119 replies to this topic

[Ragamuffin]

I was never a fan of people making insanely large amounts of cash. At least, not the ones that decide not to do anything decent with it. If they're making somewhat more than they should, it's fine. Even if they're making a lot more than they should, it's fine. All I'm saying is if they're sacrificing creativity for the sake of a lot more cash that they don't need, then I'm probably not going to remain a huge fan of theirs.

Well, one argument is that we as a society are the ones paying these people's salaries. Sure, we may think that some game company CEO makes too much or that Al Pacino shouldn't be making $15-20mil. per film, but we're buying what they're selling, so really we have nobody to blame for their wages but ourselves. I understand that games could be made cheaper, but in comparison to 20 years ago, games are the cheapest they've ever been. The SNES was originally $200, and games were $50-60 each, and this was 18 years ago. Look at how much everything has gone up since then with inflation. Now, the PS3 and 360 didn't start at $200 or even anything comparable to what $200 back in 1991 would be now (save for the 360 basic/core package, which was $300), but the price of games remains the same, despite the cost of games, without factoring in inflation, costs many times more than it used to. This is mostly because in the old days, a single programmer could make a game for say, the Atari 2600. Then it became a team of 3-6 people, then a dozen, now hundreds of people are needed just to make a single game.I do realize, however, that video games are alot more popular now than back then, so the chances of a game selling well are much higher.

With the overwhelming amount of stale ideas out there, many are going to resort to buying them merely because there's no other option other than not buying video games period.

Well, personally, I'd rather save my money than go out and buy something that I've essentialy have played twenty times before. Maybe if more people followed suit and didn't buy the same crap in a different disguise or didn't buy into the whole "hey let's re-release a game 5 or 6 times on each system and add one or two little things every time" garbage then maybe the companies would realize that their sales tactics, as well as their material were growing stale.

Like I said, it's far from easy and there are many risks involved, but if you've already reached comfortable grounds for experimentation, why not? You don't need to start off with any drastic changes; just incorporate small ones into game over time and observe the reactions they get. This can help you to judge which ideas will float and which will sink. Better than that, though, is if more companies tried to gauge reactions from the public by use of the internet; posting polls on the company website forum pertaining to new ideas and whether or not the majority approves and whatnot. None of this is a surefire way of knowing which ideas will succeed or fail, but it certainly helps.

I agree, but the game programmers aren't usually the ones to decide what goes in a game, and even the directors/producers have the big-wigs to answer to, and what they say goes. The biggest problem with that is people in those positions usually didn't get there by being original or creative, they got there because because they went to a $50,000 per year business school.The thing with testing games online is a great idea, I have no clue whether that's been done by any major companies yet.

I don't mind that they're exaggerated, really, but I do mind when they're continually exaggerated in the same manner. Variety is what I want - variety that doesn't remain essentially the same over the years, being tinkered with ever-so-slightly as the next batch of RPGs are let loose into the public.

Same thing with stale storyline/design/etc, and what I said before about having to change alot just to make something new "fit" right. I agree that many characters are cookie-cutter, but they became that way because those types of personas work in (game), not to say that there's never anything different in games these days, it's just not as often as it used to be. Look at Hollywood today; for the past 5 years or so directors have been churing out boring sequels or crappy remakes of old movies. Well, game companies are essentialy doing the same thing; plagerizing themselves from 10 years ago and churning out boring "remakes" or "extended" versions of a game. There's really no way that can be solved on the part of the consumer, besides not buying (company's) products.

It's extremely unfortunate that people are actually willing to stunt sales of a game just because a company is trying different things. Sure, if it's a drastic change that's clearly a horrible idea, then no problem, but if they're just trying to make characters with a personality different from what you'd normally expect or something, then there's no reason to ignore the game. Honestly, I wouldn't want people like that buying my games. People are far too conservative when it comes to video gaming; I see it on forums all the time - comments about how once-fans will no longer be purchasing *insert company here*'s products due to some slight, probably-not-permanent change that they happened to disprove of. It's saddening to see.

Well, then you're not gonna like this article much, an example of what happens with "different" games. (link stolen from BR btw)http://www.destructo...wed-87774.phtmlIt's so stupid. I mean, look at Disgaea. People thought that it would be a waste of money to bring that game to the western world, but guess what? It was a sucessful game and brought many other games of the like with it (though, now even Nippon Ichi has even resorted to copying themselves, but at least they keep it interesting). That was a gamble on NI's part, because if that game would've tanked, then they would've lost a few million. But instead, not only didn't they make a tidy profit from western sales, but the games that (likely) wouldn't have been released here otherwise had desent sales, by and large, as well, so they made much more than they could've potentially lost. That's the gamble right there, you never fully know how your audience is going to react, despite reviews from "regular" gamers who've tested a game and so forth.

Yeah, and that's also unfortunate, but there are definitely a good amount of females out there that wouldn't mind the job. The problem is reaching them.

Well, I see tons of commercials with the whole "I'm a single mom and I'm going to (crappy college) for a degree in (whatever). I can be both a mommy and a career woman now!" spiel, so people are trying to get more women working in professional fields, whether it's to look new-age or sexually unbiased, or maybe the new female CEO just happens to be a feminist douchebag. Basically, trying to get people to do something that doesn't interest them is like trying to sell newspapers to blind people.

Sure, it's a relative term, but it isn't always hard to tell if you're a poor artist. All you have to do is take a look at other artists' works and then take a look at your own, and it's pretty easy to see.

I dunno about that, unless it's the same exact drawing done in the same exact style. My friend Kenny was a fantastic artist, he could draw just about anything and you'd swear it was a picture he took with a camera, but he couldn't draw anything even remotely cartoonish, and only had one basic style. I, on the other hand, can't draw realistic portraits and such very well, but I can draw non-living things and cartoons great and I have alot of different styles that I'm comfortable with using and often combine a few to make something inventive.So, Kenny can draw very realisticaly, but isn't very creative, and I'm the opposite; I have great ideas and can draw just about anything except portrait-realistic people. Who's to say who's the better artist? Remember, being an artist isn't just about skill, far from it, you need motivation and creativity to come up with truly inspirational concepts (yet another reason why I smoke pot, is that cheating?).

I'm terrible at forcing myself to do anything (which is probably why I'll never be a video game designer); I usually resort to what I enjoy doing within a matter of hours.

Not to sound dated or anything, but that'll change with age.

[Ragamuffin]

I think we owe a great deal of thanks to apathy and the sense of hopelessness when we talk about the prolongation of bland, overdone careers/cinema/etc. It's very easy for the average person to realize how frequent companies milk ideas and actors/actresses, but when it comes to confrontation and activism, it's suddenly not so simple. Almost no one is going to grow or remain optimistic about being able to truly aid in impacting the direction of any given form of media, so they then face the fact that, yeah, they're probably not going to be able to change many minds, even if they're fully committed. And then what can you do? You still want to be entertained, but at the same time, you don't want to continue to give the people in charge of all this any sort of monetary support.

The short answer is that many people are either too lazy or uninterested in changing the state of games/media today, or simply don't know where to start. Also many are content with how things are simply because they haven't thought of anything better, at least anything that could be backed up with concrete ideas.

This is largely why piracy is such a popular form of attainment. What does this have to do with companies choosing to sacrifice creativity? Well, my theory is that if creativity was a more valued trait in the gaming world, or any form of media, piracy rates would decline at least slightly. It's difficult to rate the reasonings behind piracy on a scale, but I would venture to say that distaste for excessive, repetitive material ranks among one of the most common reasons. Others, of course, include cost, convenience, and just plain old apathetic greed.

True, I know it is for me anyways. If I truly enjoyed something, then I'll go out and buy it to support the people behind it, otherwise I'm saving my money for something more deserving.

So while giving their consumer base what they seemingly want (and sure, some people actually do enjoy familiar conventions) may initially seem in the best interest of large gaming corporations, I think if they're not careful about this, it'll reach a point where either games go out of style or they're just not purchased anymore, instead being downloaded and enjoyed as much as one can enjoy recycled material.Like I said, it's nothing easy to solve.

Well, while it may not be an easy problem to solve, people can always turn to independant programmers, sites dedicated to homemade programs, and so forth. Of course, this doesn't do much for your run-of-the-mill gamer or the mainstream in general, but it's at least an alternative.

This is why I'm thankful for independent gaming companies. Regardless of the difficulty, it's always possible to implement a little more creativity into a game, even if it's nothing too big to be objectionable to the big-wigs.

Aye, though the smaller budget that these companies have usually show. Still, I'd rather have a well-thought out, original game that's a little rough around the edges than a polished cookie-cutter one.

I'm sure some companies, such as Nintendo, do it to some extent. It could certainly use a popularity boost, though.

I ran across a Mirror's Edge 2D test level, that's all I've found as of late.

You're right: I certainly didn't like that article; it's exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about. I can understand having to let some people go when experimental games are released and fail, sure, but firing people for daring to be different? I just don't get it. Yeah, I know; these people are potentially hurting the company's profits, but surely they realize that gambles are necessary in the gaming industry, or are they just riding the wave of uncreative familiarity until they finally reach the shore, which they seem to believe is imaginary? It's all so depressing to read.

Square-Enix has come to the point where pretty much nothing outside their flagship FF series gets much attention. Call me crazy, but I think that has alot to do with it. After all, one FF game to another, there's really not a whole lot of difference besides the occasional battle system tweak.

I'm speaking of the women who are interesting in such a career; those are the ones we should be trying to reach.

But if those women are interested, then no one would need to reach them, it's not like would-be female programmers are sitting on the couch eating cupcakes wondering why a job hasn't fallen into their laps.

I was just speaking generally. Anything can be considered good art, but if you know that what you're producing isn't what you actually want to be producing, then the art will remain bad in your mind until you're able to reach a satisfactory amount of skill or a certain style.

Well, they say you're your own worst critic, so don't be so quick to think something you made sucks until you get a few opinions. Though, I understand what you mean; a drawing can't be "right" unless it's exactly how you want it to be.

Let's hope your prediction is validated.

[VenomousX]

Many of my complaints were already stated so I won't repeat those.However, as a female gamer I'm sick of so many female characters being the magic user/healer always and all the time. A few more melee girls wouldn't kill a series. (No, female knights aren't historically "realistic" But I believe that's only because the men didn't allow them to become knights. Also magic isn't all that realistic so who cares?"Also cookie cutter and repeated character developments (How many average-girl-is-really-a-princess have you run into?)

[Ragamuffin]

However, as a female gamer I'm sick of so many female characters being the magic user/healer always and all the time. A few more melee girls wouldn't kill a series. (No, female knights aren't historically "realistic" But I believe that's only because the men didn't allow them to become knights.

That, and because armor back then weighed over 100lbs. on average.

[VenomousX]

That, and because armor back then weighed over 100lbs. on average.

They could either design lighter armor for women or only allow women (admittedly probably butch lol) into the army. Either way that fact remains it was illegal for women to join.But anyway this it getting off topic. I was just saying I'm tired of seeing girls being reduced to healers all the time.

Edited by VenomousX, 07 January 2009 - 12:03 AM.

[RoyMastr]

only able to play as link in zelda games zelda/sheik need to be playable characters

[Ragamuffin]

But anyway this it getting off topic. I was just saying I'm tired of seeing girls being reduced to healers all the time.

Actually, I can think of quite a few games where women aren't healers, and are even the main character, or at least one of them.Disgaea - Etna wasn't the main character but was one of them.Shadow Hearts 2 - KarinXenosaga series - Shion, KOS-MOS (does a robot count?) ;oParasite Eve 1&2 - AyaFinal Fantasy X-2 - Yuna, Rikku, Paineetc etcAll of those games are quite mainstream.

[VenomousX]

Actually, I can think of quite a few games where women aren't healers, and are even the main character, or at least one of them.Disgaea - Etna wasn't the main character but was one of them.Shadow Hearts 2 - KarinXenosaga series - Shion, KOS-MOS (does a robot count?) ;oParasite Eve 1&2 - AyaFinal Fantasy X-2 - Yuna, Rikku, Paineetc etcAll of those games are quite mainstream.

Well of course there are SOME games that think outside the box, and I love all those series (never played PE though). I'm complaining about the many games that don't =PI suppose on the flipside I should be annoyed there aren't more male healers

Edited by VenomousX, 08 January 2009 - 02:25 AM.

[Ragamuffin]

I freakin HATE random encounters. Then there's the level grind...so bad. I would also like to be able to fast-forward cutscenes.

So...no random encounters and no watching the cut-scenes...what would be left besides boss fights?