Go Back   Forums > Community Chatterbox > Gaming Zone
Memberlist Forum Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Search Forums:
Click here to use Advanced Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2012, 03:01 PM   #1
TotalAnarchy
Surviving the Dark Age
 
TotalAnarchy's Avatar



 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chisinau, Moldova, Republic of
Posts: 3,147
Default Jonathan Blow the Messiah of the Gaming Industry

Click here for the video

Ok, where do I start... After watching the video, I concluded that Mr. Jonathan Blow has a fundamental misunderstanding of what games are supposed to be about.

-He loathes the mechanic-based division of genres, forgetting that games are games because they're interactive, and interactivity is represented by the mechanic of the game RTS/TBS/FPS/Adventure/Banana. As shown by our very own poll and from my own experience and conversations, I'd say players still give the theme (sci-fi, fantasy, historical etc.) an important factor in the selection of games that they intend to purchase or play. His point in discussing this is lost, because he himself when talking about a challenge-based ideal of a game he puts the focus on mechanics (the mechanic of a puzzle and how the player is supposed to solve it).

-A lot of the stuff from the first point ^ is just the reiteration of what the Quantic Dream guys said before. It's very sad because that was a warcry against mainstream publishers; a kind of threat that if they don't adopt Quantic's story-based approach, the gaming industry will be swallowed by the infinite monotony that is the curious communist habit of jumping on mushrooms while smoking grass; shooting nazi zombies in the balls, even though that has no effect; jumping in a chasm in an adventure game where that is the only possible way to die and more!

Frankly I like diversity. I don't like when someone tells someone else how to make their games, especially since all these "mainstream" publishers always do stuff in their own way and have their own separate target audiences. Many experiments are done by the big guys. Everything id has done since Quake III Arena is an experiment. Ubisoft is an experimental publisher. Among their latest experiments are Rayman Origins, From Dust, Driver: San Francisco, Splinter Cell: Conviction etc. The only difference is that they usually charge you 60 $ for a game. The big scene in my opinion is pretty creative, enough to prevent the indie scene from taking most of the laurels.

-Associating his own game Braid with Counter-Strike, calling them challenging (even though CS is multiplayer) and models on which all future games should be based. Mr. Jonathan Blow doesn't see one very important thing. Challenge in games is very important, it is essential for it to be -a- game. Problem - people don't always have 15 hours to complete your insane puzzles just to find out what this game is all about storywise. A lot of people can find only that one day in six months to relax at home, not shave in the morning (beard or legs: choose your destiny) and forget about work.

These people would prefer you not make their lives more complicated than it is, give them a logical story to follow, some eye-candy and polygons to headshot.

-Criticising the Japs. It is a trend? An unfortunate one. I was one of its supporters some time ago, until I looked into it and saw what kind of games they make there and don't reach our shores. Also I'm not sure what Jonathan Blow means by Japanese games when he says they lead you by the hand. I think he speaks of Zelda, but Zelda is just one franchise, what's the point on generalizing?

There's more to tell, like how a lot of the ones who criticize mainstream publishers for their short games, including some Abandonia residents, never do finish the games they start; or how Braid is the victim of glitch-puzzles (aka solving a puzzle in a way considered a bug or glitch in normal games), but I'm getting bored so I'll stop here.

What say you about mainstream vs indie? Is mainstream a true illness? Or is indie just an attempt by the developers to find their niche?
__________________
Don't think about the probabilities. The smallest chance can take us a long way forward. It's not like we have anything else to lose.
TotalAnarchy is offline                         Send a private message to TotalAnarchy
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 03:16 PM   #2
DarthHelmet86
SuperFishMod
 
DarthHelmet86's Avatar




 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
Default

I see good and bad things on both sides. The main stream is trying to keep itself afloat in a more and more critical environment. As gamers we are more critical of games, and have more ways to talk about games and why we do or don't like them. Even worse the market has widened out beyond the hardcore gamers, more and more casual gamers are being targeted to try and keep the games being sold. This is cutting out people looking for more focus on their idea of gaming. But at the same time some of my favourite games have come out during this time, games that are more fun to play then anything else I have tried. Red Dead Redemption comes to mind, as does Dead Rising 2. We tend to brush aside games that aren't our idea of perfect and forget that others might really enjoy them, and if enough people enjoy them it is okay for a game maker to focus on them. The money spent on buying those games might just end up making that game we want.

The indie market is an all or nothing market, games either make it or don't. It is also a lot slower, games have little funding and to get them out takes a lot longer. Stuff like Minecraft is an exception to the indie market, often the games that you really want to make it just don't. Or the people making them get fed up and stop, or just get tired of working on the same game for 5 years. Even Notch got tired of Minecraft, he ended up handing over the game to Jeb, many would argue for the better since Jeb seems more willing to take the big risks. There are other games I am really looking forward to, and even dropped some money on that are still at their infancy. Wether they make it and my money was really well spent will have to be seen (though I dropped the money because the game as it is to me is worth it but others would argue that point.).

So yeah both sides bring something to the table, and I think the thing we as gamers need to do is simple. Support the games we like and don't buy the games we don't like. We need to be more aware of games before we buy them so we aren't throwing our money at someone who will think we want more of a game we turn out to dislike. That goes for both markets, keeping yourself informed on the games is something gamers need to do more.

Edit: Is this the guy who made Braid? I haven't watched the video, don't know if I really want to...but from what I have heard this guy is a huge egotistical ass. Thinks very highly of himself and himself alone really.
DarthHelmet86 is offline                         Send a private message to DarthHelmet86
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 06:53 PM   #3
jonh_sabugs
Abandonia nerd

 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 91
Default

I agree and kinda miss the middle-term we used to have a bit ago. Mainstream are (almost) all running to the same specific point, while indie games suffer from all the problems of amateur development. I feel the gap is becoming larger and less and less people are trying to fill it.

I find this discussion rather interesting. Take a look at this Cracked article:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...-anti-rant_p2/

The author provides a few arguments favourable to modern gaming, which are quite interesting.

What do you think?

Personally, there's one thing that causes me a bit of dismay. Even though modern technology does allow for impressive story-telling and gameplay, I find that it is vastly under explored.

Last edited by jonh_sabugs; 09-03-2012 at 07:19 PM.
jonh_sabugs is offline                         Send a private message to jonh_sabugs
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 12:21 AM   #4
The Fifth Horseman
FUTURE SCIENCE BASTARD
 
The Fifth Horseman's Avatar


 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Opole, Poland
Posts: 14,276
Default

Quote:
Challenge in games is very important, it is essential for it to be -a- game. Problem - people don't always have 15 hours to complete your insane puzzles just to find out what this game is all about storywise.
Well, TBH if there was a puzzle in a game that still eluded me after spending 15 hours on that particular section, I probably wouldn't play that game for long. Games are supposed to be challenging, not unbeatable.
__________________

"God. Can't you people see I'm trying to commit a crime against science and nature here?"
-- Reed Richards
The Fifth Horseman is offline                         Send a private message to The Fifth Horseman
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 01:40 PM   #5
Smiling Spectre
10 GOSUB Abandonia
20 GOTO 10
 
Smiling Spectre's Avatar




 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cherkessk, Russian Federation
Posts: 2,078
Send a message via ICQ to Smiling Spectre Send a message via AIM to Smiling Spectre Send a message via MSN to Smiling Spectre
Default

Actually, I am don't understand current "mainstream industry". Every logical man must know sentence "don't put all eggs in one basket". And what does all publishers? Exactly that! "Battlefield was great, let's make all our games clones of Battlefield". "Mass Effect was great, let's make another mass-effect-ish games!" "Minecraft was warmly taken by public, let's do Minecraft clone"...

Well, there is nothing bad in making another clone of popular game. But I am frankly don't understand why to make only that game?! For me, it would be much wiser to make 3-5-10 games at once. Publishers has great money, so they could, it seems, make 3 "ordinary" sequels, 2 "AAA games" and 5 little ones - as it was in 90s, when Sierra, Microprose and Interplay made several games per year from different developer crews. But it seems, it's not even considered by anyone now! Current policy "we have one mega-hit five years ago, so we will put triple money in it's sequel and will be happy with it." Why? I don't understand that.
Smiling Spectre is offline                         Send a private message to Smiling Spectre
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 02:19 PM   #6
DarthHelmet86
SuperFishMod
 
DarthHelmet86's Avatar




 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
Default

You know Sierra made adventure game after adventure game, each one only differed in story from the others, and made lots of sequels. Today's companies are aiming for mass appeal, and games like Call of Duty and Halo only have to be changed a small amount (and they are not always the same game remade again, the story is always different and since when have we overly cared that they are using the same graphics engine we love games that did the same thing) and they can appeal to the same people all over again. These aren't people who game as much as we do, they pick a series they like and stick with it.

We might not always agree with the games they make or why but they are making money hand over fist with them so they are doing something right.
DarthHelmet86 is offline                         Send a private message to DarthHelmet86
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 02:39 PM   #7
Tracker
Home Sweet Abandonia
 
Tracker's Avatar




 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hungary
Posts: 760
Default

I totally agree with Smiling Spectre on this - mainstreamism is all about feeding people with what they consume the most, even if that is not necessarily good. Good sounds like a subjective term, but it has it's objective approaches.
The problem with franchises is, that they repeat the same thing over and over again, if you have never played a Call of Duty game before, you can't tell apart Call of Duty 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, there's just no difference between them except the story.
And by the way, new games aren't that challanging either, not to mention the shallow storylines (though they evolved from Doom 2's "kill everyone because f...k you that's why" to class C hollywood action movies) - those indicators telling you what to do, when to do, how to do, like the entire game was one big tutorial - can't they just let the players be creative and find their own solutions? Oh, that needs parallel storylines and alternate endings and such, which means more work.
And to agree with jonh_sabugs, current technology is totally unexplored - either 80s and 90s developers were more willing to take risks and did more experiments or they were just more creative. Think about it, games like Maniac Mansion, Wolfenstein 3D, Super Mario, or Final Fantasy set standards by doing what at that time no one ever thought of writing - we can't really see this much of curiousity in developres outside the indie scene with their weirdo games. Publishers simply won't risk handing out cash to someone who wants to make a game about something new.

What the industry needs is publishers growing balls and turning away from the childish demands of the soulles 12 year old MMORPG and FPS scene, giving the chance to inidi devs to write classics.
__________________


Reverend Preacherbot: Wretched sinner unit! The path to Robot Heaven lies here, in the Good Book 3.0.
Bender: Hey. Do I preach at you when you're lying stoned in the gutter? No!
Tracker is offline                         Send a private message to Tracker
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 02:48 PM   #8
Scatty
Treasure hunter
 
Scatty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Little big small world
Posts: 1,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthHelmet86 View Post
We might not always agree with the games they make or why but they are making money hand over fist with them so they are doing something right.
The thing is just that the time and circumstances changed a lot since let's say, 90's, and those publishers tend to change with them to still be successful and make profit. People seem to have less imagination today (gamers and developers/publishers alike) and they like (making) games that don't demand much from them. Many of us gamers from earlier have a hard time to adapt to the change of time, knowing different times, and might have trouble to follow the current trend.
However it's obvious that it isn't all that unsuccessful as some might believe, as demand for today's (less imaginative? arguable) games is there.

Last edited by Scatty; 11-03-2012 at 02:52 PM.
Scatty is offline                         Send a private message to Scatty
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 05:22 AM   #9
DarthHelmet86
SuperFishMod
 
DarthHelmet86's Avatar




 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
Default

I disagree I don't think today's game makers are any less imaginative then the older ones. With a critical eye looking back at older games you will see they too are very formulaic and often with the same gameplay. Look at LucasGames MI1, MI2, Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle all use the same gameplay with a different story. Sticking with a safe bet has been the industries most common tactic.

The other point is how many of you are looking into new games today, actually keeping track of the games that aren't getting the big mega advertising? Just like in the day the big super duper new game might be a pile of steaming sameness but the other games, the ones hidden behind the marketing are pure gold. As far as I am concerned thinking the new games are all crud because CoD has made the games that look the same is kinda unfair. I don't like the CoD games but I can critically look at them and see that others do and they do because of the story that each game brings, (or because they want to MP) and my point still stands when have we here ever been bothered by graphics staying the same.

As for stories today not being as good or the indie market being better I present Red Dead Redemption and Yakuza 3 and 4 oh and Dead Rising 2. There are plenty of games with great stories fun and unique gameplay out there don't just brush them all under the rug because they are new and CoD got all the marketing space again.
DarthHelmet86 is offline                         Send a private message to DarthHelmet86
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 05:27 AM   #10
Smiling Spectre
10 GOSUB Abandonia
20 GOTO 10
 
Smiling Spectre's Avatar




 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cherkessk, Russian Federation
Posts: 2,078
Send a message via ICQ to Smiling Spectre Send a message via AIM to Smiling Spectre Send a message via MSN to Smiling Spectre
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatty View Post
People seem to have less imagination today (gamers and developers/publishers alike) and they like (making) games that don't demand much from them. Many of us gamers from earlier have a hard time to adapt to the change of time, knowing different times, and might have trouble to follow the current trend.
Problem with that idea for me that it is looks like that no one actually checked, if people really have less imagination. How you can check if people wants more challenge, if you haven't any place to put this challenge in? It's developers who lead the crowd into "we knows better" pathway, not people itself. Look on many games of 90s: it had "secret zones" and bypasses in most action games, it had arcade/simulation modes for simulators, even such adventures as Monkey Island or Leasure Suit Larry had several modes of play. And I even doesn't touch System Shocks with it's several sliders for puzzles, action and timing. What we have now in most cases? Linear pipeline with optional "achievements" here and there. If game have two ways to target, it's already counts as hardcore RPG-puzzle, it seems!
Quote:
However it's obvious that it isn't all that unsuccessful as some might believe, as demand for today's (less imaginative? arguable) games is there.
Oh, problem with current games is not lack of demand right now. Problem is that every game naturally have it's level of "feeding", and when most your auditory will be fed up with one of your games, they actually will have enough of it all. And what you will do then, if you haven't any other offers? Game over? I don't understand that. It seems, current gaming world lives with 'no tomorrow' mindset.
Smiling Spectre is offline                         Send a private message to Smiling Spectre
Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Regalsin trolling "Five reasons why Steam will destroy the PC games industry" RegalSin Trash Can 1 14-07-2010 04:52 AM
"Five reasons why Steam will destroy the PC games industry" verek_22 Blah, blah, blah... 19 17-06-2010 10:11 AM
Low Blow denisio Approved Requests 5 05-07-2006 09:20 PM
Blow Off Steam! Sebatianos Blah, blah, blah... 84 18-04-2006 11:41 PM
Doom 4: End Of The Game Industry? Charmed Gaming Zone 69 13-05-2005 10:48 PM

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
 


The current time is 08:31 AM (GMT)

 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.