Games on the PC getting dumber and dumber?

[motsm]

The niche audience is the issue. People who gamed in the 80's and 90's have less time to do so now. Smaller market = smaller budgets.

It's not a problem however, Kickstarter already proved that. Niche audience games with a moderate few million dollar budget is what we need to see more of right now, and there's more than enough people interested to support budgets like that. Instead, the majority of games seem to be made for pennies by indie studios, or countless millions by major publishers.

 

[futurefields]

A million should be plenty. Thats 12-15 employees cost for a year. Assuming the idea is in place, should be plenty for an indie game.

 

[HeXen]

You guys keep talking about indie games that are good. How about a sticky where we could hear about them?

I think most all of them are pretty good for whatever genre you like, it's just that the prices sometimes are kinda high for what your really getting. For example I really like Flashback and Limbo but their initial price doesn't equal the content imo. I want to play AVGN the game but not for what they want. But I agree, a sicky would be more helpful.

 

[Ns1]

A million should be plenty. Thats 12-15 employees cost for a year. Assuming the idea is in place, should be plenty for an indie game.

60k developer x 12 = 720k + 10% Overhead = 800k minimum spend w/o any budget for other essentials.

 

[thedosbox]

It's not a problem however, Kickstarter already proved that. Niche audience games with a moderate few million dollar budget is what we need to see more of right now, and there's more than enough people interested to support budgets like that. Instead, the majority of games seem to be made for pennies by indie studios, or countless millions by major publishers.

A crowd funded team (regardless of whether the budget is $1 Million or $3 Million) is still an indie game, hence "play more indie games" still applies.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I know that for my gaming, i've become better. What I mean is that a game that was hard for me a few years ago now is cake. There are no really difficult experiences any longer for me in most titles. Games are easier because my skills as a gamer have increased. My reaction time is better, my hand eye coordination is better, and I am better at predicting AI movement. AI is one portion of games that has had very little real innovation in recent memory. It's easy to "trick" the enemy to doing what you want and taking advantage. I've personally gotten better at this tactic and it does ruin the experience at times. A lot of games also have mechanics that can be exploited to player advantage. Now if you don't take advantage of these exploits it can be a difficult game but at times you can fall into them by accident due to the way the game wants you to play. The skyhooks in Bioshock Infinite for example. You could at times ride them around and never get hit by enemy fire.

Has anyone thought about it like this? That as a gamer you have gotten better and instead of games being dumbed down and less hardcore, you just got better at figuring out the patterns and not falling for the same tricks?

 

[Majcric]

I'm the exact opposite as you as I've gotten older I just don't have the drive or determination to be skilled at a particular game. Beat it on normal and move on to whatever is next in my backlog.

Exp--I can't see myself being any better today at Ninja gaiden 3: The Ancient Ship of Doom or Ghost N goblins.

 

[Stringjam]

I think most all of them are pretty good for whatever genre you like, it's just that the prices sometimes are kinda high for what your really getting. For example I really like Flashback and Limbo but their initial price doesn't equal the content imo. I want to play AVGN the game but not for what they want. But I agree, a sicky would be more helpful.

I agree. I loved "The Stanley Parable," but $15 seems a little high.

...

I think "indie" is a bit of a misnomer anymore. Indie, IMO, just means the developer is not contracted to a major publisher.

That doesn't mean they can't create expensive / large budget titles - games like Star Citizen are proving that.

You can't really make generalizations about indie games anymore, because they (are starting) to expand the scope of both budget and content.

 

[Fox5]

60k developer x 12 = 720k + 10% Overhead = 800k minimum spend w/o any budget for other essentials.

Depending on the area of the country, you're not going to find competent developers for $60/year unless they're right out of college.

 

[motsm]

A crowd funded team (regardless of whether the budget is $1 Million or $3 Million) is still an indie game, hence "play more indie games" still applies.

I realize that, but I don't think Kickstarter is all that realistic as a permanant and reliable source of funding. It worked in a short burst, working off of massive attention from being new and exciting, got quite a few projects funded in a short period of time, and now it's cooled off substantially. It doesn't change my point, I'd like mid tier funding from producers. /broken record.

 

[Arsinek]

All my gaming hopes and dreams are riding on Star Citizen. Heres to a massive let down 5years from now, or whenever its supposed to come out.

 

[Ns1]

Depending on the area of the country, you're not going to find competent developers for $60/year unless they're right out of college.

"should be plenty for an indie game"

 

[HeXen]

I know that for my gaming, i've become better. What I mean is that a game that was hard for me a few years ago now is cake. There are no really difficult experiences any longer for me in most titles. Games are easier because my skills as a gamer have increased. My reaction time is better, my hand eye coordination is better, and I am better at predicting AI movement. AI is one portion of games that has had very little real innovation in recent memory. It's easy to "trick" the enemy to doing what you want and taking advantage. I've personally gotten better at this tactic and it does ruin the experience at times. A lot of games also have mechanics that can be exploited to player advantage. Now if you don't take advantage of these exploits it can be a difficult game but at times you can fall into them by accident due to the way the game wants you to play. The skyhooks in Bioshock Infinite for example. You could at times ride them around and never get hit by enemy fire.

Has anyone thought about it like this? That as a gamer you have gotten better and instead of games being dumbed down and less hardcore, you just got better at figuring out the patterns and not falling for the same tricks?

The opposite for me. When I was a kid, I could beat games like Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Renegade, Ghouls and Ghosts...etc. I play them now and there is no way to have that kind of patience at my age.
Challenge is not a skill requirement in of itself, I mean the hardest game in the world is solvable by anyone who has the ingredients it requires...patience being one of them. Grinding is another which requires patience and tolerance as well as time and then of course problem solving attributes and maybe a few other things.

But I just play to be taken away anyhow, like a mini vacation sort of and getting agitated over dieing repeatedly until I master it is not something I'm fond of anymore. I no longer feel accomplishment and pride, I just feel relief that I'm past that point of aggravation.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The opposite for me. When I was a kid, I could beat games like Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Renegade, Ghouls and Ghosts...etc. I play them now and there is no way to have that kind of patience at my age.
Challenge is not a skill requirement in of itself, I mean the hardest game in the world is solvable by anyone who has the ingredients it requires...patience being one of them. Grinding is another which requires patience and tolerance as well as time and then of course problem solving attributes and maybe a few other things.

But I just play to be taken away anyhow, like a mini vacation sort of and getting agitated over dieing repeatedly until I master it is not something I'm fond of anymore. I no longer feel accomplishment and pride, I just feel relief that I'm past that point of aggravation.

I had little patience as a kid. I would play a game that was fun and never go far in it because it was not easy. Now I have patience and understanding of the mechanics. I've also become more of a heavy gamer in the past few years too which may account for much of this.

I do believe that as gamers age and have less time, some developers start thinking "if they don't have a lot of free time and give up because they don't want to grind, lets make the game a little more simple. Then they'll be more inclined to play." They may always view the demographic they target as the kid who grew up with an NES or C64. They continue developing titles that cater to that one kid as he or she ages. I can't help but think that they totally forget there's all these kids out there who got stuck on Angry Birds because they were ignored by real developers.

 

[BladeVenom]

Depending on the area of the country, you're not going to find competent developers for $60/year unless they're right out of college.

There is the possibility of profit sharing, or having a stake in the company. But even a $60k employee costs the employer a lot more than $60k.

 

[desura]

I blame Halo.

Halo solved a problem in FPS games in that in real life gun combat, human lifespans are exceedingly short.

The answer was regenerating health.

This actually made things not matter as much, because the game pretty much reset every five minutes or so and you got back up to full health and/or full ammo. Previously, how you played at level 3 actually mattered a little towards the end of the game as you would accumulate power ups or hearts or whatever.

Like, if you play Mass Effect 3, and then go play a game like beat.trip.beat, it's kind of amazing how beat.trip.beat feels more meaningful, and that's b/c it doesn't have regenerating/resetting health all the time, so your actions actually mean something.

 

[Red Hawk]

Mass Effect 3 actually doesn't have completely regenerating health. If your shields fail and you start losing actual health, it doesn't recover fully until you use a medpack. And you can get various upgrades and put progression points towards increasing total shields and health, health restoration rates, medpack effectiveness, etc. And it makes more sense on whole that science-fiction settings like Halo and Mass Effect would have regenerating shields and built-in medical systems in the armor. Modern day games like Battlefield and Call of Duty, not so much.

 

[dpodblood]

Mass Effect 3 actually doesn't have completely regenerating health. If your shields fail and you start losing actual health, it doesn't recover fully until you use a medpack. And you can get various upgrades and put progression points towards increasing total shields and health, health restoration rates, medpack effectiveness, etc. And it makes more sense on whole that science-fiction settings like Halo and Mass Effect would have regenerating shields and built-in medical systems in the armor. Modern day games like Battlefield and Call of Duty, not so much.

I totally agree with this. Halo introduced this mechanic and then other games started using it as well (probably due to the popularity of Halo). The problem is that it makes sense in a science fiction context and not in any context grounded in real life, like any military shooter. I would go so far as to say this mechanic has ruined a number of otherwise good FPS games. Rage for instance was no challenge whatsoever simply because you could crouch behind a wall anytime your health was low. Five seconds later you could go back to thoughtlessly mowing down the enemy.

 

[coldmeat]

I totally agree with this. Halo introduced this mechanic and then other games started using it as well (probably due to the popularity of Halo). The problem is that it makes sense in a science fiction context and not in any context grounded in real life, like any military shooter. I would go so far as to say this mechanic has ruined a number of otherwise good FPS games. Rage for instance was no challenge whatsoever simply because you could crouch behind a wall anytime your health was low. Five seconds later you could go back to thoughtlessly mowing down the enemy.

Picking up a med pack and instantly being at full health doesn't make sense either.

Am I the only one who thinks games don't all have to be challenging? I don't always enjoy a challenge. Sometimes just mindlessly shooting things, upgrading my character and equipment, and progressing through a story is enough. That's what releases the dopamine right?

 

[motsm]

Picking up a med pack and instantly being at full health doesn't make sense either.

Agreed, neither one is realistic. If the argument is to be had, it should be about how it affects the gameplay, not the realism.

Am I the only one who thinks games don't all have to be challenging?

I would assume most people don't enjoy challenging games, hence why games these days are generally so much easier, use health regeneration, and have more linear level design. Of course since studios aren't keeping players interested with a challenge, they often focus on a very controlled cinematic experience, or the constant rewards of player progression like you mentioned.

 

[dpodblood]

Agreed, neither one is realistic. If the argument is to be had, it should be about how it affects the gameplay, not the realism

Yeah I sorta agree with this. As an example I remember a moment in the original COD where you are trying to cross a bridge while enemies on the opposite side are pinning you and your squad down. Inevitably you take some damage during the crossing, and there is a med pack in a trench at the end of the bridge.

You have to inch your way forward, and then make a mad dash for the trench to replenish your health. In any modern shooter you would just crouch behind cover, regenerate your health, rinse and repeat.

I think a game with a fantastic health system is Far Cry 2. Your health can regenerate up to a certain point, but after that you need to heal yourself with injections or bandages or you're left extremely vulnerable. This really works because it never leaves you stuck in a "death loop" but it also makes you value your life bar as healing is a finite resource.

 

[thedosbox]

I realize that, but I don't think Kickstarter is all that realistic as a permanant and reliable source of funding. It worked in a short burst, working off of massive attention from being new and exciting, got quite a few projects funded in a short period of time, and now it's cooled off substantially. It doesn't change my point, I'd like mid tier funding from producers. /broken record.

Would you like a pony with that too?

My point is that complex games are viable at lower budgets. You may not want to play them for whatever reason, but they do exist.

 

[Cerb]

I do believe that as gamers age and have less time, some developers start thinking "if they don't have a lot of free time and give up because they don't want to grind, lets make the game a little more simple. Then they'll be more inclined to play." They may always view the demographic they target as the kid who grew up with an NES or C64. They continue developing titles that cater to that one kid as he or she ages. I can't help but think that they totally forget there's all these kids out there who got stuck on Angry Birds because they were ignored by real developers.

Also, playing older games, some of which I didn't have the attention span for when I was a kid.

But, if you can get stuck on Angry Birds, you just need help.

Thing is, now that I'm older and have less time, I want a harder game, that requires more thought and planning, but not necessarily play time, and not so much just memorizing button presses and mouse sweeps. An easier game, where I progress quicker, gets boring, and offers no real sense of accomplishment from progressing. Yet, I can lose sleep over Nethack, Dwarf Fortress, modded harder Bethesda RPG, Borderlands (they're not all that old or indie), an iso/turn Divinity (a new one is on the way, too! Want to bet on how buggy it'll be? ), a FE* on a hard level, an Etrian Odyssey**, etc..

Frankly, I think we need a bit more emphasis on making the content creation tools easy to use, more than making them capable of Hollywood CGI quality feats (that no low-end PC can come close to, anyway), and then to get some publishers funding houses similar to, say, Atlus, or NIS, but for PC games. Even just as middle-men to services like Steam, publishers with several dev houses under them can allow some dud games to be made up for with the highly-successful games. For the same reason DD is not killing off record labels or book publishers in droves, it should offer a niche for game publishers to make use of, to spread the risk of investing into certain people and game concepts.

DD services remove the barrier that killed small companies and shareware in the 90s, but we haven't filled that gap, yet. Devs being able to fail, learn, and try again (with some nudging as to what needs to be better, this time), is going to help make better software. Kickstarter and a roll of the dice is too chaotic to be able to nurture all but the most die-hard devs (the ones that only need to get paid for it because they'd otherwise be homeless).

* since this is the PC forum: Fire Emblem, a turn-based board-game-type SRPG series, w/ no character resurrection, and often good reasons to kill off some of your party.
** since this is the PC forum: a party dungeon crawler series, allowing you to play easier or harder by how quickly you try to advance.

 

[motsm]

Would you like a pony with that too?

My point is that complex games are viable at lower budgets. You may not want to play them for whatever reason, but they do exist.

Of course complex games exist, plenty of them do. The point has always been that the popular games and genre's of the past have almost all remained quite popular, and therefore have become very dumbed down as a result. If you want just complex or challenging, you can certainly find plenty of low budget indie titles, but you will very rarely find them in comparable genre's, scope and playability to these past AAA games.

That is why Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, and so many other old school inspired games were highly successful on Kickstarter. If the indie market was regularly offering similar games, their Kickstarter's would have been largely ignored as being unnecessary and redundant, and more than likely, the games would have already been in production. However, these studios knew that they couldn't afford to make the kinds of games to fill that void, without more funding than what your average indie title is produced on. Hence why the trends people are generally talking about in this thread, aren't alleviated by the current indie market outside of crowd funding, which shouldn't be needed for such things.

 

[TeknoBug]

Here's hopeing Valve stays within their roots with Half-Life 3 (if that happens), HL2 is one of the few remaining "raw" games these days.

Red Orchestra 2 is still a pretty damn good game and has a high skill ceiling, I also liked the Insurgency mod for HL2.

PS- Star Wars: Galaxies IMO is the last complex MMO game out there, however some Korean MMO games are pretty decent but won't be available to the western market.