We must stop the trend of shallow games!

#1 But this is a demo for an EXPENSIVE game. So I will give it more attention then I would to other game demos. If the game demo is good enough to get me addicted, good enough to have me be playing it for hours, I seriously consider buying the full game. The greatest game demos I can recall have been Unreal Tournament's (2004 also had a killer demo) and Warcraft 2. I was addicted but I knew these full games had A LOT of gameplay within them. I then bought them ASAP.

I believe games that are twice as expensive would create a different business model. Games at such price would...

-Have to be very good with lots of playability

-Have to be patch free out of the box (no more of this unfinished product crud we see now)

-Would have to put out a demo with much more playability (rather than these awful empty demos which do little more than be a technical demo ["Ooohhh! Look at me! I am the demo of a game with nothing but good graphics! Ooohhh!"] Bleh.)

-The game would be more content focused than ornament focused.

-Many gamers are in the 20-30 age range and more and more older gamers appear in the demigraphic meaning they have more than enough money. To them, time is more important than money. They'd rather buy one expensive good game than several inexpensive bad games.

-With the game being a higher price, the customer will explore the product much more thoroughly than with other games. This is also true with the demo.

-If the game does not feature the playability the customer expects, he/she is more likely to return it. This will keep out the bad games from the $80 mark and keep them down to $30 where they belong.

-Distributors would not dare release such a title at this price unless it was truly 'done'. The game will be treated by the distributor more like art rather than like a consumable good.

Even with the capabilities of the torque engine, there is no way any developer here will outmatch the ornamentals (graphics, presentation) of the big companies because those developers are experienced, have 40-60 man crews, and 2 million dollar budgets. As graphics and engines become more and more complicated, especially with the increased intermeshing of super high polygon 3d art and online play, these games will become less risky with gameplay and more focused on sizzle rather than steak.

To the old time gamers, you KNOW what a game with high playability content is. It is on this element that independent gamers can easily outdo the big games because 1) no distributor 'deadline' 2) no need to apply the insane graphical requirements of today's games. If independent games focused on content rather than trying to be the most 'original' game design in the room, independent games would seriously make an improvement in the marketplace.

Today, they make another Metroid Prime. But people would pay for something similiar to Super Metroid. They make Yet-Another-3d-Zelda. But the fast action/rpg gameplay of 2d zelda 1 is still desired and a cool game could emerge. Or what about RPGs? No, I wouldn't buy another Ultima IV. But I would pay for another Ultima VII (provided it had as much content). The point is that with some games, they remain highly playable even today. The Game Industry thinks games that are 2d are obsolete (which is bull!), or they think all games must now be online (which isn't true). As the game industry wanders around in its silly directions, whole markets are being left behind awaiting to be filled. Remember, fifteen year old games still sell today (like the re-released Nintendo games) because people still love those genres. People will buy 2d games. People will buy games that don't have online play. These markets do want nice graphics (who doesn't?) but they want it more in the artistic sense, not in the technical sense. They still buy these 15 year old games because of the content. It is the steak outselling its sizzle. And such games age well and sell forever.

We may not be the beer, but we can be the wine.

#2 Do you feel better now that you got that off your chest? :)

#3 While I'd agree with some of what your saying, I'd never pay $80 for a title. I've intentionally boycotted games such as Warcraft 3, which were good games, because I refused to pay their ridiculous ($60 at launch) price tags and I've given MMORPGs lower marks in reviews when they have released with higher than average monthly subscription costs. Obviously if your charging more money you have a larger than normal profit margin per box, so you could deal with less sales. I'm not sure if that's the right solution though.

I think more automation and higher resusability of components, higher quality tools, basically anything that could help reduce the length of development to development costs are a better solution to increase profitability than driving up the costs of games. In my opinion the cost of the average video game is already ludicrously high.

#4 @J.C. Smith

The point is...

A) Not all games are equal.
B) All games have equal price at release.

This gives rise to,

1) Unfinished games
2) Low content games

After all, there is nothing to differentiate quality at release. However, if the game does not sell, often the game gets marked to bargain bin prices (say $20). Most customers see a game (even an Independent Game) at that price and consider it 'cheap' and 'not good quality'. If a game has lots of content, very good playability and knows it is a superior game, why not charge more for it at release?

If WoW were single player with multiplayer capability (not MMORPG), it could sell at $200. It has enough content for it. After all, WoW players since the launch have already paid more than $200 for the game (and it is not for the 'customer service' that people subscribe to that game). People spend far amount more money than $80 for MMORPGS. Why? MMORPGs, aside from having lots of players, has lots of content.

BTW, I did buy Warcraft 3 when it was released. Sure, $60, but I still play it today. Can't say the same about the other games that came out during that time. There are many gamers like me, who buy only two or three games a year. Give me a higher priced game with huge playability any day over regular priced, low playability games.

#5 Actually I only buy the games that are $5 - $20 these days... I maybe will spend $25 - $30 if its a new release marked down a week later.

#6 And as you mentioned in your first post, download the demo and play the hell out of it. If you get bored before you've finished it, congrats, you've saved yourself some money.

If you blindly rush in and pay money for Ultra Terminator Trek Wars 20 and are disappointed, you've noone to blame but yourself.

Besides, surely all I have to do is price my rubbish game at $80 and hey presto, it becomes a good game ;)

I've played a through a number of games recently, Nemisis Strike, Delta Force Xtreme and Pariah (I'm an FPS junky), and they're all pretty poor games. Nemisis Strike is a simple console port, with level design and save points that really have no place in a proper PC game. DF:X is a just a poor game. The AI is ropey and the single player missions are short and uninspiring. And Pariah is a pile of steaming stuff. Below average graphics, dodgy level design (including getting stuck on the simplest of terrain details) and cut scenes you can't skip past.

I think this is generally the reality of PC gaming today. We end up with second rate console ports rather than games designed for the power and flexibility of the PC. And these games aren't generally worth picking up even at their reduced price.

#7 Problem is, a games 'quality' is largely subjective. How do you decide which one is worth $50 and which one is worth $5?(granted some games stink so bad that EVERYONE stays away from them)

It's not any different than the movie industry... The ticket for the bad movie costs as much as the ticket for the good one.

If I saw a game that cost significantly more than other games, I wouldn't think it's BETTER than the rest... I'd simply think that the publisher was trying to make a quick buck before being forced to drop the price(which is EXACTLY the case with EA and Activision charging $10 more per game than other publishers on the new handhelds)

Besides it's not like ALL games are priced the same. Katamari Damacy was only $20 and it's a GREAT game with fresh gameplay concepts, though a little lacking in length and content.

#8 Like always, there are a few Gems that come out every year. Was no different in the 80's and 90's. We just have selective memories and nostalgia that give us a Jaded view of gaming today. Look at the quality games that do come out.

When I look back at my favourite old games of all time, It turns out that I pick 10 - 20 great games that span a couple of decades. Amongst those there are some new games too, Even games I don't really like now were good in their day. Like Halo when Xbox was launched.

I really enjoyed Splinter Cell 1 & 3, Riddick, KOTOR 1, Fable, Project Gotham 2, Forza Motorsport, Stronghold 2, Brothers in arms to name a few of my favourite games. It's also true that for every one of these there are at least a dozen crap games. Nothing much has changed except when I played games like Elite, stunt track driver, Settlers 2, Wings, monkey island, starglider etc there were loads of bad games, but they were so bad that they are forgettable. I only have to flick through the underdogs, or mame to see just how many crap games there are for all the jems that I used to love playing.

#9 I just wanted to chime in regarding your comment on Super Metroid, yet-another-3d-zelda-game, and 2D gaming. 2D Games are fun! I grew up playing them. They're what made me want to get into the game industry. Without the complexity of a 3d world, you can focus on actually making the gameplay fun and consistent. It really is too bad that the industry at large basically "cancelled" 2d gaming once 3D graphics were possible. 3D graphics doesn't have to mean 3D gameplay!!! Anyone listening?!? Imagine playing Metroid Prime, exact same game, but you're looking at the side Samus, who is locked into a spline path through the world. Anyway, that's why the GBA is my favorite system right now... $30 games, and they're 2d, and they're fun. It's just too bad Nintendo keeps re-releasing old games instead of making up new ones (although it is a good thing for all those whipper-snappers... gotta know your roots).

#10 Well, in Nintendo's defense, they HAVE released some good NEW GBA games.

Metriod Fusion
Metriod Zero Mission(ok, it's technicaly a remake, but the level design was redone, new items added and the gameplay tweaked)
Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
WarioWare
Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga

#11 I agree with you about Nintendo. Nintendo's hold on the younger demigraphic may become a problem for Sony and Microsoft if Nintendo puts out a new type of control that catches on. This young demigraphic will expect it for all games and the Xbox and Playstation would have to adapt.

I think Nintendo's weakness is relying on the old brands like Mario, Metroid, Kirby, etc. They ought to be coming out with new brands to attract attention. If Super Mario Brothers 1 was Super Pac-Man Brothers (with Pac-Man being Mario) it would not have sold the NES as well.

All of Nintendo's content is also Japenese focused so its not as strong in America. They really could use some more 'masculine' type games. Previous generations would read Illiad, Hercules, and other tales. Our generation gets that same 'fix' from playing video games. After all, every game is stacked as warrior-saving-the-world. Either you are saving the princess, fighting in a war against invading aliens, building armies and strategically giving them tactical attacks like a general, most games tap into a masculinity ethos.

Many gamers leave Nintendo because they percieve it to be 'for kids' or 'for girls' and go for Grand Theft Auto or Halo like games. If Nintendo could put in more masculine games (such as Contra 3 http://maddox.xmission.com/contra3_owns.html ) it would help.

BTW, the Revolution's legacy download is a good move. My old nintendo systems are shot. I missed a lot of classics. Playing them through emulator isn't fun (and emulators never get it 'fully' right). One thing I hope is that with the legacy downloads now possible, all that 'abandonware' notices of Nintendo roms goes out the window. The roms become, without a doubt, fully illegal.

Since the new consoles are pushing for technology, that means the games' development times becomes consumed by more of the technical and art costs rather than the gameplay content. It becomes more risky to make any radical design or change in the formula. So I'd imagine they would resell the same games again and again. How many times will people buy Halo and GTA? And with online access being almost assured, I'd expect these games to have weaker and weaker AI, almost to the point where some games won't even include it.

#12 You guys need to stop your cry babying. "WaAaAaAa...the industry is full of garbage!! WaAaAaAa...they don't make games like they used to!! WAaAaAaAa...all games need to be as complex and as time consuming as Civilization or Star Control 2!!" Well not everybody likes Civilization and Star Control. Some people don't have the time for it. Some people just wanna get a quick fix of a 20 minute level, pass it and come back for more the next day. Some people want action and speed. How many different twists can you put on a racing or fighting game? Innovation is all around us and you act like it's been the same old thing since SNES. As far as Final Fantasy, some companies take different directions of innovation.

I admit that I like the older games in the FF series better too but if you are one of those people who can't sit through a 1 1/2 minute cut scene or read or listen along as the games main focus the PLOT unfolds and you are one of those people who has to be pounding buttons and doing backflips in your seat every 5 seconds then focus on a game that will cater to your needs. Don't go to 31 Flavors when you have a craving for Pizza and then complain when your bananna split doesn't taste like peperoni.

I read a review a while back on Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec or whatever for PS2 in Game Informer magazine. They said something along the lines of how the game was basically "the same old thing". IT'S A RACING SIMULATION!! What do you expect a story? Missiles? What? They worked hard on it. They added like a million cars and tons of tracks. Better graphics, a manager mode. and better physics. What else is there? Should they just stop making them? Nostalgia aside, these new games are the best you've ever played. Your just so burnt out that your expecting what can't be done yet. Like a drug user who keeps building a tollerance for his drug of choice until nothing can satisfy him any longer. Ninja Gaiden for Xbox is leaps and bounds over the one for NES. I can't even force myself to play through the old Metal Gear anymore. There is no comparison. And yet you still complain.

Look man, the way I see it, as far as the next generation goes, there isn't going to be any innovation in the first wave of titles, there never is. They are too busy getting their heads wrapped around the hardware so that they can have a complete game on time. It isn't till about the 2nd or 3rd year that you start to see the fresh stuff popping up. Splinter Cell for Xbox comes to mind. So does GTA. Every generation has it's moments and not every company can or is even interested in doing something different like Koei for instance lol damn I hate Dinasty Warriors and all 30 of it's full priced upgrades. "I'm throwing away my old Dinasty Warriors that just came out a month ago. The new one gives me one new character to pick from who plays exactly like the other ones and I can ride an elephant now!! This is the best $50 I've ever spent!!". Now talk to me about THAT game and I'll be crying right beside you.
-Ajari-

#13 @ Ajari

The reason why I find what you're saying to be totally unconvincing is because of the current red-hot status of the game market. The video game market is pulling in a lot of money, so much that even a company like Microsoft is willing to lose money just to get in. Already, it is outselling music. It has even surpassed the box office movies (but not DVDs or rentals... yet). The point is that games are remade with finer graphics because they still sell. They sell because the entire market of the industry is still growing. Many people haven't played the older versions. The NES sold many Atari 2600 like games because the market had expanded, people hadn't played those games before. There were NES-like games on the SNES that sold because the market expanded. On and on it goes.

The problem with generally upgrading a game's graphics/sound/etc. to the next platform's capabilities (and adding some content here and there) is that it relies entirely on the growing market. Newsflash: the industry will not always grow. At least, not in its current form.

Many industries rely on formulas. The Music Industry, for example, uses certain types of formulas especially obvious with the pop-star singers. When the Music Industry stoped growinghordes of new listeners than it did, the formula stopped working (because people have heard it again and again).

The movie industry also has its formulas. It may have come to the point where people have seen all the movies and are starting to sense they are seeing the same thing. I'd expect very soon that overall theater market will start to go down.

As people get used to the formula, they stop buying the same product. Rather than alter the formula (since it relies on growth), the music and movie industries will focus more on foriegn box offices (such as, say, China) because the customer base there will grow. Those customers are not used to the formula.

The video game industry is already worldwide, I doubt once it hits its 'formula' limit with the audience that it could do what the movie and music industry are doing now. Hard to say when this will happen, but won't be for a while. I'd say they can be selling the same games very well for the next ten years.

I admit that I don't like most of the current consoles because their games are cr@p. If their games were so wonderful, then why aren't they ported to, say, the PC so the company can make a bazillion more dollars? Because the PC audience is much more fickle and their users have a much higher history of gameplay then the console players. Only a few games could make the leap.

You're using a broad brush to paint that we are "Old games are great/ current games suck!". Our concern is not the games, it is the markets. With new generation hardware, the development time keeps getting spent more and more on the production values rather than the content/design. It simply leaves out a market for content/design oriented customers out on a limb, which is a good opportunity for Independent Games to exploit.

I remember my C64 days. I remember the 38959285 number of titles with all quirky game designs. I want production values too. But your analogy of pizza with 31 flavors does not apply because it is not the games that is the issue, it is the market formula. In order to get 2 million dollars invested in your studio, you are not going to be allowed to be as risky. In other words, show me the current FF games that play like traditional RPGs. They don't exist so I cannot choose them. It is like Pizza Hut declaring that Cheese Pizza is obsolete. and I have to emulate it at home with my microwave.

What are the gaming genres? Action. Adventure. Shooters. RPG. MMORPG. Strategy. Real Time Strategy. FPS. Puzzle. And 3d was already well established genre even before 3d cards came out. Aside from the platform gamestyle (i.e. Mario Brothers), have the consoles put out any new genres? Why not?

#14 This seems like a kind of round-about conversation. Major publishers don't take risks because they can't afford to. Sure, John Doe's idea is really wacky and it has potential. Keep in mind though that its still a double sided issue. Just as easily as the public could fall for Johns idea, it could cast it aside. Major publishers have one concern over all others: keep its investors happy and stay in the black. You cant tell something has great gameplay by looking at a box, but shit, look at those explosions. Now really, what sounds like a quicker, easier sale?

Thats where indies come in. John Doe can make his game in his free time. Its not easy by any stretch, but hey, nothing worthwhile is. Time spent complaining about the current state of mainstream gaming is nothing but time not used to turn gaming into what you want it to be.

#15 Well, I won't write an essay here, but I will say this. Think of games as movies. When movies first came out there were a truckful of classics. As time went by, more and more movies came out with less innovation. These days you see the same old crap but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Now and then some blockbusters hit theaters and become classics. It can't really be helped. Like I said though, once in a while something innovative will come out and there will be those who try to make derivatives off of that idea, and then those who make derivatives off of the derivatives until the idea becomes seriously overused and they move on.

Nuff said.

#16 A quick buck is more important to industry than a buck they had to put effort into.

'Nuff said.

If it wasn't the case they'd be arguing over me!

- Ronixus

#17 THing is not a lot of games make a quick buck, probably as few as 15-20 percent really do much to keep publishers afloat. thats why so many are going out of business and so few are willing to take chances.

Well that and about 20 other things, like rising costs. Eventualy things will even out and I expect there will be more quality indie titles taking the middle of the road, seperating themselves from hobby developers and makng their mark in the industry. But it's going to be a while.

Nice to see how the quality of inie titles has risen in the last 5 years. I really see succesful indies being more like popular TV series versus movies. But thats something thats probably a few years off from now.

#18 Why do games have to have 80+ hours of gameplay? If I'm going to spend $50 on a game, yes I'd like it to have lots of gameplay so I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. But not all games have to cost $50.

I don't have time to try many of the games that I would like to these days, and most of the "gaming time" is devoted to a game or two if I want to get anywhere in those games because it takes so long to make progress.

I do like my long RPG's filled with content, but more content doesn't equate to a better game necessarily.

#19 Most games aren't interesting enough to keep my interest longer than about 14 hours total game time. And I rearely go back and play games once I finish them. Just about all the games I enjoyed in the past year have been fairly short. Fable, Riddick, Splinter cell 3, and even Jade Empire weren't that long, but were all exceptionaly good games.

I would rather have 8-12 housr of quality content in my games, with diverse scenery and interesting story, than 20+ hours of generic repeating levels. At some oint gameplay gets old, and you need a complete and polished package to extend that past a couple of hours. Most Commercial games today don't get past the 2 hour play time with me, but those that do keep me hooked for quite some time.

Indie games rarely last more than 10 minutes, but at least you do get to try before you buy. For my own personal tastes in games, most indie games are interesting in the ideas department, but lacking in exectution. Often focusing on a simple idea, and using it do death without much progression.

I think my own game falls into this category. Aerial Antics is pretty cool for a quick spin, but relies on very simple gameplay mechanisms that don't hold interest for many over a long period of time. Particularly being a single player game, flying from A - B and activating triggers only remains fun for so long before most gamers feel they want more.

That and a not too diverse demo probably hold the game back more than anything else.

#20 I think it also depends on to what level a game is the same-

For the most part, I'm not a fan of racing games, but recently had an opportunity to try out Burnout 3.

It's the most fun, unique driving game I've ever played-the crashes had my friends and I screaming with pure unadulterated joy, and I can't realling ever yelling out in a game before. Yet, it's just another driving game for the most part. So yeah, new games are sometimes rehashes of old ideas, but it's how they handle those old ideas that can make a game better than others.

By the way, as an artist/modeler/illustrator, I appreciate more polygons and textures in my games.

Eye candy is good...

John