|
Memberlist | Forum Rules | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Search Forums: | Click here to use Advanced Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
09-03-2012, 02:01 PM | #1 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chisinau, Moldova, Republic of
Posts: 3,147
|
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. |
||
|
|
09-03-2012, 02:16 PM | #2 | ||
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
|
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. |
||
|
|
09-03-2012, 05:53 PM | #3 | ||
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 91
|
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 06:19 PM. |
||
|
|
09-03-2012, 11:21 PM | #4 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Opole, Poland
Posts: 14,276
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
11-03-2012, 12:40 PM | #5 | ||
|
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. |
||
|
|
11-03-2012, 01:39 PM | #6 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hungary
Posts: 760
|
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! |
||
|
|
11-03-2012, 01:19 PM | #7 | ||
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
|
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. |
||
|
|
11-03-2012, 01:48 PM | #8 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Little big small world
Posts: 1,906
|
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. Last edited by Scatty; 11-03-2012 at 01:52 PM. |
||
|
|
12-03-2012, 04:27 AM | #9 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
12-03-2012, 04:22 AM | #10 | ||
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,830
|
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. |
||
|
|
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 03:52 AM |
"Five reasons why Steam will destroy the PC games industry" | verek_22 | Blah, blah, blah... | 19 | 17-06-2010 09:11 AM |
Low Blow | denisio | Approved Requests | 5 | 05-07-2006 08:20 PM |
Blow Off Steam! | Sebatianos | Blah, blah, blah... | 84 | 18-04-2006 10:41 PM |
Doom 4: End Of The Game Industry? | Charmed | Gaming Zone | 69 | 13-05-2005 09:48 PM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
||
  |