What, out of these, is holding gaming back the most?
the community
17.6% (109)
17.6% (109)
large corporations (like EA. Activision)
44.1% (274)
44.1% (274)
mobile (and casual) gaming
3.9% (24)
3.9% (24)
critics
1% (6)
1% (6)
the media
6.4% (40)
6.4% (40)
other
13% (81)
13% (81)
none. The industry is moving at its own pace, and nothing is holding it back.
13.8% (86)
13.8% (86)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What is holding gaming back, as an industry?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Sanat:
Consoles. 'Nuff said.

XD, no like you think.

its a number of things in my mind that are holding things back

company's like EA for sure.

Consoles to a degree,

shit like CoD/BF/Halo/FPS games in general

but PC gamers, more accurately, the elitists that think PC gaming is 'just better' because 'they can mod' or 'it looks better', yeah, don't feed me that 'better control's' bull shit, they aren't

back OT, in particular the PC gamers that whine about consoles holding back THE LEAST IMPORTANT PART OF GAMING, the mother fucking GRAPHICS, these are NOT as important as they would have you think, and only reason i can think of WHY it's so important is to justify the wholly unnecessary upgrades they like to brag they're platform is capable of for that .004% performance boost.

not that the consoles are devoid of the 'graphics whore', but i feel its them as well as people buy sub par games in bewildering numbers, on both PC and Consoles that are holding back, and no, not just talking about CoD that time, talking about anything made by Bethesda as well

Costs. Because of the high price it takes to develop a game, most companies aren't as willing to bank on new and original concepts in gaming, and instead they focus on sequels and reusing game mechanics that are becoming stale.

I was going to click large corporations, but then I remembered that the problem is the community. Corporations only do the shit they do that holds us back because gamers will buy America, Fuck Yeah 7 a long time before they buy Original Concept: Innovation. We like what's familiar most of the time, and that's why the more intelligent games just aren't as common as they could be. Modern Warfare 3 made more money than Avatar, so of course that's what everyone will make. While there are rare titles that are fairly original that sell well, such as some XBLA Arcade games, Minecraft, Amnesia, Flower, and Portal, these are in the minority next to unique gems like Rock of Ages or Recettear that just don't make it to the mainstream.

I would say the community, in the sense that they never really but their money where their mouth is. If everyone who said they wanted better story telling and interesting/good mechanics supported every game that did so, it would allow more indie developers to flourish and push gaming new places. We've quite honestly reached the point where improvements in graphic and audio fidelity is plateauing. We need to focus less on the sensory tech and move towards tech and ideas that improve the mechanics and overall experience of the game.

getoffmycloud:
And we would have bigger budgets, longer development time, less innovation and shorter and more expensive games

and save time and money on excessive optimisation and workarounds to deal with the terrible tech of consoles.

You should add "All of the above" to the poll. There is no isolated reason as to why the gaming industry is being held back. If that were the case, I'm sure something would have been said and probably even done about that. A combination of large corporations releasing games that are highly sub standard, the community who can't get along that nitpicks at each other that reacts poorboy to said games, the media coverage (or should I say smear campaign?) of the game and the community, makes a horrid combination of corporations feeling like they did their jobs, gamers feel like they didn't,and the media making it seem that the gaming industry/community is full of crazed, murderous, sex deviants. You make that as a whole and you get a cluster-f*ck disaster where no one is happy.

asacatman:
The community. And I'm not talking about just the people who buy COD every year either. There is no market for medium budget 'Oscar bait' games like the hurt locker or the artist. The gaming community basically wants to play games about shooting people or beating people up, or escapist fantasies like Skyrim, but they don't really want serious art.

Serious art. What does that mean, anyways? What, are we all supposed to play every day the same dream for eternity or something? Not everyone likes serious art, and people like you need to accept that.

As an industry? It's doing great.

As a culture? It's getting worse.

Nothing is holding gaming back.

Gaming keeps getting better and better is hugely successful considering that the medium is still very young.

this works.

i don't think anything is holding it back. it's massively successful. there are games profiting more than some of the most successful movies nowadays. where do people get the idea that gaming isn't as widespread as they want it to be? it's incredibly mainstream.

p.s. what's with the damn "spam control" shit, every time i go to post something? they got ads in there... wonder how much Escapist makes off that crap.

I would say the community right before I'd say corporations. The reason being that the corporations such as EA etc just give the community what the community wants or would be willing to pay. The community will complain and complain about how companies are ruining gaming with DLC by breaking up the game and selling it to you later for $10. Well here's a business practice lesson for you...they don't offer products you won't buy. If there is no profit in it they won't offer it. Companies are all about making money and if you don't give them money for something they offer they will change their offer until you'll buy it. If people don't like DLC why do they buy it. When you complain about how a company is ruining gaming by doing something just remember that there is a large enough consumer base funding that that keeps them going and a good chance is you are partly the problem especially if you ever said something like, " well Id don't like DLC but I guess I'll buy it this ONE time surely it won't matter." Yeah but it adds up because there are thousands of others saying the same thing.

It's definitely the community. Just look at the thread.

"Oh consoles are the problem" or "A game I don't like is holding everything back."

Corporations cause their fair share of problems too when left unchecked and pulling a greedy maneuver but the gamer community has an incredible amount of concentrated hate and immaturity. Especially compared to the bigger industries we strive to be as relevant as, like the movie industry.

Replayablity is holding gaming back. That is the one large thing that gaming has over any othe form of entertainment but it's hardly ever used effectively.

I voted large corporations (like EA. Activision).

Because they are the ones who push for the CoD games. They know what sells for the highest money, for the lowest amount of invested money. They are a business that only has one goal, earn as much fucking money as its can for the lowest amount possible.

And while I understand thats the nature of business, and they have every right to earn money, but when that aspect of their nature becomes their number one driving point, miles and miles from any other goal, then thats when it becomes a problem; thats when they are no longer want to take "big" risks, cut back on new ideas, tone down untested changes, and keep everything on a straight and narrow of "this is what works, so make it more like this game that sells more, and up the graphs by 20%".

That is what is "holding games" back.

ME3 could have spent another 2-3 months in shop to make a better ending. But because the game was already getting "too expensive" they didn't want to sink another million or two into the development. It was, "You have reached your max budget, you are not allowed another penny. Either everybody is working for free, or you ship the game by X date."

When games are about marginalizing risk above creativity, then creativity suffers. But often as games are about creativity, sometimes they also need to know and learn their developers too; let them dream, but keep them in check; but there is no need to tie 20 anchors to them.

Devs, Reviewers and gullable gamers who pass off trends as unbrakable rules or features in game design. As it realy puts tight contraints on what they can make and sell.

Take 2D games its only taken over 15 years for them to become trendy again so that AAA/ AA devs and pubs are starting to make games for them

black_knight1337:

getoffmycloud:
And we would have bigger budgets, longer development time, less innovation and shorter and more expensive games

and save time and money on excessive optimisation and workarounds to deal with the terrible tech of consoles.

Do you honestly think any major publisher will come out with that though they will just use it as an excuse to charge us more for less because they know people will buy it if they come up with those excuses.

krazykidd:
The cost of developping quality AAA titles . Seriously , it now costs a small fortune and 4% of a persons lifespan to make 1 game . I personally believe that the only way the industry will move foward is to find a way developpe the same quality ( or better ) at a lower cost . I think , new technology needs to be developped to make games more cost efficent to make .

Once the cost is considerably lowered , then the industry could take more risks and we would get more original games . Even if the games aren't original in every sense , we would be able to experiment more and have more unique games with little risk .

As much as learning to use the design software better does speed up the time needed slightly. It won't ever go back to the old days, every new special graphics feature brought up adds more to the complexity of each area.

This can be anything from lighting to dirt to needing different magazine textures. I would prefer it if we stopped chasing the graphics endgame for a while. But i think a massive flop would need to occur first.

The same thing that is keeping it alive unfourtunately. The publishers. They control, ultimately, what is released and what we see... and what we buy with our $$.

Racecarlock:

asacatman:
The community. And I'm not talking about just the people who buy COD every year either. There is no market for medium budget 'Oscar bait' games like the hurt locker or the artist. The gaming community basically wants to play games about shooting people or beating people up, or escapist fantasies like Skyrim, but they don't really want serious art.

Serious art. What does that mean, anyways? What, are we all supposed to play every day the same dream for eternity or something? Not everyone likes serious art, and people like you need to accept that.

Well yeah, obviously not everyone likes serious art. I'm not saying we should play exclusively serious stuff. I'm saying that *no one* in gaming buys 'serious art'. I probably shouldn't have used that term anyway, what I really mean is games about things other than violence, and games that aren't designed purely for entertainment, but to say something about the world, or the past, or the human condition, whatever, just they have some sort of purpose.

It's not really just the community's fault, because that sort of thing is quite hard to design. But I think it is mainly on us to show developers that there is a profit in making a smaller budget game that have a purpose other than entertainment. It would be great if there were more things like Limbo, braid, journey, although they are all pretty short, and they come at a rate of about once per year, which isn't really enough for my tastes.

P.S every day the same dream isn't 'medium budget' it's an indie game. There are plenty of indie games that are serious and want to make a point. But they are limited by not having much money being spent on them and having small developement teams.

As an INDUSTRY?
Nothing. Business is booming. Publishers are getting more of that market control they always wanted, customers are gobbling it all up. Apart from slaughtering consumers' rights on the altar of greed, why change what works?

Games are just about as commercialized and "streamlined" as they can get. Most mainstream titles are full of stock graphical tech, with stock gameplay, stock premises and stock characters. An overwhelming majority of these titles are nothing more than sequels, prequels spinoffs or reboots.
The best selling video game of all time is a third-derivative $60 map pack of its predecessor.

If you're looking for what's holding gaming back as a creative medium; it's the Publishers and the mainstream fanbase who support them. Stagnation breeds stagnation, and when stagnation is so incredibly profitable you can bet you won't see anything risky or creative until you go to the indie market (which is gaining momentum, mercifully).

Lunar Templar:

shit like CoD/BF/Halo/FPS games in general

Okay... I don't get this at all.

The onlt problems Call of Duty (The main series, not the spinoffs), Halo, and Battlefield bring to the table is countless imitators that fail to see what made those games great in the first place.

Battlefield 3's the best online large-scale multiplayer FPS.

Halo is the worlds best console-friendly LAN party.

And Call of Duty broke the genre out of a rut and refreshed the experience (Before letting the spinoffs fall into a new one).

As a creative medium, people like to blame the publishers... but honestly, without the publishers, there would be no funding for the creative outlet in the first place. I've played far too many High-quality games that shake up the industry - most of them being lambasted.

Could you make up your fucking mind? You lambast the lack of innovation, then criticize the three most (initially) innovative games in an entire genre.

There's a balance games have to strike between innovation and refinement. New IPs try innovation, while established ones attempt to refine their mechanics to better suit the core experience. Other games use a "Safe" core experience, and tack on "gimmicks" to see if an innovative feature could take off and stand on its own or not.

I'm never at a loss for finding good games. You just have to know where to look. Also, only looking between the "Indie" and "AAA" games is a shortcoming on your part: Check out the "Graveyard" of games that wanted to be "AAA" titles, failed, and look for gold there - If its worth encouraging, spread the word around about it. It may get vindicated.

Scow2:

Lunar Templar:

shit like CoD/BF/Halo/FPS games in general

Okay... I don't get this at all.

The onlt problems Call of Duty (The main series, not the spinoffs), Halo, and Battlefield bring to the table is countless imitators that fail to see what made those games great in the first place.

the imitators are part of the problem to be sure, but cheap knock offs have always been a problem. no, i see them as creatively bankrupt. same game crapped out yearly with the bulk of 'improvement' (depending on who you talk to) going to the MP, improvements that could have just been some for of DLC and not a full $60 rip off, actually, i have the same problem with sports titles to.

As a creative medium, people like to blame the publishers... but honestly, without the publishers, there would be no funding for the creative outlet in the first place. I've played far too many High-quality games that shake up the industry - most of them being lambasted.

seems to me, at this point 'high quality' just means 'high end graphics', and pretty sure i made my self rather clear on my thoughts on that. also, the indi market says hi

Could you make up your fucking mind? You lambast the lack of innovation, then criticize the three most (initially) innovative games in an entire genre.

that would be the operative word right there, 'initially', now, they're just part of the problem far as i can see. also ;) find it funny, you jumped me for taking a shot at FPS's but nothing about Bethesda

There's a balance games have to strike between innovation and refinement. New IPs try innovation, while established ones attempt to refine their mechanics to better suit the core experience. Other games use a "Safe" core experience, and tack on "gimmicks" to see if an innovative feature could take off and stand on its own or not.

cept i'm seeing a lot more 'safe' with out the gimmicks. though i would a tribute a LOT of my problems with games now days with 'online' functionality, cause the balance you speak of, we HAD, LAST generation. 'online' was great addition, for games built around multi-player, to be sure (TV's are heavy after, and those Xbox weren't much lighter) but its become a crutch, to many games have 'online multi-player' as part of then advertising blurb, games where it has no place in

I'm never at a loss for finding good games. You just have to know where to look. Also, only looking between the "Indie" and "AAA" games is a shortcoming on your part: Check out the "Graveyard" of games that wanted to be "AAA" titles, failed, and look for gold there - If its worth encouraging, spread the word around about it. It may get vindicated.

well i am at a loss for finding good games, or maybe I'm to picky, ether way i refuse to alter my standards cause the games i like 'aren't cool' in the mainstream eye, though i don't see them working out of this 'phaze' they're in any time soon.

IMO gaming seems to be stuck in a similar situation to the early 1900s movie industry where there is little creativity going around and a few mega corporations control most of the market. Video Gaming needs a new golden age to break out of the cycle of sequels and series. I think that independent games that aspire to be more than just an hour long such as Amnesia or Hawken are the best thing for the industry.

Most of the industry is stuck in a rut but the community isn't really demanding they get out of it either.

Having a bunch of critics in the pocket of the developers doesn't help either.

Lunar Templar:

Scow2:

Lunar Templar:

shit like CoD/BF/Halo/FPS games in general

Okay... I don't get this at all.

The onlt problems Call of Duty (The main series, not the spinoffs), Halo, and Battlefield bring to the table is countless imitators that fail to see what made those games great in the first place.

the imitators are part of the problem to be sure, but cheap knock offs have always been a problem. no, i see them as creatively bankrupt. same game crapped out yearly with the bulk of 'improvement' (depending on who you talk to) going to the MP, improvements that could have just been some for of DLC and not a full $60 rip off, actually, i have the same problem with sports titles to.

There's a reason the Call of Duty games aren't listed in the main series, and are spin-offs instead. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a great game.
As far as the spinoffs probably being better off as a DLC... the problem here is that "under the hood", each CoD game's made on a re-built and tweaked engine (And people failing to notice that infamously caused one game artist to break down crying "They don't know... they just don't know), and while there are overwhelming similarities between the games (They all control the same, etc), they do have enough mechanical re-workings and rebalances to justify them as being seperate games (Albeit not at the price tag they're offered). And, unlike Valve's Half-Life Series, the people behind Call of Duty know how to finish a trilogy in a timely manner.

As a creative medium, people like to blame the publishers... but honestly, without the publishers, there would be no funding for the creative outlet in the first place. I've played far too many High-quality games that shake up the industry - most of them being lambasted.

seems to me, at this point 'high quality' just means 'high end graphics', and pretty sure i made my self rather clear on my thoughts on that. also, the indi market says hi

I've seen the Indie market. Want to know what the old term for Steam's indie bundles were? Shovelware. Yes, there are some good games in there, but for every Bastion, we also get second-rate garbage like 'Splosion Man. If it weren't for Publishers, we wouldn't have games like Bulletstorm. Also - Every game is someone's life-work. As an aspiring artist myself, I can appreciate high-end graphics when it augments good art direction in a game. We've seen what good artists can do with primitive graphics - it's even more amazing what they can do with top-end graphics. Also, every game is someone's artistic vision, even the "Mediocre" ones - and while there are some publishers that screw over their studios (THQ screwing over Iron Lore's development of Soulstorm, LucasArts screwing over Obsidian's development of KotoR 2, and then all of EA's atrocities - though I think they did a good job with Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath of yesteryear.)

Rage, Hunted: The Demon Forge, Bionic Commando, Dark Void, and hundreds of other "middle-range" games (Not quite AAA titles, but not indie shovelware either) are all possible because Publishers are willing to risk capital on games.

Could you make up your fucking mind? You lambast the lack of innovation, then criticize the three most (initially) innovative games in an entire genre.

that would be the operative word right there, 'initially', now, they're just part of the problem far as i can see. also ;) find it funny, you jumped me for taking a shot at FPS's but nothing about Bethesda

Those series have left the "innovation" phase, and are in the "refinement" phase - there are far more games out there that continue to innovate.

There's a balance games have to strike between innovation and refinement. New IPs try innovation, while established ones attempt to refine their mechanics to better suit the core experience. Other games use a "Safe" core experience, and tack on "gimmicks" to see if an innovative feature could take off and stand on its own or not.

cept i'm seeing a lot more 'safe' with out the gimmicks. though i would a tribute a LOT of my problems with games now days with 'online' functionality, cause the balance you speak of, we HAD, LAST generation. 'online' was great addition, for games built around multi-player, to be sure (TV's are heavy after, and those Xbox weren't much lighter) but its become a crutch, to many games have 'online multi-player' as part of then advertising blurb, games where it has no place in

What? The only thing I've really seen a problem with is a lack of split-screen on Console FPS games. Also - a lot of people like playing with real, other people. Minecraft would be terrible without the ability for someone else to explore and share your creations.

I'm never at a loss for finding good games. You just have to know where to look. Also, only looking between the "Indie" and "AAA" games is a shortcoming on your part: Check out the "Graveyard" of games that wanted to be "AAA" titles, failed, and look for gold there - If its worth encouraging, spread the word around about it. It may get vindicated.

well i am at a loss for finding good games, or maybe I'm to picky, ether way i refuse to alter my standards cause the games i like 'aren't cool' in the mainstream eye, though i don't see them working out of this 'phaze' they're in any time soon.[/quote][/quote]Well, I guess you'll be forever depressed, because there will NEVER be any "Perfect" games, because the people making the games aren't perfect, and don't have perfect vision. The fun is in finding the adequate games that have features you enjoy and would like to see more of.

Nothing really holding the industry back to my mind. It's growing and fast - sales numbers are up. The number of platforms for gaming is growing just as fast (tablets, mobile app markets).

Even something like the ME3 furore or the recent success of Kick Starter projects show that the number of people involved is growing. None of these would have been as big a deal 5 years ago to my mind.

I'd say the biggest problem is the large corporations like EA/Activision seeking to sell games to the widest audience possible. Back in the day you had way more smaller companies appealing to more numerous small niches so creativity was through the roof.

That said I think PC gaming is "coming back" due to the success of indie devs working through services like Steam and GOG.

Mainstream games though have definitely gone downhill big time and I doubt anything will change in that regard.

noxnoctum:
I'd say the biggest problem is the large corporations like EA/Activision seeking to sell games to the widest audience possible. Back in the day you had way more smaller companies appealing to more numerous small niches so creativity was through the roof.

That said I think PC gaming is "coming back" due to the success of indie devs working through services like Steam and GOG.

Mainstream games though have definitely gone downhill big time and I doubt anything will change in that regard.

You have very skewed nostalgia clouding your memory of past games.

Scow2:
Well, I guess you'll be forever depressed, because there will NEVER be any "Perfect" games, because the people making the games aren't perfect, and don't have perfect vision. The fun is in finding the adequate games that have features you enjoy and would like to see more of.

not asking for perfect, just something i find interesting, to which this year, there is but one game (maybe 2 if they release it this year)

honestly, the only thing holding the industry back is the industry itself, due to it trying to do everything at once, it wants to have an each way bet on the financial success/artistic merit front simultaneously despite the fact that you can only really be either one or the other, it also wants to achieve in months what took other mediums decades or even centuries to achieve, add into the mix that some of the developers out there are showing themselves to be rather egotistical and controlling, some questionable business practices, reaction to criticism with condescending self congradulatory remarks, and so on.

really, the industry is its own worst enemy when it comes to 'being held back'

Consoles, big corporations and the community. Consoles not because console gaming in and of itself is bad, but the consoles are terribly outdated, and when devs are making new games, they have to take that into consideration. Games that only come out for PC generally have better graphics (unless it's a indie game) and better experience because the devs don't have to compensate for the horrible graphics cards and such on the consoles.

Big corporations because of what they're doing to DLC and updates. Instead of making updates for the game, devs are actually selling dlcs instead. I reckon it won't be long until bug fixes will be released as DLC..

And finally, the community, for telling the big companies that this is okay by buying that DLC. Because it's not.

I have to say one of the major ones is the obsession with graphics. I mean a lot of people if it doesn't look the absolute best won't even play a game which is ridiculous. This bring up another issue price because the graphics have to be so great the price goes way up and doesn't come down. Look at the price of a wii compared to the price of a 360 or ps3. Another issue is the lack of difficulty lately in mainstream games, they just want to hold your hand to where you can beat it and practically speed run it on your first time through. Also is it me or have games been getting shorter and shorter? This goes back to the price thing because it costs so much to make a game they are getting shorter.

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:
Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

Everything and everyone is holding gaming back as a medium. I mean after all, if the people in the press, the corporations and the communities always did the right thing, then there wouldn't be any problem with anything! And this applies to everything else!

So yeah, peepz be messing up yo mediums.

Atmos Duality:
As an INDUSTRY?
Nothing. Business is booming. Publishers are getting more of that market control they always wanted, customers are gobbling it all up. Apart from slaughtering consumers' rights on the altar of greed, why change what works?

if you are referring to traditional gaming (consoles + PC gaming), the industry has been in decline since 2008; and it is accelerating. year on year sales are down 25% in the first quarter of this year, truly stunning numbers. All you need to do is look at the stock numbers for the big publishers.

However, if you are including the numbers from things like facebook/Ipad games, then yes the industry is still expanding.

As to the OP's question, imo there are 2 problesm: 1) Companies are trying to create games that aren't games. They want big expensive E-P-I-C stories, and cgi, and voice acting, etc. and they want the games to be playable by almost everyone. So what people get is a boring (re: easy) interactive movie. Games require constant interaction and unpredictable outcomes, but what game companies are making are neither of those things.

If you don't engage the player and get them involved in the actual gameplay (nothing to do with story), all you're left with is a really bad movie with with really boring gameplay.

why is COD popular? Because the multiplayer provides a true gaming experince, that is one that engages the player from minute one and is totally focused on keeping them interacting with the game. So pointing at that game and saying how crappy it is shows a real ignorance of what games are actually supposed to be.

2)the way gaming companies market themselves. The games industry seems to be built on bait and switch. For example, the Kinect was suposed to be all things to all people, and its abilities were highly exaggerted. So many bought it thinking that it was going to be more than a kiddie-toy/dance-partner/thing-for-geeks-to-take-apart-and-mod. So they look at their game setup and realize that all they use it for is netflix and you can get a $99 apple tv for that, then comes the anger at being ripped off. And dont even get me started on how software pubs market their products.

The fans......really that's it, we don't take criticism well, we get angry over everything.

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:
Second, the Nuke scene alone has changed the way we look at gamings use of inevitable death - the post fallout poisoning scene is one of the most powerful gaming moments in terms of the subversion of ou instinctive reaction to taking damage but still being alive in a game - that being that there is a way to fix this, and to take shelter, even as we just keep on dying, thus mirroring the desperate struggling of a man dying in the wake of a nuclear bomb.

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked