Are games really changing?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

Edited By armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

Since the early years of gaming (NES, ATARI, SEGA MASTER SYSTEM) one thing has remained as a prime objective: Fun! Whether it’s the aim of getting a high score, saving a princess, or going crazy in a lawless open world city fun has always been the gamer’s goal. In the past few years’ game producers have made promises and those promises have been either hit or miss. What’s worse is that some hard ware systems have limited gaming’s advance while other systems promised to advance gaming while merely just giving the audience a catchy gimmick for a year or so. With the new system out the question now beckons ARE GAMES REALLY CHANGING? In the process of asking that the more important question is: Will it be a fun change? In order to best address these questions this article will be broken down, as would a game review so try and follow along.

Overview: Most games at their heart haven’t really changed thus far. Some one is kidnapped, a gangster wants you to do favors for him, a black operation is a foot and its up to you to stop it with an array of guns. With that in mind, these things may not be getting old so long as game developers keep fresh takes on these genres. The idea here is to improve on where gaming can go.

With the new and powerful systems hopefully game companies will be able to operate outside of the old norms. Disc size, hardware limits, and imagination can enable this upcoming generation of systems to truly change gaming, but for now it’s all speculation. With the upcoming systems public interaction seems to be at the forefront of company’s minds. They seem to think sharing content and online gaming is the true future of gaming. This may very well be true, but will it sacrifice the fun?

Graphics: This seems to be the one mainstream area that continues to improve from generation to generation. With this being true there comes a time when looking real just isn’t enough. The PS3, 360, and PC all are strong enough in this area to make you believe in the game your playing. Sports titles now appear to be sports broadcast games. Action games have a plethora of realistic weaponry and don’t skimp on the gore. Even adventure games have the appearance of a cartoon of the highest quality. The pitfall of advancing graphics sometimes leads developers to try and confuse gamers into thinking better graphics also equals better games over all. Can graphics really get much better? Do we need them to BE better? Will the over all fun be sacrificed to make room for just looks? It’s a sure bet that 40% of new games will fall into this moniker.

Story: Where story based games are concerned a lot of games in recent years have been very great. Games like Bioshock, Far cry, Elder scrolls, Metal Gear, and plenty of others broke new grounds where story was concerned. A more positive is that most of these games made excellent use of new hardware in order to make the overall experience of the gamer so much more pleasurable. Story based games have caused gamers to plow through some of their favorite titles in record time. On the other hand some stories are tired and stale by now and could use some adjustment or a plain new over haul. With the new systems this is totally possible. Where story is concerned the advancement of gaming is looking beautiful. It’s a sure bet that 85-90% of new games will be just fine in this area.

Control and gameplay: This is the biggest area of disappointment in recent years. Some systems (which shall be unnamed) claimed to be changing the face of gaming with their innovative motion controls. The truth is gaming is at its best and will continue to be at its best with a controller in the players hand. While cute and clever motion gaming of any kind has been a mere gimmick at best. Controls and gameplay should be relegated to expanding on new angles for the gaming community. No more rushed games, quick time action gameplay, or crazy angles. It’s just a sad attempt to appear different, but end up being different just for difference sake. Developers need to focus on taking their time and increasing the depth of the core game. With sports titles it could be as simple as imputing viable things like pre-game shows, better post game (playoff) shows/ambience, and commentary that’s relevant. Bottom line this area has the greatest potential, and should be of the highest focus in the future. On a side note spare the gaming community the obvious DLC that’s been planned about as long as the game has been in development. DLC was partly derived because of disc space and hard drive limitations there should be no need for all that in the future. It’s a half behind bet that this area will be a 50-50% of being top priority in the future.

Sound: This has been the driving force in gaming since gaming has been gaming (are you lost?). Most old school games used their sound to drive the focus and evoke top-notch emotions from their players. Think about it…remember when you slide down your first and last pole in Mario Bros.? How did it sound when Pac-man was ousted by a ghost? When you faced off against a boss in MGS 1,2,3 or 4 did your heart race as you hummed the music being played? How did you feel when you gained a perk in Fallout 3? Lastly what would a Final Fantasy be without the music playing when you won a battle? Voice acting has come quite a long way also. From reading a screen to being able to hear the emotion in a characters voice was great. The point here is that sound has played and most likely will continue to be the driving force in gaming. Its one of the only areas gamers rarely have to worry about in AAA titles. It’s a safe bet to make that 99.9% of quality games will continue to make benefit of this area.

Re-play factor: Another area that has been dwindling as of late. With all the DLC, online passes, and other money making crap why make a nice, long, multi tiered game? The answer: Money! That’s right, what use to be about passion and love quickly turned into a “How can we milk these sheep for their hard earned money?” Where things use to be about the love and dedication or being made from players turned developers todays gaming market is mostly about deadlines and dollars. When this is the top priority who has time to make sure a game is FUN? Better yet who has time to make sure its bug free (looking at you EA mostly)? This area at its very core had been the driving force in gaming. Think about it. Why did you keep playing any Super Mario game? Why play the Legend of Zelda? Even Pac-Man warranted you to obtain a higher score than your last score. These games were simple in nature, but made sure to take the time and be entertaining and having players coming back for more. It’s a fearful bet that 80% of titles will suffer from this horrible affliction.

Multi-player: Ever since online gaming for consoles started this has been a priority from not only gaming developers, but also hardware companies. While trying valiantly to bring lazy gamers to each other without having to drive across town, take a bus, or simply walk down the street the industry slowly destroyed what gaming use to be. It use to be about fun with friends then progressed to multiplayer split screen on the same system to “WOW I DON’T HAVE TO LEAVE THIS CHAIR TO GAME WITH OTHERS!” While not meant to be this way online gaming slowly turned into a hit or miss affair. You might log on and have a blast with friends. Riding a horse around in Red Dead Redemption with your friends shooting up a barn having a good old time. Then one day you decide to pop in Call of Duty and you get an earful of racial slurs or an all time favorite of a high pitched 12 year old whose mom wont get him chocolate milk. Sure consoles like Xbox 360 made lofty promises about match making, but that’s been as failed as the system itself (red ring of death anyone?). With the introduction of the aforementioned online passes, DLC, and payable online service itself you as a gamer has to once again ask where’d the fun go? Why am I paying beyond the purchase of my beloved game itself? Looming on the horizon is the lofty promise of making online more expansive. Also content sharing will be a bigger attraction, but in the end will that goal benefit you the gamer? Where’s the fun in all this? You can make a sure bet that 100% of the focus is going to this area where consoles are concerned.

Closing: If you’ve read this far, things probably have been painted as a little bleak. Although a lot of the points made are negative there is much to be happy about. Rejoice in the fact that quality Developers such as 2K, Blizzard, Treyarch, Naughty Dog, Rockstar, Rocksteady, and bunch of others have always had the best interest of its supporters in mind. In most cases these companies focus on making quality titles, because they know quality equals loyalty. To be fair to the current consoles have advancement in mind, but will that advancement accidently block out the fun?

On the other hand you can definitely expect to pay more in a lot of areas. Whether it is some DLC that could have been put into the original game, or some add on content that could have been released for free (al la Tekken Tag Tournament) or the more gimmicky season passes. It could be the proposed full on paid PSN service. It surely will be the future incarnation of XBL. Rest assured it wont be a question of if things will cost more. It’ll be how much fun would I get for my dollar? Will I have fun at all? Things will boil down to the title of this article-- Are games changing or are things destined to be the same with a clever disguise rapped around them? These are questions, which only the future can answer. In any case enjoy what you have now because as an old saying goes, “Its better to deal with the devil you KNOW than the devil you DON’T!” PEACE!

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

Uhm... Consoles have improved, but they most definately have not changed. They simply do what theyre predecessors have done, just alil bit and alilt faster. Seriously, the improvements are actually pretty underwhelming, and games will definately follow suit. Infact the where I think the reall problem lies, in the games themselves, more power is not gonna make the crap we put up with last gen anybetter to play. More power is not going to improve stories either. Bottom line is 8th Gen came alil too early and the 7th Gen consoles are still good machines, theres not a single 8th Gen game I can think of that couldn't work on last gen consoles, we're not being lured into gen 8 (unless you like graphics and networking) we're actually being dragged into the future because eventually they'l stop making games dor last gens consoles.they're gona phase you out, into the identicle future.

Naturally, none of the above applies to Nintendo.

Haven't we been using the dual stick control for over 20 years now, put latest control next to a PS1 controller and tell me if you still expect 8th Gen to be "Innovative".

Avatar image for udubdawgz1
udUbdaWgz1

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#2 udUbdaWgz1
Member since 2014 • 633 Posts

i'll keep this simple, since, I pretty much yap about this stuff all the time, lol: the console gaming industry is now past its golden age.

and, I will not be supporting it past my 360 and will be moving forward by returning to my pc.

let the shiny stone of mediocrity roll.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#3 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@udubdawgz1: You said it loud and clear its almost as if GAMING has hit a halt on Consoles....I might look into PC gaming but that will require me to purchase one again. Maybe when I retire and have a little more free time ill do that, but for now like you MY 360 and PS3 will do just fine

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Uhm... Consoles have improved, but they most definately have not changed. They simply do what theyre predecessors have done, just alil bit and alilt faster. Seriously, the improvements are actually pretty underwhelming, and games will definately follow suit. Infact the where I think the reall problem lies, in the games themselves, more power is not gonna make the crap we put up with last gen anybetter to play. More power is not going to improve stories either. Bottom line is 8th Gen came alil too early and the 7th Gen consoles are still good machines, theres not a single 8th Gen game I can think of that couldn't work on last gen consoles, we're not being lured into gen 8 (unless you like graphics and networking) we're actually being dragged into the future because eventually they'l stop making games dor last gens consoles.they're gona phase you out, into the identicle future.

Naturally, none of the above applies to Nintendo.

Haven't we been using the dual stick control for over 20 years now, put latest control next to a PS1 controller and tell me if you still expect 8th Gen to be "Innovative".

Hmm, a improvement.

But of course consoles have changed, in fact they have changed a lot from its early form in the NES to the first playstation until now the Xbone and Ps4 where its not just a gaming platform, now you can surf, chat, stream, watch tv, movies and a bunch of other things and gaming has become a side dish and no longer the major reason why you might end up with a X1 instead of a Ps4 or pc.

In a sense you can say that the console has grown up and where it previous was something you saw in a kids room, its now something that most households have in their family room right next to the tivo and pron collection.

Also 8th gen has come way to late and the problem isnt games, its lazy developers who think they can cut corners like WB Montreal and Ubisoft Montreal.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

@ Jacanuk

Sure they changed, but how much of that still falls under the gaming umbrella ? Also Its kinda weird to choose your console based on something other than gaming since the damn thing can't pull off any of those features better than the device you most likely already own. not to mention the greedy bullsh!it policies courtesy of Microsoft. And I get that alot of people weren't happy with Arkham Origins but cutting corners where ? It wasn't better than Rocksteady's work but it was definately just as good. As for Ubisoft, haven't played any UBIsoft game since Brotherhood, still I disagree they're cutting corners.

And in truth the only people responsible for the state the industry is in is actually the gamers themselves. Developers only make the stuff, they don't force gamers to buy this crap.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#6 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ Jacanuk

Sure they changed, but how much of that still falls under the gaming umbrella ? Also Its kinda weird to choose your console based on something other than gaming since the damn thing can't pull off any of those features better than the device you most likely already own. not to mention the greedy bullsh!it policies courtesy of Microsoft. And I get that alot of people weren't happy with Arkham Origins but cutting corners where ? It wasn't better than Rocksteady's work but it was definately just as good. As for Ubisoft, haven't played any UBIsoft game since Brotherhood, still I disagree they're cutting corners.

And in truth the only people responsible for the state the industry is in is actually the gamers themselves. Developers only make the stuff, they don't force gamers to buy this crap.

Well, the gaming hardware have changed and now we have motion controllers and in a few years probably VR. But why is it odd to buy a console for other things than gaming? in honesty i find it more annoying that i have to buy one product for this, another for movies, a third for music and so on, so i love the fact that now when i buy a console i can stream, watch movies, listen to my tunes or relax on the couch and just watch tv. and i don't have to have a shit ton of gadgets under my tv or my GF can, as she is not a gamer, so its nice that even when i am not using it its not just cluttering and becoming a nuisance/eyesoar and when you think about it it´s also a lot more efficient and a lot more beneficial to the environment if you think green.

Same reason why today i have 0 cd´s standing around and 0 blu-rays/dvd´s they are all secure in locked boxes and have been ripped and put on a nat which streams to any place in the house or anywhere in the world.

And WB and Ubisoft are cutting corners by making a shitty product which they know is crap, why else would WB come out and say hey screw you gamers who have gamebreaking bugs, we dont give a shit, or Ubisoft who delayed a terrible looking game to put in a mp probably as a attempt to please the masses.

Avatar image for wiouds
wiouds

6233

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 wiouds
Member since 2004 • 6233 Posts

Yes games are changing but around the core of what the games should be.

What is changing and improving gaming is not just one factor. The same is for what is hurting gaming. In fact I would say everything add and hurt gaming. That includes console and PC. Then again what one say is helping another says it is hurting.

Avatar image for udubdawgz1
udUbdaWgz1

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#8 udUbdaWgz1
Member since 2014 • 633 Posts

@Jacanuk:

my gaming console is strictly for games. my tv does the rest. unless, you really hate having that one xtra device: Blu-ray/cd/dvd player?

plus, how taxing is it on a gaming console when used extensively for non-gaming purposes?

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

@ Jacanuk

There were no game Breaking bugs in Arkham Origins nor was it shitty. Nor is Watch Dogs terrible looking and as for the Multiplayer, it might actually terrible, its a new IP and they're not doing a beta so yeah, one shouldn't expect much, they did do great work with Assassin's Creed multiplayer though so theres hope if itturns into a franchise.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@udubdawgz1 said:

@Jacanuk:

my gaming console is strictly for games. my tv does the rest. unless, you really hate having that one xtra device: Blu-ray/cd/dvd player?

plus, how taxing is it on a gaming console when used extensively for non-gaming purposes?

Not here unless we talk Xbox, Wii, WiiU , my ps3 and ps4 have been used for a ton of other things, watching movies, tv-shows, streaming youtube, listening to music etc. and yes i do mind a clutter that much, i have a clean home and i like to keep it that way.

Hmm, i dont know about other consoles but my ps3 have lasted since 2007 and until ??? , same with my Xbox360. and the ps3 have been used almost every day for a long time.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#11 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@Jacanuk: I can agree on the lazy developers I for one HATE DLC....at first DLC was an after thought now Gamers accept season passes which means you know games will have DLC in advanced. On your other point I think its good that consoles are accepted as family friendly devices, but at the cost of gaming? NOT COOL!!

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#12 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@Lulu_Lulu: I for one wasn't happy with Arkahm Origins....and I agree AC did a great job on the multi player front

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

Thats cool. What do you make of Arkham Knight ? I have no idea what to expect, #MINDBLOWN !

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts

They're okay. However, I like the minimalist look. That is, I like to see the game world, my character (or weapon if an FPS), and nothing else. I don't like my games looking more cluttered than the HUD of a real jet fighter.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#15 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@armyman_22 said:

@Jacanuk: I can agree on the lazy developers I for one HATE DLC....at first DLC was an after thought now Gamers accept season passes which means you know games will have DLC in advanced. On your other point I think its good that consoles are accepted as family friendly devices, but at the cost of gaming? NOT COOL!!

Ya, season passes and games where it already says "Downloadable content" is bad, its like kicking the gamers in the face and stealing their wallet.

Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#16 The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@armyman_22: Games like Journey, Walking Dead, Braid, hell even bigger games like Destiny and GTA V push it when it comes to gameplay and storytelling.

Avatar image for sefrix
Sefrix

1499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#17 Sefrix
Member since 2011 • 1499 Posts

One thing to note is that the role consoles serve has changed drastically and so the games have changed accordingly. For instance, the role of the console before the Xbox was to simply play video games. They had custom hardware and custom software, a custom OS that's sole purpose was to play video games. There was no menu system, music options, picture options, nothing. It was meant for a disc to be put it and the hardware/console to play the game. Every single facet of it's design was centered on gaming.

This has now changed obviously. The hardware is now simply PC hardware and the OS has become inflated with streaming, Netflix, TV, Music, etc. Consoles are no longer meant just to play games and as such gaming on console continually uses these features.

In my honest opinion, if someone made a console that ONLY played games. I'm talking not even a menu system at all, no other options, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Can you imagine what the specs of a PS4/XOne would do for an OS that doesn't have to do 18 other things at the same time? I'd be in gaming heaven. IMO consoles have lost focus. They used to have a purpose because they were simply gaming machines, not entertainment machines. Now there is less and less making them different than a PC so they have to artificially add reasons they are separate like the Kinect or touchpads/gaming pads.

Avatar image for udubdawgz1
udUbdaWgz1

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#18  Edited By udUbdaWgz1
Member since 2014 • 633 Posts

@Sefrix:

I am with you 100% and I say it all the time: I do not use my xbox consoles for anything other than games.

and, I, too, would buy a gaming-only console in a flash.

Avatar image for Tqricardinho
Tqricardinho

477

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By Tqricardinho
Member since 2013 • 477 Posts

Been happening since Pong.

Avatar image for Gallowhand
Gallowhand

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 9

#20  Edited By Gallowhand
Member since 2013 • 697 Posts

Games have definitely changed over the last three decades, and will continue to change. Whether that change is compatible with someone's personal vision of future gaming is debatable, because we each have our own expectations, needs and desires. One of the problems, however, is that publishers are in this industry for the long haul, and they can change those perceptions to their own benefit over time by effectively conditioning people into accepting things that once they may have believed were unacceptable. People tend to forget how gamers once lashed out at services like Steam for making them install a game client to play Half-Life 2. Now Steam is almost universally praised, in spite of all its continuing flaws. They forget that there was a huge backlash when EA tried to incorporate a regular 'dial home' feature into Mass Effect, because a few years later EA made constant online connection a requirement for certain games. Companies make a push, wait for the backlash, ease off, and then gradually introduce what they intended in the first place. It is the classic example of letting a frog slowly come to the boil, rather than dumping it in a pan of hot water.

Now we have games cut up into chunks called DLC. Now we have micro-transactions to buy things that in the past would have simply been part of the gameplay experience, like unlockable abilities or skins. Now more and more games are incorporating online functionality as a key focus (Destiny, Watch Dogs, Deep Down, TitanFall, The Division, Drive Club, The Crew...just to name a few), and personally I have no interest in that any more.

The ultimate goal is no doubt to provide games as a 'service' rather than a 'product', which is why we have seen big pushes towards digital releases, season passes, premium content, and the acquisition of game streaming services by companies like Sony. The game publisher vision of the future is to have total control over what and where and when you play so that, just like ISPs, they can place artificial barriers in your way that, for a little money, you can choose to remove by buying into a 'premium' service. You can already see the grinding paywall nature of many mobile games that is slowly seeping into more traditional gaming experiences on consoles and PC. In fact, we are now getting direct ports of mobile games onto those platforms.

Many people will view these kinds of changes as something positive, while others will view them as negative. When I look at this (now) current generation of consoles, I can see those pieces falling into place - the online connectivity, the micro-transactions, the digital focus - and honestly it is something I do not wish to be a part of going into the future, because I do no like the idea of 'games as a service'. I'm not interested in game streaming, social functions, sharing, and being connected in a dozen other ways via a multimedia centre, because my PC already fulfils any social connectivity needs I have. I will be using my PS4 to play exclusive single player titles that fit in with my own preferences (complete games that can be played offline, with no hint of micro-transactions), but right now I believe this will be the last console that I buy, and only developers who offer complete gaming experiences will be seeing my money in the future.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#21 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@Lulu_Lulu: Im not taking any chances....ill wait to see what happens with the next batman

Avatar image for udubdawgz1
udUbdaWgz1

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#22  Edited By udUbdaWgz1
Member since 2014 • 633 Posts

@Gallowhand said:

Games have definitely changed over the last three decades, and will continue to change. Whether that change is compatible with someone's personal vision of future gaming is debatable, because we each have our own expectations, needs and desires. One of the problems, however, is that publishers are in this industry for the long haul, and they can change those perceptions to their own benefit over time by effectively conditioning people into accepting things that once they may have believed were unacceptable. People tend to forget how gamers once lashed out at services like Steam for making them install a game client to play Half-Life 2. Now Steam is almost universally praised, in spite of all its continuing flaws. They forget that there was a huge backlash when EA tried to incorporate a regular 'dial home' feature into Mass Effect, because a few years later EA made constant online connection a requirement for certain games. Companies make a push, wait for the backlash, ease off, and then gradually introduce what they intended in the first place. It is the classic example of letting a frog slowly come to the boil, rather than dumping it in a pan of hot water.

Now we have games cut up into chunks called DLC. Now we have micro-transactions to buy things that in the past would have simply been part of the gameplay experience, like unlockable abilities or skins. Now more and more games are incorporating online functionality as a key focus (Destiny, Watch Dogs, Deep Down, TitanFall, The Division, Drive Club, The Crew...just to name a few), and personally I have no interest in that any more.

The ultimate goal is no doubt to provide games as a 'service' rather than a 'product', which is why we have seen big pushes towards digital releases, season passes, premium content, and the acquisition of game streaming services by companies like Sony. The game publisher vision of the future is to have total control over what and where and when you play so that, just like ISPs, they can place artificial barriers in your way that, for a little money, you can choose to remove by buying into a 'premium' service. You can already see the grinding paywall nature of many mobile games that is slowly seeping into more traditional gaming experiences on consoles and PC. In fact, we are now getting direct ports of mobile games onto those platforms.

Many people will view these kinds of changes as something positive, while others will view them as negative. When I look at this (now) current generation of consoles, I can see those pieces falling into place - the online connectivity, the micro-transactions, the digital focus - and honestly it is something I do not wish to be a part of going into the future, because I do no like the idea of 'games as a service'. I'm not interested in game streaming, social functions, sharing, and being connected in a dozen other ways via a multimedia centre, because my PC already fulfils any social connectivity needs I have. I will be using my PS4 to play exclusive single player titles that fit in with my own preferences (complete games that can be played offline, with no hint of micro-transactions), but right now I believe this will be the last console that I buy, and only developers who offer complete gaming experiences will be seeing my money in the future.

hear, hear!

that is one outstanding and truthful comment.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#23 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@The_Last_Ride: I can agree with that statement....me personally I love a good story

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@Sefrix: Thats an awesome and very true observation....Its crazy how the 3DO proposed these things years ago and ppl rejected it. Now ppl clamor over it and can't get enough. I think more and more hard core gamers are going to revert to PC. The exclusives keep me grounded in using the PS3....the Xbox 360 started out the gate with exclusives and then lost steam quick. All in all you're right tho.....I think my ned BLOG will cover this.

Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#25 The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@armyman_22 said:

@The_Last_Ride: I can agree with that statement....me personally I love a good story

Mass Effect is the best trilogy of game story this last generation imho. Games are changing for the better. They just need to tone the business crap down

Avatar image for deactivated-63dfa0b8f0214
deactivated-63dfa0b8f0214

378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By deactivated-63dfa0b8f0214
Member since 2003 • 378 Posts

@Gallowhand said:

Games have definitely changed over the last three decades, and will continue to change. Whether that change is compatible with someone's personal vision of future gaming is debatable, because we each have our own expectations, needs and desires. One of the problems, however, is that publishers are in this industry for the long haul, and they can change those perceptions to their own benefit over time by effectively conditioning people into accepting things that once they may have believed were unacceptable. People tend to forget how gamers once lashed out at services like Steam for making them install a game client to play Half-Life 2. Now Steam is almost universally praised, in spite of all its continuing flaws. They forget that there was a huge backlash when EA tried to incorporate a regular 'dial home' feature into Mass Effect, because a few years later EA made constant online connection a requirement for certain games. Companies make a push, wait for the backlash, ease off, and then gradually introduce what they intended in the first place. It is the classic example of letting a frog slowly come to the boil, rather than dumping it in a pan of hot water.

Now we have games cut up into chunks called DLC. Now we have micro-transactions to buy things that in the past would have simply been part of the gameplay experience, like unlockable abilities or skins. Now more and more games are incorporating online functionality as a key focus (Destiny, Watch Dogs, Deep Down, TitanFall, The Division, Drive Club, The Crew...just to name a few), and personally I have no interest in that any more.

The ultimate goal is no doubt to provide games as a 'service' rather than a 'product', which is why we have seen big pushes towards digital releases, season passes, premium content, and the acquisition of game streaming services by companies like Sony. The game publisher vision of the future is to have total control over what and where and when you play so that, just like ISPs, they can place artificial barriers in your way that, for a little money, you can choose to remove by buying into a 'premium' service. You can already see the grinding paywall nature of many mobile games that is slowly seeping into more traditional gaming experiences on consoles and PC. In fact, we are now getting direct ports of mobile games onto those platforms.

Many people will view these kinds of changes as something positive, while others will view them as negative. When I look at this (now) current generation of consoles, I can see those pieces falling into place - the online connectivity, the micro-transactions, the digital focus - and honestly it is something I do not wish to be a part of going into the future, because I do no like the idea of 'games as a service'. I'm not interested in game streaming, social functions, sharing, and being connected in a dozen other ways via a multimedia centre, because my PC already fulfils any social connectivity needs I have. I will be using my PS4 to play exclusive single player titles that fit in with my own preferences (complete games that can be played offline, with no hint of micro-transactions), but right now I believe this will be the last console that I buy, and only developers who offer complete gaming experiences will be seeing my money in the future.

Some great points, well stated.

I just want to point out a few things.

Steam might be popular because of conditioning, but it might also be popular because of the convenience of simply downloading a game instead or buying and installing it. It might be popular because it crashes the price of PC gaming down to the ground. It also has the convenience of allowing you to own a game, install it in multiple places, or even the ability to re-download a game later on, even if you have lost the disc. And it is not like all clients/services are being met with such praise. These competitors don't seem to get any popular no matter how much time passes. Steam might have flaws, but so does pretty much everything. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have its good points as well.

I believe that in some cases (not all), the backlash is due to consumers reacting to something new or not giving the product a chance.

There is also such a thing as maturing tastes. People might find they like something after giving it a chance, or even re-evaluating it.

I agree with you quite a lot, though. I generally get that feeling of being "handled" by companies. The whole micro-transactions thing is something I have hated from the get go, and wish it would go away outside of free to play games and some subscription free games. Always online (in singleplayer) is always unnecessary and unappealing, but it somehow seems to keep on trucking no matter what. I basically ignore seasons pass and other such things, but that doesn't mean I like them. Then we have ludicrous things MS tried with the Xbox One (which some say they might try again). I also hate Microsoft's policy about DLC having to be for money. If not for that policy as well as their giving birth to mangled monster that is micro-transactions, gaming would be in a much better state now. Not that I think it is in a bad state, but I consider the things above to be an ugly blemish on its otherwise lovely face.

All that said, I won't go so far as to include such things as the new crop of online only multiplayer games, or sharing and social functions, to my gripes, as such things only enhance the overall gaming experience. I think the current popularity of online multiplayer, is due to technology allowing it to be more widely experienced, as well as allowing for richer and more full experiences with in it. No doubt corporations are trying to piggy back on some of these phenomena (as well drive and invent some concepts to go along with them), but in the case of online multiplayer, it existed well before the cash grabs (and other such things) we see today. I would personally hate to see it become a casualty in the war between consumers and big corporations, as I find to be a great part of gaming.

Avatar image for I-AM-N00B
I-AM-N00B

470

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#27 I-AM-N00B
Member since 2012 • 470 Posts

I think games have changed a lot, graphics have improved in games have also become more cinematic over the years. Also there are more FPS games these days, whereas there were more platformers back in the PSone days and more racing games in the PS2 days. The number of arcade-style games where the sole aim is to achieve a high score have also decreased.

Avatar image for thereal25
thereal25

2074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#28 thereal25
Member since 2011 • 2074 Posts

@I-AM-N00B said:

I think games have changed a lot, graphics have improved in games have also become more cinematic over the years. Also there are more FPS games these days, whereas there were more platformers back in the PSone days and more racing games in the PS2 days. The number of arcade-style games where the sole aim is to achieve a high score have also decreased.

I agree. I also see games getting more and more complex. For example the new Tomb Raider is barely even comparable to the originals.

Avatar image for bowchicka07
bowchicka07

1104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 5

#29 bowchicka07
Member since 2013 • 1104 Posts

@armyman_22: Blog it.....

Games are changing but at their own pace it seems. They all share some adaptations from early games so innovative games are rare.

I would say games are changing, not all of them of course, but every year it seems a little something different is brought to the table.

For the most part games just use previous engines for their foundation and work around it. Which is understandable, there is only so many ways you can make a game.

I like where gaming is going. I think most gamers want is more depth, more immersion, replay-value, and all around a fun experience for ourselves or to share with others MP wise.

Avatar image for armyman_22
armyman_22

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#30 armyman_22
Member since 2004 • 1492 Posts

@bowchicka07: I can respect what you are saying but I can't fully agree Games at their core have remained the same since Playstation 2 and Xbox ERA......NOT all games, but the basic formula is there. Take GTA.......it hasn't changed since San Andreas and it probably won't.

Avatar image for insanegame377
insanegame377

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 insanegame377
Member since 2013 • 392 Posts

@I-AM-N00B said:

I think games have changed a lot, graphics have improved in games have also become more cinematic over the years. Also there are more FPS games these days, whereas there were more platformers back in the PSone days and more racing games in the PS2 days. The number of arcade-style games where the sole aim is to achieve a high score have also decreased.

I agree, single player games tend to be far more story-focused and each generation seems to have one or two genres which have been dominant. I dont think console games will change too much from here on out though, and I can certainly see FPS and sports games continuing to dominate.