature. If people enjoy the games and play them, and you like making them, keep making them! Likewise, if you have a very new and artistic idea for a game, make the game. If it ends up being something really impressive, it could be one of those games that really change the industry.
You're right, they don't have to make super realistic graphics. However, what the consumers want is games with realistic graphics. Aside from some odd examples, like Minecraft, if you want your game to be popular, it needs to have realistic graphics. CoD is the most popular non-Nintendo franchise right now, and that's largely due to the fact that the game is "realistic" and has a similar art direction. You can ignore realistic graphics, but you might lose a fair chunk of your sales. So there's two scenarios: 1) You spend more money on the graphics to make your game potentially sell more, or 2) you make your graphics more stylised at a lower cost, but also at the loss of revenue. I love stylised far more than realistic, but the latter is far more popular than the former.
I said big industries are not as creatively pushing the boundaries of diversity in the games they are producing, whilst small, indie developers are showing the creativity diversity that was once seen by the bigger companies. And that big industries have diluted their creativity and variation in games compared to the indie market which has been able to show creativity that was once valued in the gaming market
with regards to the issue of so many first person shooters. i think it's just a temporary fad/trend in the industry at the moment that will fizzle out on it's own. it's like a few years ago we kept seeing those rock band/guitar hero games coming out with way too many of them. i'm sure this fad will end on it's own probably to be replaced by a another fad of similar genre games.
