Creativity in games on the decline?

#1 Man am I sick of hearing this same thing...

#2 Since the return of the industry in the mid-80's, I've heard this same debate yearly as people look at the shelves, are unhappy, and set out to make their own in whatever "small market" there is, whether it be the shareware industry or the new indie industry. And, strangely, the games within the small markets have often emulated not only popular games to gain a customer base but by the games they enjoyed themselves. Often these games, either the ones for others or for the self, are modeled after exising titles but scaled accordingly. At least the ones that get finished are scaled accordingly.

#3 IMHO, video 'games' are simply a 'product' like any other manufactured item and are, more or less, under the same market dynamics as any other 'product'. Produce something your 'market' wants, at a reasonable delivery point, fulfill the 'expectations' of the consumer who purchased it, and things sell. You can be big, you can be small.

Trying to convince the General Population to buy a product they don't want, and it usually doesn't sell...

I don't think being in a particular 'niche' of business level['Indy' or otherwise] is necessarilly a contributing factor towards the mission plan's success.

It's the product, fan-bois notwithstanding...I mean, kudos to "Air Aces", but I'd rather be piloting an A-10 SIM myself...and would buy that type of product, not settle for an 'Indy' title, because it's an 'Indy' title.

#4 I don't think much has changes, except there are more games than ever before. Plenty of cool new things being done. But everything is market driven.

And the majority of people don't actualy like all games. I'm partial to RPG's followed by exceptional RTS and FPS about equal. I also like space combat trading games, but just don't have time for them. Racing Sims would be 4th, but I don't care for unrealistic arcade racers.

I've actualy found that I like more than most gamers, I typicaly do not like casual games, but do play them on occasion on recommendation, this includes the majority of indie games. Most indie games tend to have low production values and rely on a gimmick, which allthough novel are rarely taken far enough to sustain my interest for a long enough period time that I would want to buy it.

#5 Some game developers/publishers are in it for the money, that's all. They make games that will make the most sales because of the majority of people who buy those particular games. It's a simple and obvious thing to understand about the industry.

There are few developers/publishers out there who take the risk to introduce innovative titles to the market, for fear that it won't hit off well. So they don't take any chances, they stick with what works. Right now, making the same crap over and over is what works.

You also have other things to blame. If you want to make an innovative title, you better put 5 good years and a crap load of money towards it. Oblivion, Operation Flashpoint 2, Half-Life 2, all of these games are/will be absolutely AMAZING games because they take literally 4 years or more to complete.

This industry will never be perfect. But it's on a huge incline, so things will change for better and for worse.

If you think these games are repetitive, and they are, tell the world to stop buying them, and then they'll stop making them.

#6 I thought HL2 was boring and repetitive, the nicest thing being the graphics, otherwise it was the same old thing stick in front of camera etc. Riddick was pretty innovative as an FPS and made a much bigger impact on me than any action oriented FPS since FarCry.

I agree on operation flashpoint and Oblivion though :)

#7 Talk to the players. Get their opinion, ask them what they want in a particular type of game, and compare their opinions to others. When asking these questions, work down a path. Don't just ask people general questions. That's just like asking what current game they like. You have to satisfy the expectations of others while keeping your vision of the game together.

That's what's wrong with a lot of commercial game developers today. Everything they make is based on making it "better" than some other game that just came out. It's like, all content, no context, oorrrrr, all context and no content. Nothing to actually keep everything in the game together.

Let's take Red Faction 2 for example. Good graphics, smooth framerate, really good weapons, and not to mention, the Geo-Mod engine. Unfortunately, however, there was nothing to tie the single-player missions together except one small FMV. I mean, one mission I'm in a graveyard, and the next thing I know, I'm driving a sub. Plus, the maps were all one-way. No room for the player to explore, take alternate paths in the game, or win a game using a different method than before. You play the game once, and there's no reason to play it again. The multiplayer maps were ok, but no real creativity there either. For the most part, it seems like that game was actually built around the Geo-Mod engine.

It's not just about making a better game than others. A game doesn't have to be the best game out there to be something a lot of people would enjoy. A lot of people are following one path here and that's it... sharper graphics, bigger guns, cooler particle effects, and some smart little engine that no one has ever thought of before to bring it all together. Sooner or later, our ambitions are going to exceed our technology. If we just focus on making our game something "new and improved," we're headed toward a dead end.

Of course, there's no real perfect game out there, and Red Faction wasn't bad. But, if there would have been more emphasis on gameplay, it could have been a lot more fun. And that's really what a game is about, fun.

I'm no commercial game developer though. That's just my take on all of it.

#8 This recent article by an indie developer would seem to argue the opposite of this thread.