Slashdot Mirror
Vanishing Game Genres
turpie writes "CNET's Gamecenter is running a story about dying game genres, their arguments seem valid for some genres like Flight Sims, and but are stretching it a bit for others like RTS (StarCraft) (they may not be too original anymore but I wouldn't say they're dying.) I'm also wondering what this leaves us apart First Person Shooters (ala Dooom & Quake)?" For that matter, since the first person shooter, I don't feel like a new genre has really appeared in awhile.
As a coder on a very old text-based role playing game, I've seen this happen firsthand. There is no way that we can compete with the blood splatter of Unreal Tournament, or the graphical experience of Everquest. So instead we've tried to focus on the strengths of our dying genre.
People cannot play Everquest from work, while sitting in a programming lab, or other such locations where they find themselves with free time and a firewall that lets them telnet out. Most of our players are people who play these newer games like UT or Icewind Dale, but they don't always have access to that computer. Or people who don't have the computing power and budget to support buying the latest big name game. These people are our target audience at this point, but it is an audience that is slowly shrinking. When we used to use mobs of people in our game's various hangouts and bars, we now consider it great to see a mere dozen.
Many of us are oldschool pencil and paper role players, and chose to play on the text based online game because it allows for a greater level of role playing then EverQuest or Ultima Online. I've tried most of the MMRPG's, and found them to be either giant deathmatches or painful affairs of watching a blue bar grow while staring at a spellbook. I can stare at a spellbook screenshot if I want to get the EverQuest experience. I, for one, would rather spend my time role playing where imagination and text are your only tools.
As much as the genre is dying, there is one benefit from the other games seducing the players away. The only people left on the text based role playing games are those that really want to role play. Otherwise, they'd be booting up Quake 3.
Shameless plug: If you are looking for a great text based online role playing game, check out CyberSphere.
The only truly original computer games I can remember were Lemmings and Wolfenstein 3D (the precursor to Doom). Both were truly original (at the time). Even a game like Tombraider is basically a platform game in 3D: jump from platform to platform, collect stuff, open doors...exactly the same as all those games on my Acorn Electron 10 years ago. Except looking a lot better.
Which is obviously the problem at the moment: all games seem to focus on looks and not on gameplay.
While I don't think the PC is dead as a games platform - it does need some more imagination.
-----
Ignore reality - there's nothing you can do about it.
I'd contend that being innovative has absoultely positively NOTHING to do with fun. Look at Trespasser. Look at Quake 3. (actually I dislike both but I'm going on majority 'opinion').
I loved War2, I loved C&C and I still love Starcraft. Being a sheep dyed in many colors isn't a bad thing as long as you still enjoy the game. I mean we play games in real life with balls all day long! Football, soccer, baseball, basketball, foosball, ping pong, etc. These are getting tiresome? No. They only get boring for people who live on quick fixes.
I suspect RTS's are more prone to 'get old' more quickly to these non-die hard players because of their repetitive nature. Instead of reveling in the intricacies of the gameplay and variety of offense and defense they merely see a battle to control resources and kill the other guy.
The Gamecenter editors are clearly playing favorites and trying to create controversy with their mentioning of the RTS and subsequent omission of FPSs. Playing 'god' editor is a pretty quick way to lose ALL respect from anyone who is a hardcore gamer at heart.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Remember when the gameplay was what really mattered in games? Remember walking through dungeons, which pretty much lacked animation? It was the gameplay that mattered. Nowadays, companies try to make their product as graphically impressive as possible and compromise gameplay. Another problem is development time - since the companies focus so much on graphical content, their development time is vastly increased, and by the time the product ships, it is no longer graphically pleasing [cuz technology has moved on] and the gameplay is unsatisfactory. All this does is make for horrible games.
Many gamers out there still enjoy non graphical MUDs, since all that matters is the quest and the emotional involvement in a created world. Graphical MUD type games are the thing of the future, and games in general are completely becoming online based. The new era of gaming includes other real people, and this all started with the emotional involvement in games that was created by Doom. I'll never forget those first times I got to chase my friends around and kill them...hehehe...you know what I mean.
So lets move gaming technology forward not simply in graphical content, but game companies need to do more psychological studies on what gamers need and what they desire in their gaming environments. This is where the true advances can take place.
-=MeMpHiStO=-Did these guys actually look at the sales figures for Starcraft? It was in the top 10 continously for *two* years for crying out loud! Saying its in trouble is a stretch to say the least.
Of course then you have crap like Tiberian Sun, but saying the whole genre is dying is rediculous, unless it happened very recently. Starcraft should prove just how popular it can be among the people who find FPS games boring.
Gamecenter seems to want insane amounts of innovation, but thats not how things work. The best way to do it is to add a few new things, but to stick with what works to make a fun game. Its more important that the game be fun and playable then cutting edge.
(besides, by the standard of innovation, the FPS genre is more then dead, fancier graphics are not innovation)
Most of the other ones seem to actually be in trouble, but I'm not worried about RTS games. Well, I *am* worried about Warcraft 3 sucking, but thats more of a problem with Blizzard lately (Diablo 2 is nowhere near as good as it should be, and with the constant change in directions Warcraft 3 is taking, I'm not even sure if they know what they're making anymore).
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
If you haven't seen it already (or if it hasn't been posted here) check out GarageGames.com They are a group, founded by many Dynamix game designers, who are looking to cultivate the untapped masses of Independant Game Studios. Being an "indy" myself, I'm very pleased to see this.
.sig is a Porsche.
I don't think gaming is dead because the people aren't buying, I think gaming is dead because the publishers are killing it. Game publishers are notorious for "sticking" with safe concepts and ultimately flogging them to death. As a result they don't give many game shops a chance with genre-creating games, thus stagnating the market and making people tired of playing "just another Doom Clone on graphics crack."
Think about it. Would "The Sims" have been published if Will Wright hadn't already had a name for himself? (and the money and contacts to make it happen?) No. His ideas would have been discarded because they don't contain the words "Frag" or "300 giga-polygons a nanosecond".
This is a real threat to the gaming industry, and a hotly debated topic in the development circles. Hopefully with GarageGames and their ilk, we'll start seeing a lot more new concepts, some good, some bad, from the teeming masses of under appreciated indy studios.
My other
Vulgrin the MAD
I sig, therefore I am.
One thing which must be taken into account is the change that has happened in the profile of the "average player"... Computer games haven't been a "popular" thing for too many years yet. Computer game players used to be a much smaller group, and were much more likely to be programmers, etc, who LIKE complex games. Today's average player is someone who's barely computer literate (if even that) and who likes his games simple and straightforward. The kind of people who actually want to spend days learning how to, for example, fly a realistically simulated airplane, have not become more scarce, they are just vastly outnumbered by the 5-second attention span players... Absolute numbers may have even grown, but their relative amount (of all players), which is of course what the game companies look at, has decreased drastically...
.
. Dies nox et omnia michi sunt contraria
.
.
. Dies nox et omnia michi sunt contraria
.
There are more of them now, MANY more potential players, all having faster network access, and yet the number of players per mud have dropped.
Well, I code on a MUD, so I feel I should stick up for the Old School. :) There may be many more MUDs now, but most of them suck. Some k1dd13 downloads a mud base, manages to get it compiled and running, and suddenly he is 1337 with his own MUD. Except that there's 1000 copies of the same game running elsewhere.
The MUDs that have been around for a while and have a good theme are doing OK. I don't want to name names in case they get Slashdotted, but the MUD I play on has a 24-hour average of about 120-125 players, peaking at over 200, and there a some MUDS that get a lot more.
Also, a good MUD is not a static thing that you can 'master' and then move on. New areas are always being added, new commands, new quests, new guilds, etc. We have had people playing for 6+ years. Yes, they have very high skill levels and can kill just about everything, but they still play because there is almost always something to look forward to.
Another reason they stay is for the social aspect that you don't get on other games. I have more friends thanks to the MUD than I ever would have otherwise, and I have met a lot of them in real life.
Another nice feature is the fact that you don't have to shell out $30-50 to be able to play a MUD. :)
So, I don't think MUDs will die soon. Oh sure, they might get pushed into some little corner of the Net, but that's where they were anyway. :)