Because, ultimately, the problem isn't with the developers or the
publishers; it's with us, the gamers. We're the ones who refuse to
take a risk on the new, the unusual. No, instead, we reward companies
who follow the safe path, who regurgitate the same pabulum we've
swallowed down dozens of time before. Even as we vocally bemoan the >stagnation of the gaming industry, we've financially assured
developers, that the safe path is what we're really interested in.
Here, take our $70 bucks; give us more "Call of Duty", more "Grand
Theft Auto", more "Madden NFL". But new genres, new mechanics? Well,
maybe we'll look at them if they're cheap or free.
Why not? Have I not been bitching and moaning enough about reboots and >remakes and sequels? I can do it more, if it helps. I've been told
that I'm good at bitching and moaning ;-)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:36:43 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not? Have I not been bitching and moaning enough about reboots and >>remakes and sequels? I can do it more, if it helps. I've been told
that I'm good at bitching and moaning ;-)
I always got the impression you blamed the industry for the lack of >innovation. I don't. I blame us.
Gamers like to complain about reboots and remakes and sequels but
they keep buying them year after year. Gamers need to learn to put
their money where their mouths are. But they never will because, in
truth, I don't think they want to. There is comfort in the familiar.
There is comfort in knowing what you are getting in return for your
money and your time.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:20:04 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:02:38 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Because, ultimately, the problem isn't with the developers or the
publishers; it's with us, the gamers.
It is about time someone in this newsgroup said this. I did not think
it would be you.
Why not? Have I not been bitching and moaning enough about reboots and remakes and sequels? I can do it more, if it helps. I've been told
that I'm good at bitching and moaning ;-)
... There is some compelling evidence that the whole scheme may have
in fact been a fraud - or at least a cash grab - from the start, with
the aim of hyping up the game, releasing a lackluster product to rake
in a boatload of cash, promising the world in future updates, then
slinking off into the sunset with ill-gotten gains. Is that what really >happened? I've no idea, but it's not a good look for the developers.
Because, ultimately, the problem isn't with the developers or the
publishers; it's with us, the gamers. We're the ones who refuse to
take a risk on the new, the unusual. No, instead, we reward companies
who follow the safe path, who regurgitate the same pabulum we've
swallowed down dozens of time before. Even as we vocally bemoan the >stagnation of the gaming industry, we've financially assured
developers, that the safe path is what we're really interested in.
Here, take our $70 bucks; give us more "Call of Duty", more "Grand
Theft Auto", more "Madden NFL". But new genres, new mechanics? Well,
maybe we'll look at them if they're cheap or free.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:14:46 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:36:43 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not? Have I not been bitching and moaning enough about reboots and
remakes and sequels? I can do it more, if it helps. I've been told
that I'm good at bitching and moaning ;-)
I always got the impression you blamed the industry for the lack of
innovation. I don't. I blame us.
I don't absolve the industry either. Sure, I understand how for the publishers it is easier and surer to just make endless
remakes/clones/etc. After all, even with a mediocre game, you're
likely to break even if you take the safe path and copy what's already
been done. This has been Ubisoft's way of doing things for years.
But it's not the ONLY road to success, and the biggest blockbusters
have always been the ones that have tried something new. And
eventually, even the most nostalgic gamers will tire of the "same ol',
same ol'". When that happens, it's the risk-takers, the ones who have
the skill at creating new mechanics and IPs, that will flourish while
the stick-in-the-muds go bankrupt.
The industry - especially the big name publishers - is far too
risk-averse. And it's doing neither gamers nor the industry any
favors. Gamers indisputably need to be more open and willing to take chances... but so too must developers and publishers. Otherwise we
both will wallow in mediocrity, neck-deep in the video-game equivalent
of 80s sitcoms and soaps. It can't just be about the bottom line; game
design is an art, and art demands risk.
Because, ultimately, the problem isn't with the developers or the
publishers; it's with us, the gamers. We're the ones who refuse to
take a risk on the new, the unusual. No, instead, we reward companies
who follow the safe path, who regurgitate the same pabulum we've
swallowed down dozens of time before. Even as we vocally bemoan the stagnation of the gaming industry, we've financially assured
developers, that the safe path is what we're really interested in.
Here, take our $70 bucks; give us more "Call of Duty", more "Grand
Theft Auto", more "Madden NFL". But new genres, new mechanics? Well,
maybe we'll look at them if they're cheap or free.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:41:31 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,074 |