Slashdot Mirror
Do Consumers Want Original Games?
Thanks to GameCritics.com for their 'Critical Hit' editorial discussing if consumers are actually interested in buying groundbreaking/unique videogames. Giving the example of Sega's PS2/DC shooter, Rez, the author asks: "United Game Artists' answer to the cries of gamers looking for those new and original games was largely met with ambivalence by those very same gamers.... Why is Sega, or any publisher for that matter, obligated to support a game or games that no one is interested in?" The article concludes: "...how do you criticize the industry when it produces these games yet consumers repeatedly flock to the likes of Square's, Konami's and Capcom's sequels and rehashes?"
I got Rez for the Dreamcast when it came out, and I love it to bits - I even got the 'butterfly' ending - but it isn't original at all.
It's a very basic game, and the only thing that makes it play different to Space Harrier is that you can target eight enemies at once - which was done in the Panzer Dragoon games anyway.
Whilst the graphical style may be original, the game itself isn't.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
It's simply that it wasn't marketed enough. Ask almost any gamer what Rez is, and they will give you a dumbfounded look. This doesn't mean the game sucked, it means they didn't know about it. Not good. Yet look at all the ads for the dime-a-dozen games that you probably have played before in one way or another. See a difference?
Ratings mean jack shit. It's the marketing that counts. Unfortuniatly, it seems more recently that the budget gets blown on games that suck. Hopefully, the industry will realize this in time and make a quick 180 and start marketing the truely innovative games.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Gameplay does.
DecafJedi
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
Some consumers want original games, aka not morons. And some consumers will continue to pay for and eat up the majority of recycled crap over years and years and years; aka morons. Unfortunately the world is more populated with morons who eat up the recycled crap than the former, so video game companies will obviously manufacture games for the moronic majority. But every once in a while a true classic is born satisfying the non-morons.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
the easy answer is NO. sure, we may say we want something new and groundbreaking, etc. but as is human nature, we'll stick to things that we know and understand. we'll play the same games we've played a hundred times over but in a slightly different form. we'll only take the new games once they've proven themselves to be worth the risk. and by that point they'll have spawned clones anyways.
Part of the blame falls squarely on the retailers. Most of the giant chain stores like E.B. and Gamestop only want to carry games that they know are going to sell in droves. I know for a fact, that these chains give very little option to their individual stores; the stock at your local EB/Gamestop is decided by a corporate office based on what they classify the paticular store as ("PC store", "Used/pre-owned store" etc). How do they decide what to send?
For A-list tiles like Wind Waker ort Soul Calibur, its a no brainer, they send tons of copies because they know its going to sell. But for games like Rez, or Ikaruga, or anyother non-mainstream game, they only bother to send copies if there are pre-sales and reserves. Which games get reserves? the titles that the company tells their staff to push, and what determines those games? The game companies that spend the most on store displays and advertising inside and outside the store. SO games like Rez already had 2 strikes against them from the get-go. Sega was hyping up thier A-list titles, and spent very little advertising Rez.
A very large percentage of your consumers base their choices on their level of exposure to a given game. Example: Rez gets no advertising in the US prior to its release. The only people that even knew about the game are those that either imported it, or keep their eyes on the Japanese game market. It gets released, no stores stock more than 1 or 2 copies if any at all because nobody pre-purchased it, and those few copies that are out there get bought up by the small group that actuall wanted it. When people finally start hearing about the game, its nowhere to be found. Now EB/Gamestop looks at their sales figures and sees "Rez: 1000 units sold nationwide" which seems dismal unless you consider the fact that 1000 is the total number in the field, but this is still chump change to the 100000 copies of Wind Waker that got sold (warning: above numbers made up to illustrate point)
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
Without also mentioning that Rez Trance Vibrator article.
=)
Fnord.
This article was in a similar Slashdot post a while back and is just about the GBA. It kind of backs up the GameCritics guy's point at the end that consumers are maybe just getting what they want. Sure that definition of "original" is kind of lame in the GBA article, but look at all that licensed crap! If the market is really giving people what they want, then they want stuff they've heard of before. So you get games based on Disney and Pokemon.
- "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
- "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
- "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
- "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
- "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
- "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
- "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
- "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
- "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
- "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units
- "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
- "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
- "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
- "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units
- "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
- "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
- "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
- "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
- "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units
Of these twenty games, only four could really be considered "original" (imho). So based on this data I would conclude that most gamers do not want original content. They want improved versions of games they've already played.Now for my opinion.
I don't think that it is necessary to make a game orignal solely for the sake of. Most of the games I own and regularly play these days are not original. However, eventually rehashes do become tired and old. Final Fantasy comes to mind. It has been a beautiful series that has taken many twists and turns. But, the last few iterations have been without innovation, simply substituting one battle system for another [similar] one. Eventually this series will die without radically changing direction. I know it is on the verge of losing my interest.
Usually every year there is at least one good original title released. And, inevitably, it is copied until it is no longer unique. But for every one good original title (Grand Theft Auto III), there are dozen's of bad ones(Star Wars Rebellion). This is why innovation is not the most important thing in the world to the gaming industry. It's all about fun factor. Wether or not something is truely unique/original/whatever is not so relevant to wether or not it is fun.
So I leave you with this. Half-life was not the first FPS, but it was (and perhaps still is) the most fun.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
Most of people that are complaining about a lack of original content are the extremely hard-core gamers and the reviewers. Why? Because they've played everything out there. They find more of the same boring.
For the overwhelming majority of the population, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a game that adds nothing new to the genre. Nobody has time to keep up with the vast flood of game content being produced. If an idea's been done twenty times before and *you haven't played those*, why would you care?
So...say Warcraft III comes out. Well, the game reviewers have played a ton of games like this one. They've played the earlier games in the series. They know exactly what's going to happen in it. Sure enough, they're bored. The typical game player *hasn't* played all these. He sits down and decides that he likes the game and plays it.
Furthermore, there's a big dislike from many reviewers over clones of popular games. Why? Because they just *played* a flood of similar games. They end up writing reviews like "this is yet another unoriginal entry in the RTS field". The game may well be excellent, but it doesn't matter to them.
It's just a sign of the vast disconnect between game reviewers and almost all game players.
May we never see th
I found Grand Theft Auto III to be pretty good. And, i'd say it's fairly original. Granted, Vice City probably sold more, but leave that out of it.
A unique game can come in many different forms. Graphics, gameplay, or just a new franchise. That about says it all. Gamers want different "different" things, and it also greatly depends on their perspective. I'm a person who loves a good game full of experimental gameplay, or a new graphical appearance, but often times I could go for the same old fantasy RPG who's only unique feature is a new universe with characters I've never seen before. However I don't always understand what the developers were trying to do with a title, and I think it may be the same for many other people.
Your first impression of a game is what nails you to your perspective. An example of this would be a control feature in the older Zelda: Ocarina that carried over to the later 3D Zelda games. At first glance you see a 3D platformer, but the first time you pick up the controller and learn there's no *jump* button, you're appalled. I hated it, I didn't understand, and until someone told me later that the developers wanted to create a more streamlined method of control that relied on less user input, I couldn't appreciate this unique take on 3D navigation.
The same applies to most other games that break the mold. Some may pick up Rez and decide it's the worst shooter in the world (compared to space harrier or it's very similar gameplay cousin Panzer Dragoon) and hate it. But when they realize that the creators were trying to merge a sensory experience using sound, visuals and physical sensation, they find it possible to gain more appreciation for it, and become more open minded towards this unique experience.
It's a state of mind that allows you to change your perspective, find an appreciation for what the game really *is*, instead of what you're expecting, and expectations are where most people lose their acceptance of experimentation in this medium.
I was assistant managing an EB when REZ came out, and here's the exact lifespan of REZ: we received two copes in the day it was released. One, an employee bought. One of our regular customers bought the other copy. Within 5 days, the game had a "D" status in our POS, meaning that either it had been discontinued or EB had stopped restocking the stores from the warehouse for whatever reason. After a few calls to the home office on behalf of several stores in the district, we learned that Sega had stopped shipping REZ to retailers.
Needless to say, REZ quickly became one of the most sought after preowned titles. Several of our regular customers that found copies at Blockbusters and what have you would excitedly tell the staff where to direct other customers to find the game. I have a hard time believing that within a period of 5 days Sega had already ascertained that it had not sold enough copies to justify shipping any more copies.
But let's be honest. All the titles mentioned in Critical Hit are definitely not mainstream titles. Would they have sold better if the companies behind them pushed it? Possibly, but probably not. ICO had a very impressive marketing push behind it, including TV spots and several multi-monthly placements in major gaming magazines. It did not sell.
Basically, the problem is that the game industry hasn't reached the point that films have in terms of possessing the general depth of field to allow a "indie games industry" so to speak. Moreover, the nature of the industry doesn't really lend itself to support lesser selling games like the film industry does. At the risk of sounding elitist, go glance at the REZ reviews in gamerankings, and I think you'll agree that most of the reviewers (some of whom compare REZ to the Blue Man Group - good god) just "didn't get." Finally, the game industry hasn't had a "Blair Witch" of sorts; that is to say that there hasn't been a surprise lower-budget hit to suddenly sell millions of copies.
I think that in time we'll see the industry not only mature but logistically evolve enough to support a kind of arty-indy-sub-market. Until then? I guess these devs will struggle to get by; but isn't that always the plight of the underdog artist?
How does one ask for something original?
.
With the cost of building games so high no company is going to stick it's neck out and build something people may not like. One of two things has to happen . A new game idea must come up from below the radar, or a company must go looking for ideas
Both these things could happen if a company actively sponcered FOSS gameing. Put tools in the hands of FOSS programers. At first you would get lots of copy cat games. But from time to time something new might show up. Grab it finish it off, box it, and sell it. Reward the FOSS programers.
I thought it was the job of the advertiser to point out what was needed.
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
As the intial poster said, a lot of people just "don't get it"
Thanks for proving his point so well.
Actually, I *still* haven't gotten over some genres that I think are fun but aren't produced much any more. Top-down shooters (1942ish ones) are fun, but not very common these days.
May we never see th
Ha! I don't think so.
Rez? Space Harrier? Panzer Dragoon?
Ico? Maybe a bit of Zelda. Actually, what it reminded me of was Solstice for the NES. Old game
Space Channel 5? Samba de Amigo? Don't make me laugh.
Were these games complete knock offs? Of course not. They each added something new to their respective genre. Rez was lots of fun, the combination of the music with your surroundings was totally intense. Ico was a new style of game play, and the two rythem games had a sytle all their own.
In the same way, GTA VC added a Noir style that was cool, Final Fantasy X had a very innovative Sphere Grid system. Mario Sunshine's water cannon added a lot of options.
By their own nature, video games are rarely revolutionary. Even Animal Crossing has at its roots an RPG background.
However, what we hopefully get is a series of evolutionary steps. Where games take established genres and add a twist to make them special. Style and twists. That is where the true creativity lies.
Some games are both original and good. An example of this would be Pikmin for the GameCube.
Some games are just original. An example of this would be "Cubivore" for the GameCube. Very original and "interesting" but certainly not good.
Some gamers care more about originality than others -- there are people who love "Cubivore" -- but in the end most of us just want good games. It's not a lifestyle, it's something to relax with friends with for a couple of hours or so.
It's like abstract art -- some people like it just because it is "abstract", and others just want a decent picture to hang on the wall. Some abstract art is good and worth hanging. Other abstract works of art are "interesting" but in the end just plain "not good".
MORTAR COMBAT!
Sega has made some original games. Jet Set Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Rez, Super Monkey Ball, Chu Chu Rocket, Crazy Taxi, Ooga Booga, Seaman, Samba de Amigo, Dance Dance Revolution, Sega Gaga (in Japan anyway). It's one of the reasons I'm a big Sega fan. But what do they get for it? Most of this stuff didn't sell. If you want original games, put your money where your mouth is and buy them. I don't blame developers for being very wary of making "original" games, because their fears of poor sales are well founded. Yes, Sega sucks when it comes to promoting games, but thats not the whole reason for poor sales.
A game doesn't have to be original or unique to be a good game. A game can be totally unique and suck. But it's nice not to have the same damn thing over and over again.
"This website requires cookies to be enabled.
Please enable cookies and push the Back button on your browser."
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I also have about 2,500 tracks worth of legitimate music (judging by what's on my iPod), but none of it is Country, Rap (except MC Hawking) or Opera -- most of it is Electronica. I have quite a collection of fiction books, but most of them are Sci-Fi and (Dark) Fantasy -- no Romance or Crime. Asking what "Gamers" want is as silly as asking what "Readers" want or what "Listeners" want. Time to narrow down your target audience...
EB, at least, tries to carry everything. Metropolis Mania, Magic Pengel, etc, all are on EB's shelf at some point or another. If you're smart enough to talk to the employees about what they're interested in that's coming out, you'll find out about these gems before hand, and be able to preorder them. Then you're guaranteed a copy.
..
It's not magic, it's just a matter of listening to the people who live their games.
The EB I frequent got about 5 copies of Magin Pengel, and were able to get 5 more easily enough.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Rez was neat, but in its originality, it wasn't exactly the kind of "new" consumers were looking for. Why did I buy Final Fantasies 7 and 8? Basically because I bought 1, and wished I could keep playing the game. Sure, it's a rehash (well, sorta, at this point. More of an evolution), but that's the kinda thing that's worth rehashing. Once upon a time, it was fairly original, too.
... I just want GOOD games. I don't care if the character is an andrygenous shark or Mario! If the game is good, I'll play.
The main contention with this article and the previous one about GBA games is that originality is just not that easy to define. Rez is a rail shooter. Ico is a 3rd person adventure, Space channel 5 and Frequency are rythmn games. You can compare everything made now to some game or other in the past. There are just levels of originality, with some games doing this better than others.
It would be as useful to say there are no original novels out, everything is just a romance story, an adventure story, sci-fi, etc etc. Not every good story has been written, and not every good game has been made.
There are two reasons why Original games (As in original game play AND original IP) are hard to find.
1) Most Companies make games to turn a profit.
2) Most Gamers play games to have fun.
From a gamers standpoint, a truly Original game is a mystery. They cannot ask their friends if it is any good. They cannot say "This game is just like X" to help them make a decision. All they can really do is rent it, and risk being out the $5 dollars for the rental.
And sure, if a game is truly excellent, it will do excellently and become a huge success. But that magnitude of success is rare. In the last 5 years, the only truly original game to take off that strongly is Pokemon. A strong "2nd Tier" Title like Super Monkey Ball will do ok as well, but it will take a while for it to become main stream accepted. In Monkey Balls case, it is only successful, I think, because the people who do like it, generally wont shut up about it to their friends. I have yet to meet someone who has played Monkey Ball say the game is terrible.
A game that is just average will probably fade into oblivion, remembered by only a handful of enthusiasts. And only the most successful games will have a sequel made for them.
END COMMUNICATION
Sure, Steel Battalion is a mech game, but it did something no other game did. Bundeled a massive joystick with it to ensure the end user had the experience the developers had intended. Capcom took a huge risk in developing this game, and it paid off. Controllers still go for above retail prices on eBay, and owners are waiting now for the sequel.
Sure, not every new idea game is going to do well, but I applaud any company willing to try. Otherwise, the market would be even more stale then it is today.
I also curse the companies not willing to take risks. Blizzard comes to mind here. Cancelling Warcraft Adventures (because Lucasarts showed a semi 3d adventure game), and changing Warcraft 3 from it's dramatic departure from an RTS right back to a normal RTS has proven they are not willing to take risks anymore. Worlds of Warcraft is just their "me too" cry to the industry filled with tons of MMORPGs, and Ghost is just another action game with nothing new.
I also curse the companies not willing to take risks. Blizzard comes to mind here. Cancelling Warcraft Adventures (because Lucasarts showed a semi 3d adventure game)
They didn't cancel Warcraft Adventures because of Lucasarts, they canceled it because it wasn't going to be a good game.
Rez did not sell well because
A) John Q. Casual Gamer has no taste in games
B) John Q. Casual Gamer does not do his homework to find out about these games
C) You do not see Rez commercials on MTV.
Rez is quite possibly the best game on the PS2 and it sold like crap. Because of those reasons. Back in the day sell numbers tended to say something positive about the game itself. Now it just says something negetive about gamers in general.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
One of the reason re-makes/updates/clones are so popular is that people know what they're getting for their money.
I have a hard time going into the gaming store and plunking down my $$$ for a game I have barely (or not at all) heard of when I know I can buy the latest GTA or Warcraft or or or rather than an unkown which could be the best game ever or a complete waste of money. I'm not the only one.
If you want me to buy something new, then you had better make sure I've had a chance to see the gameplay and maybe even had a good demo. If I can DL a demo which isn't restricted beyond a limit on levels, then I'm going to be more likely to buy the game. But If all I've seen is reviewer screenshots, I'll go with something I know will be fun...
Psh! Cubivore was just a ripoff of E.V.O.! Which was just a ripoff of The Origin of Species!
skye
Yes this is a semi-troll...
The consensus so far seems to be:
- Advertising!
- Importance of developing an indie games industry.
- Originality doesn't mean the same thing as Good
Each of these points is something I agree with overall, but there are problems with each of them.
* I really think people are starting to rebel against advertising. I never get excited over an ad the way the execs hope I will, and although I still see other people say "Kick Ass!" when they see something like a trailer for something like Ecks vs. Sever, I think there's reason to believe it won't last forever. And there's really no reason to believe it will, our advertising culture is only a few decades old compared to the tens of thousands of years humanity has been around. It's important for word of a game to get out in the open (you can't buy something you don't know exists), but we're living in an age in which word of mouth can overcome even the most orchestrated ad campaign, and we live in an age of loud voices. (Remember, movie execs are whining that SMS messaging is killing movie sales!)
Furthermore, not all things advertise well. Wind Waker is probably the best game this year, but I don't think anyone is going to get sold on it after ten seconds of gameplay footage. The "cartoon" bias is too strong in the minds of casual gamers. Animal Crossing had a great ad campaign, but only because they had something with which to relate it to in the minds of casual gamers (The Real World).
* You know, I've read personal idol Chris Crawford talk about the importance of developing an independent channel for games distribution, too. That would help things, but if an independent games industry ever did get off the ground, you can bet that the "mainstream" industry would get even worse. (Yes, that is possible.) And ultimately, the situation would stablize around the place the movie industry is now, a few big-budget crap works that can be seen anywhere in the country on thousands of screens, and lots of really good movies that show only on a few screens in large cities. I live in a small town. I'm not too happy about the idea that I might have to go to Atlanta to pick up a new Mario. And most casual gamers won't even know they exist, just like my friend Derrek doesn't know anything about independent movies.
* Originality doesn't mean the same thing as good. True. But less often than you'd think. I'd rather play a bad game (once) that takes risks and tries to innovate than even a very good FPS, fighter, or sports game, or a merely good RPG. I realize that's a slightly idiosyncratic view, but I think it is held, slowly, more and more often these days.
I think what the industry really needs right now is another mid-80's style, hardcore shakeout. It may be that only hardcore gamers care abour originality, but increasingly, more and more gamers are hardcore, due to sheer number of games played. Activision used to make wonderful games... when the Atari 2600 was king! When EA remembered that their name stood for Electronic Arts they published things that were worth playing. How is Acclaim even surviving?
I'm not saying that tomorrow there will be a groundswell and suddenly everything will be sunshine and roses, but that eventually, maybe in a decade or so, something will break.
Pikmin isn't original! It's SimAnt without Ants!
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
They didn't cancel Warcraft Adventures because of Lucasarts, they canceled it because it wasn't going to be a good game.
An interview with Bill Roper tends to agree with me. He basicially admits it was too much of a classic adventure game, while Lucasarts was touting Monkey Island III and Grim Fandango, both being the "next level of adventure games". AKA, Lucasarts had some 3D in them, and of course 3D was the big buzzword back in that time period, so a 2D, but excellent looking adventure game aparently wouldn't sell at all.
Sorry. I know many people out there aren't big adventure gamers now that the market has grown, but some of us "old school" gamers hate to see one of the old segments of the gaming industry die in favor of yet another FPS or something.
There is no simply answer to this debate. However, I'd like to present an analogy to explain why that is.
Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com). To those of you who aren't familiar with it Combat Mission (Beyond Overlord and Barbarossa to Berlin) are games that take the number crunching of a old-fashioned (but still good) hex style war-game and combine it with a RTS. This is new and original because you've either got massive scope war-games where the difference of life or death can rest on any number of factors (how well you manage your troops and their stats) and you've got the RTS which is basically just build up massive armies in Real Time and rush your opponent hoping for a victory. Then throw in battlefield tactics (such as cover and concealment) which you usually only see in Tactical squad level games, and you've got Combat Mission.
These games are incredible, and very original. Anyone who enjoyes strategy or tactical games of any level should enjoy these games. However, there's one problem, no one is willing to field it in the market because it's new, no matter how good it seems. Luckily enough there was enough word of mouth on the net (in between scattered advertisements) that the Combat Missions were semi-successful games. Eventually they gained enough popularity that the retail stores started looking into it. I believe Combat Mission Beyond Overlord was released in mid-2000, and it wasn't on store shelves until early 2002.
Despite doing well, the sequel (Barbarossa to Berlin) isn't even out in stores yet (I don't think) even though it's been completed for some time.
Yes gamers want new games because they are usually fun just for that fact. However, people believe they don't want games because that's what mob rule has decided.