Where is gaming's Kingdom Come or Flex Mentallo?

[Man on Fire]

Well, for me Kingdom Come's message was more among the lines that antiheroes are bad, all of them. And with that I disagree strongly.

[Yora]

Can't speak to Half-Life 1, never bothered with it. HL 2 was OK, but I never got the fuss over it.

Half-Life 2 is loved by fans of the first game.
Half-Life 1 was groundbreaking for it's day. Because it had story. In a shoter!

I don't hate current games per se. I hate the fact that the market is oversaturated with uninteresting, samey first person shooters, which wasn't the case as recently as 10 years ago when publishers were more willing to take risks with ambitious titles.

There are tonns of unique and creative games every year. It's just that the market is now so big and the AAA segment dominated by military shoters that those games don't get as much mainstream exposure. You have to go looking for them a bit because most of the time they are not in everyones mouth, but just by browsing old episodes of Video Games Awesome I've learned about a dozen very unique and creative games from the second or third row.
It's just the very same thing as with movies. Mainstream hype happens almost entirely to mainstream games.

[GolemsVoice]

But the market ISN'T even dominated by military shooters. There's basically two of them, or three if you count HALO, and they periodically update their franchises. Just because these are quite popular doesn't mean they're the only games on the market. Far from it, even.

[Tengu_temp]

There are tonns of unique and creative games every year. It's just that the market is now so big and the AAA segment dominated by military shoters that those games don't get as much mainstream exposure. You have to go looking for them a bit because most of the time they are not in everyones mouth, but just by browsing old episodes of Video Games Awesome I've learned about a dozen very unique and creative games from the second or third row.
It's just the very same thing as with movies. Mainstream hype happens almost entirely to mainstream games.

Dude, I don't have trouble finding games that interest me. I've been a gamer for 20 years and I know how to look for good games. That is not the problem.

The problem is that big publishers very rarely take risks with ambitious titles, and prefer to stick to sponsoring games that are guaranteed to bring income - first person shooters, and sequels to established big franchises. And that used not to be the case, there was a time where the inventive, interesting titles were the ones that used to get the most exposure. Your comparison to movies is very appropriate, because Hollywood was willing to take risks at some point in the past too, but not anymore, and now it's mostly releasing samey drivel.

We still get some interesting and innovative triple A titles, but they're not the majority, and unfortunately they tend not to sell so well than the FPSes. Compare the sales of Witcher 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops.

But the market ISN'T even dominated by military shooters. There's basically two of them, or three if you count HALO, and they periodically update their franchises. Just because these are quite popular doesn't mean they're the only games on the market. Far from it, even.

Two or three big franchises, and dozens and dozens of derivative knockoffs. And even those knockoffs sell better than many good, interesting games.

---

After some thinking about the topic I reached the conclusion that there is something that might be gaming's Kingdom Come, though. But it's not a single game, or even a genre of them. No, it's Kickstarter. It's mostly used for indie projects so far, but we've already seen a few examples of high-budget titles being financed through it - interesting, promising titles. I hope this trend will only grow.

[Man on Fire]

The problem is that big publishers very rarely take risks with ambitious titles, and prefer to stick to sponsoring games that are guaranteed to bring income - first person shooters, and sequels to established big franchises. And that used not to be the case, there was a time where the inventive, interesting titles were the ones that used to get the most exposure.

Do you actually have anything aside your nostalgia to confirm that? Because I remember that there were many games back in the old days, but mostly they were generic knockoffs of other, more sucessfull titles, that fell into obscurity. We just don't remember them because of how forgettable they were. Big companies liked to play it safe as much as they do now, case in point, EA killed Ultima because they cared only about Ultima Online, which made more money. Franchiches that you're complaining about were quite common back then too - I remind you that Mortal Kombat 9 isn't numbered for nothing, Mario and Pokemons were getting a new game every year, mostly spinoffs, there were much more generic jRPGs and racing game...generally, I think you should take down nostalgia googles.

[Somewhere]

Perhaps this may be relevant: http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/343...s-state-of-aaa
(gah, every time one looks up on the business of the video game industry, it just gets more depressing)

[Scowling Dragon]

What I would say are the biggest issues with games now is:

HD graphics are stiffling gameplay, and a sort of forgetting of 2D

You know what I think is the most realistic shooter? Minecraft with the Guns mod and a good texture pack.

I can have destructive environments in the same level that non of the "Realistic" shooters can achieve because of the focus on graphics.

Slap a few other mods and bing bam boom its a whole new game.

I think we are getting our truly interactive stories that we have always wanted, we just aren't looking at the ones under our noses:

X-Com is a great example of this. How many stories have you managed to create from this game? Awesome stories that beat out many action films.

I think that the current industry is very healthy because of the internet with Indie games. But i don't think the AAA game industry is that healthy itself.

I think we should bring back sprites. Sprites are great. They don't even have to be that amazing. But they can allow for some truly great games.

[Tengu_temp]

Do you actually have anything aside your nostalgia to confirm that?

Sure thing. Remember the RTS boom of late nineties and early oughties? You could say that it copied the FPS boom we have today... But note that these RTSes were actually more varied, offering a wide spectrum of settings and, sometimes, interesting gameplay mechanics. Among the fun games that era gave us were Battle Realms, Metal Fatigue, Red Alert 2, Age of Empires, and of course Starcraft and Warcraft 3. And that's just a few titles, there were other good ones. Do note that these are varied games instead of being generic titles where you always lead generic soldiers in a modern setting against other generic soldiers, which is almost always the case with modern FPSes.

[Man on Fire]

Sure thing. Remember the RTS boom of late nineties and early oughties? You could say that it copied the FPS boom we have today... But note that these RTSes were actually more varied, offering a wide spectrum of settings and, sometimes, interesting gameplay mechanics. Among the fun games that era gave us were Battle Realms, Metal Fatigue, Red Alert 2, Age of Empires, and of course Starcraft and Warcraft 3. And that's just a few titles, there were other good ones. Do note that these are varied games instead of being generic titles where you always lead generic soldiers in a modern setting against other generic soldiers, which is almost always the case with modern FPSes.

Dude, that's cosmetics. I played a few RTSes and turn-based strategies of the old days. And in all honestly, they played pretty much the same, actual gameplay had no difference. Fantasy games has generic demons, generic undeads, generic good human empire, generic dwarves, generic elves, sometimes generic orcs. SF games had generic good humans and generic bad humans, sometimes generic aliens. Hell, one of the most innovative RTSes I remember was Submarine Titans, which was, by all accounts, Starcraft underwater, because it could allow you to change the depth of your units (pretty fun when enemy shoots you and your unit sink down to avoid getting hit). Introduction of heroes was a big innovation back then and they were just a bit stronger units. All games played pretty uch the same:
* RTS: You build your base, build strong units, go and destroy enemy base
* TBS: You conquer the cities, create teams of heroes, block your enemy and achieve the objective.

[Tengu_temp]

And yet that was still more variety and creativity than FPSes these days.

[Man on Fire]

And yet that was still more variety and creativity than FPSes these days.

Sorry, but considering that there is huge difference between, say, Halo and Call of Duty (played Black Ops demo today) I'm forced to disagree.

[Poison_Fish]

And in all honestly, they played pretty much the same, actual gameplay had no difference.

Do I really need to drop the Art of War of Starcraft Courses from UC Berkeley here? How about the different tactical and strategic needs of these games? Where Starcraft and Warcraft may have been about timing, counters, resource collections and pushing, Myth was about formations, terrain, and a larger emphasis on micro tactics. Close Combat had troop morale and many other factors to play with, while Homeworld had spaceships in a semi-3d plan fighting along with specific targeting and subsystem customization. Black and White had you managing your creature and being godly, Hearts of Iron had a complex management system. These are but a small list of things.

Unless you are going by the narrowest of definitions of "gameplay" for RTS's, your perception is just inaccurate. If you want your statements about gameplay variation of FPS's (Halo, CoD) to hold, don't start narrowing down other genre's gameplay.

[Man on Fire]

Do I really need to drop the Art of War of Starcraft Courses from UC Berkeley here? How about the different tactical and strategic needs of these games? Where Starcraft and Warcraft may have been about timing, counters, resource collections and pushing, Myth was about formations, terrain, and a larger emphasis on micro tactics. Close Combat had troop morale and many other factors to play with, while Homeworld had spaceships in a semi-3d plan fighting along with specific targeting and subsystem customization. Black and White had you managing your creature and being godly, Hearts of Iron had a complex management system. These are but a small list of things.

Unless you are going by the narrowest of definitions of "gameplay" for RTS's, your perception is just inaccurate. If you want your statements about gameplay variation of FPS's (Halo, CoD) to hold, don't start narrowing down other genre's gameplay.

I admit never having played Myst and not being able to figure out how Homeworld worked (lack of proper english when I even had the game). But I played a lot of RTS - Warlords Battlecry, Submarine Titans, Warcraft 3, to name some fro mthe top of my head. And they all pretty much boiled down to "build your base, build your troops, send them to kill the other guy".

[Poison_Fish]

I admit never having played Myst and not being able to figure out how Homeworld worked (lack of proper english when I even had the game). But I played a lot of RTS - Warlords Battlecry, Submarine Titans, Warcraft 3, to name some fro mthe top of my head. And they all pretty much boiled down to "build your base, build your troops, send them to kill the other guy".

Ok, so then I played a lot of other FPS's, and it boiled down to shoot the gun in the right direction. What, you don't like me saying that? Then look at what I just wrote again. Playing the reductionist game isn't going to work when you selectively specify it for one genre.

Also, it's Myth, not Myst. Myst is a different game.

[warty goblin]

What I would say are the biggest issues with games now is:

HD graphics are stiffling gameplay, and a sort of forgetting of 2D

You know what I think is the most realistic shooter? Minecraft with the Guns mod and a good texture pack.

I can have destructive environments in the same level that non of the "Realistic" shooters can achieve because of the focus on graphics.

Physics based destruction is something that's been done quite frequently now, with at least respectable graphics to back it up - and generally with better physics than Minecraft. Every Battlefield since Bad Company 1 has had this to some degree, as have Red Faction: Guerrilla and the almost completely forgotten multiplayer FPS Breach*. All of these look like they were made sometime after 2001 (with most looking quite good), and account for things like material strength, key structural components of buildings, etc.

'Cides which, the major realism dividends come less from highly detailed building or terrain destruction, and more from modeling range, accuracy and damage believably.



*Which is a damn shame, 'cause it was one of the very few multiplayer shooters I've ever found appealing.

I think we are getting our truly interactive stories that we have always wanted, we just aren't looking at the ones under our noses:

X-Com is a great example of this. How many stories have you managed to create from this game? Awesome stories that beat out many action films.

If X-Com is a great narrative experience, so is Chess. The fact that you can make up a compelling narrative about the actions in a game does not imply the game is itself providing a compelling narrative. While making soup I can also come up with a truly gripping story about doing that. Doesn't make chopping potatoes a good tale though.

And I've read the various things people write about their experience playing games. It's occasionally well written, because the person writing it has skill turning a phrase, but it's never a great or particularly compelling story. It's somebody making Annoying Hobbyest Mistake #1: Sharing way too much goddamn information.

[Cheesegear]

Well, what old heroes do we really have? I don't think there were any protagonists that could be called characters before around 2000.

Planescape: Torment was released on the 12th of December, 1999. It totally counts. The Nameless One is one of the most interesting and complex characters to ever even have been seen in a game, ever.

Sorry, but considering that there is huge difference between, say, Halo and Call of Duty (played Black Ops demo today) I'm forced to disagree.

Have completed Halo 4 just recently, I'm forced to conclude that the story is kind of excellent. You could probably watch every cutscene for the game on YouTube somewhere.
At least two people I know cried. But, that's anecdotal evidence which doesn't prove anything. But I'm sure my friends aren't isolated cases.

[Jerthanis]

Kingdom Come was a pretty good comic with great art. It came at a time where a lot of comic books had a lot of harsh violence in them and now there are lots of comics with harsh violence in them, but there's also some comic books with more humor or innocence, although they're still in the minority and the flagship and best selling comics are largely as violent and dark as ever.

I couldn't tell you exactly what Video Gaming's Kingdom Come would be, but I think it's more likely you'd be pointing backwards in time, not forwards.

[Cheesegear]

I couldn't tell you exactly what Video Gaming's Kingdom Come would be, but I think it's more likely you'd be pointing backwards in time, not forwards.

QFT. I'm willing to put out there that the already mentioned (by me) Planescape: Torment comes pretty close.

[Man on Fire]

Ok, so then I played a lot of other FPS's, and it boiled down to shoot the gun in the right direction. What, you don't like me saying that?

Why you assume I don't? It's true.

Okay, seirously now.

This entire argument really is pointless because we shouldn't compare games from different genres. We should compare games from the same genre over the years. So Call of Duty, Halo and Gears of War should go against Duke Nukem 3D, Doom and Half-Life and Starcraft, Homeworld, Myth and Black & White should go against current RTS games.

Why were we comparing two different genres anyway?

[Poison_Fish]

Why were we comparing two different genres anyway?

Because you asked about Tengu's nostalgia and and he provided an answer. Then you attempted to reduce his answer by ignoring aspects of gameplay and claiming everything was just spin-offs. You also defended FPS's with a non-reductionist defense (lacking details, but insisting upon the differences between CoD and Halo). Them being different genre's is a moot point If you can't apply the same internal logic when discussing gameplay.

[Man on Fire]

Then you attempted to reduce his answer by ignoring aspects of gameplay and claiming everything was just spin-offs. You also defended FPS's with a non-reductionist defense (lacking details, but insisting upon the differences between CoD and Halo). Them being different genre's is a moot point If you can't apply the same internal logic when discussing gameplay.

So he can apply redu...no, that word does not belong here. I'm pretty sure you meant generalization. And how it is that you are not tackling on him for doing the same thing that annoyed you in my post? How it is that he can say all modern game looks the same while old games were creative, but only I'm wrong for saying that old games were all the same while new are different? While he can vaguely mention that in old games producers were taking risk and trying new things, without providing any examples, while I'm the bad guy for not going into detailed differences between CoD and Halo?

[Yora]

Perhaps this may be relevant: http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/343...s-state-of-aaa
(gah, every time one looks up on the business of the video game industry, it just gets more depressing)

Spoiler

Show

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/788

"It's funny cause it's true."

[Poison_Fish]

So he can apply redu...no, that word does not belong here. I'm pretty sure you meant generalization. And how it is that you are not tackling on him for doing the same thing that annoyed you in my post? How it is that he can say all modern game looks the same while old games were creative, but only I'm wrong for saying that old games were all the same while new are different? While he can vaguely mention that in old games producers were taking risk and trying new things, without providing any examples, while I'm the bad guy for not going into detailed differences between CoD and Halo?

No, it does belong there. You were being reductionist. Stop trying to paint it another way. If you wanted to be a generalist, don't be specific on one genre, and then discuss another from only a bare bones look. My usage of the term is based on your action. Do take note that reductionism isn't inherently a bad thing.

As for Tengu's statements, I've had the FPS discussion with him before. Threads don't exist in a vacuum. I don't see a need to bring it up again. That is also besides what else I've been saying.

As for nostalgia, there is actually something to it, albeit it may be harder to explain with straight data, as preferences and so on do enter into it. But, there are a lot of factors from 90's gaming to now. I'm just going to focus on one, the difference in risk on the market for doing something new between the time periods.

For one, we are looking at a much more mature market that has bigger companies and investment firms. The development process for AAA titles can typically take several years now, which means budgeting is tighter. I'm not going to deny that the entertainment industry has always been profit driven, but from an economic standpoint, the risk of trying something new in the current market is a lot more costly then it was in the 90's. This is not just because it's about bringing in revenue, but on top of the difference in scale, most of the big companies also have a lot of investor interest. Game goes over budget and is delayed, worse things happen. This is one of the differences between a young market and a more matured market, obviously. Risk is greater, budgets are bigger, and there are more hands in the pot. This ends up affecting many companies decisions to develop from a safe stand point. Hence the CoD's since 4 have been essentially the same game with minor tweaks and gameplay changes (and very minor updates to the engine, as engine development is expensive).

TL;DR publishers take less risk in their games now then compared to earlier times because less was at stake. Norms have been established and deviating from them is not considered worth it. Even if it ends up as self fulfilling prophecies.

[Somewhere]

Spoiler

Show

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/788

"It's funny cause it's true."

Yes it's true, sadly. And frightenly. As much as advertising takes up at least half of the costs a publisher takes for an AAA title, when budget figures get released, they're always separate from development. So the costs given in a few tens of millions of USD are in reality at least double that

[Man on Fire]

No, it does belong there. You were being reductionist. Stop trying to paint it another way. If you wanted to be a generalist, don't be specific on one genre, and then discuss another from only a bare bones look. My usage of the term is based on your action. Do take note that reductionism isn't inherently a bad thing.

Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

Explain to me how I was either a or b.

As for Tengu's statements, I've had the FPS discussion with him before. Threads don't exist in a vacuum. I don't see a need to bring it up again. That is also besides what else I've been saying.

So, in other words, you ignore that he made the same mistake as me, because of completely irrevelant things? Sorry, but if I made a mistake in a discussion, so did he, if you refue to acknowledge that because of your previous discussions, then you're being subjective and unfair in this argument.

For one, we are looking at a much more mature market that has bigger companies and investment firms. The development process for AAA titles can typically take several years now, which means budgeting is tighter. I'm not going to deny that the entertainment industry has always been profit driven, but from an economic standpoint, the risk of trying something new in the current market is a lot more costly then it was in the 90's. This is not just because it's about bringing in revenue, but on top of the difference in scale, most of the big companies also have a lot of investor interest. Game goes over budget and is delayed, worse things happen. This is one of the differences between a young market and a more matured market, obviously. Risk is greater, budgets are bigger, and there are more hands in the pot. This ends up affecting many companies decisions to develop from a safe stand point.

Except I don't remember seeing many games from the 90s that took the risk really. At least not much more than what we see now.

Hence the CoD's since 4 have been essentially the same game with minor tweaks and gameplay changes (and very minor updates to the engine, as engine development is expensive).

Or that's because CoD is a developed franciche with it's own target audience, that found it's niche in being alternative to Halo (by making both sides pretty weak against bullets). I don't really understand why people are expecting game from a franciche to be different that their previous installments. Like old chapters of Doom were really that different from one another. Honestly, how many x-part installements in any series can you name that revolutionized the genre? Duke Nukem 3D and Quake III? And Postal II, which changed the genres. Tell me honestly, does Homeworld Cataclysm and Homeworld II really play drastically different from Homeworld? I mean, I see on wikipedia that Cataclysm added bunch of improvements, but did they really changed entire gameplay completely? How about Command & Conquer or Myth? Games that are part of the franciche aren't where you should look for innovation, they're quick way to cash in so you can make new games, that are innovative.

TL;DR publishers take less risk in their games now then compared to earlier times because less was at stake. Norms have been established and deviating from them is not considered worth it. Even if it ends up as self fulfilling prophecies.

I dislike that you present serious gender issue as a throwaway example to support your point. But in all honestly, if you claim that games of yesterday didn't have these issues - show me that. Show me that these games tried to take a risk and show me that new games don't do that. Because in all honestly, I don't really see how the problem you talk about is a problem of NOW and not of ALWAYS. or maybe there was a legion of female protagonists in the 90s that I somehow missed?

[Poison_Fish]

Explain to me how I was either a or b.

You don't understand your action, do you? You took a complex genre and reduced it, while playing favorites with another genre. Stop trying to cover for your inconsistency within your logic by avoiding what you were still doing. Playing favorites and looking with a different set of eyes on two different genre's is still what you are doing, and still not owning up to it.

So, in other words, you ignore that he made the same mistake as me, because of completely irrevelant things? Sorry, but if I made a mistake in a discussion, so did he, if you refue to acknowledge that because of your previous discussions, then you're being subjective and unfair in this argument.

Your defense of yourself is playing a victim game, do you realize that? Also, I find it funny that you are talking of subjectivity here while again, ignoring your own statements.

Except I don't remember seeing many games from the 90s that took the risk really. At least not much more than what we see now.

So your experience is objective?

Or that's because CoD is a developed franciche with it's own target audience, that found it's niche in being alternative to Halo (by making both sides pretty weak against bullets). I don't really understand why people are expecting game from a franciche to be different that their previous installments. Like old chapters of Doom were really that different from one another. Honestly, how many x-part installements in any series can you name that revolutionized the genre? Duke Nukem 3D and Quake III? And Postal II, which changed the genres. Tell me honestly, does Homeworld Cataclysm and Homeworld II really play drastically different from Homeworld? I mean, I see on wikipedia that Cataclysm added bunch of improvements, but did they really changed entire gameplay completely? How about Command & Conquer or Myth? Games that are part of the franciche aren't where you should look for innovation, they're quick way to cash in so you can make new games, that are innovative.

Franchises does not change my statements. They are repeated successes in markets. Even accepting that, I'd point to massive gameplay differences between Starcraft 1 and 2 (Micro and Macro). It was not a question between sequels, so bringing them up is a fairly moot point.

Again, the market was different then it is now. Smaller pot, less development time, investors, etc. A less explored market means more risk taking. As well as the mediums in which most people played on were not close to being standardized.

I dislike that you present serious gender issue as a throwaway example to support your point. But in all honestly, if you claim that games of yesterday didn't have these issues - show me that. Show me that these games tried to take a risk and show me that new games don't do that. Because in all honestly, I don't really see how the problem you talk about is a problem of NOW and not of ALWAYS. or maybe there was a legion of female protagonists in the 90s that I somehow missed?

You... did not understand my point with showing the gender issue? I never said the 90's were better on it. I was using it as an example of risk aversion by marketers. Once norms are established, deviation is not encouraged and punished even before a finished product. The case of Gender is actually bleed over as a reflection of our culture.

[Man on Fire]

You don't understand your action, do you? You took a complex genre and reduced it, while playing favorites with another genre.

Tengu did the same, just assumed the opposite stance.

Stop trying to cover for your inconsistency within your logic by avoiding what you were still doing. Playing favorites and looking with a different set of eyes on two different genre's is still what you are doing, and still not owning up to it.

I agree that it was unfair for me to do. I also like to point out that I was the first to say it was unfair to compare the two genres in first place. I would also like to point out that the arguments tengu used aren't much better. He too compared two different genres and reduc....generalized them to the statements "old games liked to take risk and new don't".

Your defense of yourself is playing a victim game, do you realize that? Also, I find it funny that you are talking of subjectivity here while again, ignoring your own statements.

I'm not playing the victim, I'm pointing out that the same inconsistencies are pretty visible in tengu arguments too and if my point is invaild, so is his.

So your experience is objective?

Is yours to claim that companies in the 90s took more risk?

Franchises does not change my statements. They are repeated successes in markets. Even accepting that, I'd point to massive gameplay differences between Starcraft 1 and 2 (Micro and Macro). It was not a question between sequels, so bringing them up is a fairly moot point.

Funny how you say that after you tried to support you point by saying that all CoD games since 4 are the same

Again, the market was different then it is now. Smaller pot, less development time, investors, etc. A less explored market means more risk taking. As well as the mediums in which most people played on were not close to being standardized.

Show me some evidence that "good old days" eally took more risk, because without it it's just "your experience" vs "my experience".

You... did not understand my point with showing the gender issue? I never said the 90's were better on it. I was using it as an example of risk aversion by marketers. Once norms are established, deviation is not encouraged and punished even before a finished product. The case of Gender is actually bleed over as a reflection of our culture.

You used this as an argument in larger point to show how games of current have set limits by executives that old games, supposedly didn't. your post contains clear implication that this is the problem of present and it wasn't like that in the past, which is bullmanure Therefore you turned an issue that I could say is prevalent in gaming industry since it's begining and turned it into convinient argument.

[Somewhere]

Well, consider this:

PS3 and Xbox 360 major titles' development cost average in the low 8 digits of USD (not counting advertising budget).
PS2 and Xbox were in the low to mid 7 digits of USD.
Going back to the SNES era, you're at 6 digits.
NES era, 5 digits.

Yes, inflation hit like a truck and developers need to get paid to keep up with rising cost of living, along with production teams growing in size.

Now think back to how much games cost for the consumer. They haven't really gone up all that much over the past 20+ years. I remember buying 50$ SNES games, for example. So the revenue per unit hasn't even grown linearly, much less exponentially. And nevermind how said revenue is split up among developer, publisher, retailer, and whoever else.

Given this environment, is it not reasonable to assume a trend of risk aversion, like with Hollywood?

Edit:
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/108/1082176p1.html for PS3/Xbox360/PS2/Xbox development cost reference
http://www.zippygamer.com/2010/03/th...nd-publishing/ for chart showing NES and SNES development cost.

[Poison_Fish]

Tengu did the same, just assumed the opposite stance.

And I said I would not be rehashing an old argument a 5th time with someone. This is now a discussion between you and I.

I agree that it was unfair for me to do. I also like to point out that I was the first to say it was unfair to compare the two genres in first place. I would also like to point out that the arguments tengu used aren't much better. He too compared two different genres and reduc....generalized them to the statements "old games liked to take risk and new don't".

You are confusing what is being compared. It is incorrect to compare to genres as a question of preference. It is fair to compare two genres based on market effect, as they are within the same sphere.

As for the statement on risk, I said there is truth to it. It isn't much of a generalized statement considering that I actually supported it.

I'm not playing the victim, I'm pointing out that the same inconsistencies are pretty visible in tengu arguments too and if my point is invaild, so is his.

So you accept what you said is invalid?

Is yours to claim that companies in the 90s took more risk?

Yes, I supported it with an explanation on how the entertainment industry works. That contains more validity then a tertiary experience of an individual. Note I haven't actually expressed my own preferences as for my own entertainment here.

Funny how you say that after you tried to support you point by saying that all CoD games since 4 are the same

I said "Hence the CoD's since 4 have been essentially the same game with minor tweaks and gameplay changes (and very minor updates to the engine, as engine development is expensive)." This is as some sequels go. Where some are very different (Starcraft: Brood war to SC2), others keep a similar design philosophy and do not deviate from it much (Modern warfare to Black Ops 2). If you want to go through dev blogs, they are up there. It is also pretty much held within the pro-gaming community of varied FPS's that CoD and it's subsequent releases hold to a similar formula (See: Levelcap and others discuss FPS's as a genre). This is not a bad thing because that formula is successful. A successful formula is an established norm, so they won't deviate from it much. As I mentioned with the gender statement though, not all norms are based on success. In that case, it's perceived and enforced status quo claimed as success. Also, I never issued an absolute statement. You need to stop thinking in absolutes.

But here, I left it implied and unstated, I'll say this so maybe it'll ease whatever pressure you are perceiving from me. I agree with you that there are differences in gameplay within the FPS genre. As I listed a few examples earlier from the RTS genre, here are a few for the FPS: Tactical shooters, twitch shooters, how gunplay is handled, physics, environmental effects, squad tactics, etc. These are all different design choices that make other FPS's (Like Halo and CoD) different between each other.

Show me some evidence that "good old days" eally took more risk, because without it it's just "your experience" vs "my experience".

Here. Have 1,740,000 articles and blurbs from google scholar on risk taking practices in different markets. Even more specific, let me just throw a few abstracts around because paywalls are evil and I unfortunately can't share the real thing. Structure and competition in the U.S. home video game industry Balancing the Tensions Between Rationalization and Creativity in the Video Games Industry are some examples of exactly what I have been explaining to you.

Finally, to complete this appeal to authority that I am doing here. I do actually work in the industry, even if I'm in what essentially counts as a start up and I'm more on the analytics side then actual marketing. Transferring my previous experience in sociology to video games has been fairly effective. At the same time, I'd rather not give out to much personal information, so you can take this statement with a grain of salt as you will.

You used this as an argument in larger point to show how games of current have set limits by executives that old games, supposedly didn't. your post contains clear implication that this is the problem of present and it wasn't like that in the past, which is bullmanure Therefore you turned an issue that I could say is prevalent in gaming industry since it's begining and turned it into convinient argument.

It was related, but I used this as part of my larger argument to explain how markets work and the establishment of norms are rarely deviated from, not that there was a difference in how gender was treated in the 90's and now. Genre within the interactive entertainment industry wasn't as well established in the 90's as it is today. Resistance to deviation in norms increases the further established the norm is, that's all I was making with the point by using it as an example of a firmly established norm. The issue of gender norms have been around forever though, as a reflection of our culture. So, yes, it confused the point. What you are mistaking here is that you still think I am using it to claim a difference in the 90's and now. Considering that I have already clarified this, I'd ask you to observe more carefully.

As a further clarification, what I've been describing here is how the market is. This is not a reflection of how I would like the market to be. There is a such a thing as market driving rather then everything being left to market driven. But to be market driving you must take risk. Portal and Valve could be seen as a market driving company due to taking risks in a few areas (Portal). With the issue of gender, I do believe that most marketing divisions out there stifle gender optional and non-male primary games due to preconceived ideas about success being wrapped up in older gender norms.

[Yora]

You are arguing in single sentence quotes. That's always a very strong indicator that it's no longer about the topic but all about being right and the other ones being wrong.