Slashdot Mirror
Life After the Video Game Crash
codecasting writes "There's an interesting, very satirical story over at David Wong's Pointless Waste of Time where he makes a good case for the upcoming death of the video game industry. His key points include gaming platforms largely reaching a technological plateau, the aging of the 'Original Gamers' audience, and the slew of games that are just copies of the same game from last year, but with a new title and different cars/guns/bikinis/etc. An interesting and humorous read."
I tend to agree. A good game has much more to it than highly realistic 3d videos. Historically the games which have been most successful were the ones with a simple, yet addictive concept. It didn't matter that they were designed for a 8 bit 2MHz proccessor with a black and white low-res display.
Recently there has been almost no inovation whatsoever. Every new game which comes out belongs to an already existing category (strategy, 3d fps, simulation, etc), with the only difference between them being slightly modified sprites.
The way I see it, the future probably will lie in Massive-multiplayer. As residential connections get faster, and protocols are improved to cope with lag better, it might be possible to design games where hundreds of thousands of players compete in real time in one virtual environment. That would be awesome.
The lack of innovation has come from the fact that video games have become a big business in the past 20 years. You can make the same argument that movies are the same way. Video games will continue to grow as the first "Video game generation" gets older. Think about it, most players now are 30-35 or younger...What will the market be like when these people are 80, and everyone plays games?
The Market is growing, not shrinking. Games are becoming more mainstream, which leads companies to produce "safer" tried and true games. Don't worry, there will still be innovation but there will also be more and more "safe" games as video games grow as a real business.
The author makes some really dead-on points, and it's plenty enough to make investors in Nintendo shares shake in their boots.
But I think he's badly underestimating the creativity of the companies that do survive -- whoever they happen to be.
Take board games as an example. How many ways can you move a playing piece from point A to point B? Isn't Life just the same as Monopoly, which is no different from Trivial Pursuit, which is an obvious ripoff of Chutes and Ladders?
You get the idea. Those four games hugely different variations on the same "platform" -- a flat piece of cardboard. What's more, they're still around after decades. Monopoly keeps coming out with special editions that are no more than "different cars" in GTA-LXXVI -- but they still sell.
And a stroll down Toys-R-Profit's game aisle shows a dizzying variety of board games. Many of them are lame variations on the theme (roll 1d6 to see if Barbie gets a good parking space at the mall) and won't last a year. But while they're around, someone will buy them, and next year we'll have another lame variant.
What's sad is that we're seeing the end of the beginning. We 30-somethings watched video games go from homebuilt to primitive to amazing... to commodity. I expect the children of the 1860s experienced the same thing with board games.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
His key points include gaming platforms largely reaching a technological plateau, the aging of the 'Original Gamers' audience, and the slew of games that are just copies of the same game from last year, but with a new title and different cars/guns/bikinis/etc.
The only difference could be that most people 30 and younger have grown up around video games, so they are more likely to continue playing/buying games. Other than that, the game scene sounds remarkably similar to the time just before the crash. Rehashes, remakes, same old, same old...
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
Remember the first video game to gross $1 billion? NBA Jam, before it even made it into the home. This was after one of the prior 'crashes' in the home market. We all got burned out on Atari 2600/C64/Apple][ games and headed back to the arcade.
The video game industry may or may not be putting the player into the 'movie', but does it have to? My most feverish moments of gaming usually involved a text CLI interface. Some used a joy stick. The game is what you make it, IMHO.
The game industry will grow. It's just waiting for the next big thing, which may actually be some old thing redone to be fresh or just captures the imagination of players. The failings of the game industry isn't so much the tired old games redone, it's simply the lull between the peaks. There will be another peak, and another and another... as he said, Something truly new and different and novel, dammit. The market is ripe for it.
It always will be. In the meantime, I continue to play treasures from the past.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Really now, if the same old idea just rehashed over and over (but most likely with slight variations) were a problem in the entertainment creation market, then books/music/art would have stopped being made sometime around, oh, 1000 years ago.
Everything worth expressing has already been expressed. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the new incarnations. Society changes, things move out of favor, then back in again. At which point old ideas get rehashed and become popular once again. I don't think the gaming industry is in any danger of flopping, in fact I'll bet its only going to become a more and more pervasive part of world culture.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
One day you have an article about how television is dying because of video games; now apparently video games are dying. Are they going to be replaced by people sitting around talking to each other? I don't buy it.
Personally, though, I think that console games will probably take over from PC games. It must be a lot easier for developers to not have to try making everything compatible with all of the various pc hardware components.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
No kidding. I get the distinct impression, after reading this article, that the author likes to hear himself talk. I understand the points he raises, and even agree with a couple of them (online gaming is a niche market with respects to consoles), but I think the conclusions are way out in left field.
The XBOX and the Gamecube were failures? The graphical upgrades between consoles is getting narrower to the casual observer, so the game industry is going to take a nose dive? Instead of, say, the more reasonable outcome: they change to fit the new environment? We're not talking about the slow-to-move Recording Industry here, the videogame industry is in its infancy in comparison.
TFA looks more like an excuse to come up with some creative insults, and play with pictures in an attempt to be humorous. The arguments remind me of conversations I heard at lunch in junior high!
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
From the article:
Luke's X-Wing approaches the surface of the Death Star.
"Red Five, begin your attack run."
Luke swoops down into the trench. "It'll be just like Beggar's Canyon back ho-"
Turret laser bolts tear his X-Wing apart.
So true, how many times do you have to die a horrible death to finally get all the way through a game that was supposed to make you feel like a hero, but instead ensures that you never leave your cushy chair, your cold pizza, or your virginity.
I find that games only requiring a short period of time to throughly enjoy are my favorite. UT2004 is a blast in Onslaught mode (everyone should know this by now) and I can play with my brothers across the country. And a few good matches takes less than an hour of my life.
I like to play Simpsons Hit & Run with my wife when we want to just relax for an hour or so on a rainy day.
But I probably will not be willing to ever fork over the bucks that some of the upcoming all-in-one gaming/movie/theater systems are going to cost. I'll just get a cheapo PS2 and some decent games. I don't want gaming to be my life.
I'm on a chair.
The author says he did the 'research' but on what is what I want to know.
Take a look at my research. It says that the video game industry is growing at 11.7% compounding growth. Thats exponential.
So, he's just plain wrong.
Today even the smallest children doesn't seem to be so fascinated by computer games. They have seen it all before, and they are used to the high quality so they demand so much more.
I miss the Commodore 64...
"Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -- Leo Tolstoy
And his argument about the original game generation getting older? Man, that's just moronic, IMO. Someone may want to let this guy know that people are still having kids, these kids are still growing up, and --- guess what? playing video games. Not only that, but more are playing these days than ever before, especially as gaming is no longer seen as a lonely geek thing with all the associated stigma of that.
I do agree with certain aspects of his article, but we all have to remember that we were blessed to live through the birth stages of videogaming. Of *course* after that period of rapid change things are going to solidify and we're going to end up with less pure innovation -- this happens in every industry and even in every creative medium. But that doesn't mean new ideas and new technologies wont burst through every now and then to revitalize things... That's just the normal cycle of how these things work, get used to it....
1. The technological plateau he speaks of is merely a graphical one, and it only seems like a plateau because new game consoles don't come out every month.
There's also the consideration that there are many places for the technology to expand. GTA3, despite what one may think about its gamesplay, hints at what is possible. Maybe the graphics won't improve much, but the world will get bigger and more detailed. The fascination of GTA3 for me was the ability to just wander around, down alleyways that had nothing to do with the missions and find stairways to rooftops, trash bins- all sorts of real world details. Lots of the world reacted to your actions. That's a neat thing. When your video game is an entertaining toy outside of the core gameplay, you've really accomplished something.
There's more to games than polygon count. Most of the game worlds, even the likes of Halo, are still fairly primitive compared to what could be done with ever more processing power. The end of graphical improvement might be a GOOD thing, and force developers to focus on gameplay, computer character AI, and other things that are a bit lacking these days.
2. He didn't really seem to have an argument in this section. ??? His view of the types of enjoyment derived from video games is a bit limited.
3. His horizon is limited. The video games may (or may not) be reaching upwards of 90% penetration into the current market, but the *market* is exapanding. Technological civilization is creeping into parts of the world not yet elevated to such.
He also seems to oddly forget that new generations are being born, and *everything* is new and novel to them.
4. Are the Gamecube and X-Box really complete failures? They've all sold millions of units. They didn't sell as well because [A] the PS2 got there first and [B] not as many good games. The X-Box especially only had maybe two decent titles for a long time.
As for age, he's entitled to his opinion, but I play games in my late 30's. I know people in their 40's and 50's who regularly play PS2 games and PC games. To use his belabored Hollywood comparison, most people seem to realize that, just as there are movies for children and adults, there are also video games for children and adults.
5. He might be right here. I already have home theater stuff. I want a game console to play games. I don't need a jack of all trades, master of none. That's why I expect a minicrash when these All In One systems fail to sell.
6. Agreed on the online play. I know Final Fantasy *fanatics* who have zero desire in FF11 Online. The reaction is usually, "Wait, I bought a game and I have to keep paying every month?"
7. was just a rehash.
--- Ban humanity.
Will there be a rise of an "independent" games industry with more focus on artistry and less focus on profit in much the same way as there is an independent film industry? Will we ever have a widely-known gaming equivalent of the Sundance Film Festival?
Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate both blockbuster Hollywood movies and indie films in their own ways. I'd be interesting to see that kind of balance and contrast come to another entertainment industry.
That entire article is onlt one man's opinion and not the absolute truth. Everyone is different hence you cannot predict what people want and/or will want in the future. Trust me many have tried on numerous topics and failed miserably.
Gaming has a long past and even brighter future regardless if gameplay isn't massively different in the future. A game is about passing time, escaping, a hobby, and plain ole fun.
There are millions of games out there for all types of preferences and all types of attention spans. There is something for everyone. Even though there seems to be a lack of original content in the last few years there has been an advancement in gameplay. More interactivity (HL2 environments), a move towards team based play and operating vehicles (CoD, BF 1942, UT2k4), and this is just in FPS's. MM's are also evolving into more of a FP view with much more depth not including SW Galaxies.
Things don't evolve overnight and some people just like to whine about the current state of affairs but I see it simply evolving at a slower pace because there's a lot more companies making games these days and orginality is harder to come by.
FYI- the author stated that people these days don't play the recent older games and I disagree. There's plenty of Q1, Q2, HL players out there. They are still creating new content (maps, models, etc.) so those scenes are still alive although not as large as they used to be.
The last thing I'll say is I totally disagree about once you're over 35 you can't game because you're a loser or manchild or somthing along those lines. I was on a blizzard board a while back and some guy stated that he thought most gamers are in the 15-20 year old range. Gamers came out of the woodwork to tell their age and why they game. The average gamer was over 40 and the oldest was 72!
Don't let people who do no research and simply speculate convince you of something that is completely untrue.
Gaming is here to stay even if games stopped evolving from this day on.
It's simply a part of our lives...
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
It's not your age that's the problem. It's how long you've been playing video games. The first games you play tend to be the ones you remember as being the best because you were just starting out in computer games and everything is still new and novel.
Here's a few old-school examples:
When I started in games id Software's Wolfenstein 3D was in full stride and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Then came DOOM. For me DOOM was one of the best games ever made, with Wolf3D being among the other top ten contenders.
A year or so later ROTT came out. Technically it was somewhere between Wolf3D and DOOM and a LOT of people who were just getting into gaming thought it was the best thing around. I thought it was crap (and I still do). Was it crap? Objectively, no. Subjectively? For me it was.
Nothing in the FPS world interested me much until Quake 1 came out and we all got real 3D. Since Quake 1 it's mostly been refinements and prettier environs. Nothing has wow'd me like Quake 1 except for Half-Life and that wasn't because of the graphics.
Are these new FPS games (and I use these example because these are what I play) not well done? Are they bilge? Do they suck? Some do, but many are very well made games. They just don't dazzle me anymore because I've been there and seen that. Now there are just more colors and rounder asses on the women.
It's very hard to recapture the wonder you felt when you first started playing games.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
"You see, there was a video game industry apocalypse once before, in the early 80's. The market was flushed down the toilet by a putrid swirl of bad Atari games, players realizing that Hot Dog Maze was just Pac-Man with different colors. They didn't abandon the Atari 2600 in favor of something better. They abandoned it in favor of not playing video games."
And yet the players still swamped the arcades - something the president of Nintendo realized before releasing his NES onto the American market. The problem with the Atari was not that all the games stagnated. There was still innovation, even in the 1983-1984. The problem was cartridge glut. No one could find those great games under the mounds of useless trash. Everyone could make games for the Atari and everyone did - even ppl who had no right making video games (Colgate anyone?). That is one of the reasons why the magazine Nintendo Power and the Nintendo License was so mind-boggingly important. It was an assurance of quality. Now we have the Internet. You are truely gutsy for buying games now without looking for reviews first. We have a similiar environment to 1983 now, but the difference is we can tell what is good/crap. As such, his analogy to the 80's fails. Just becuase we are mired knee deep in trash doesn't mean we will see a similiar crash.
On a greater note, there is just something about video games that keep pulling people back. I still go back and play Mario 3. I still spend hours on end sometimes playing Keystone Kapers and Laser Blast. It is more than just the novelty that draws people to games. It is more than just something to do. It is an experience that transcends your current reality. As the author said, it allows you to be Luke Skywalker - but just becuase you don't want to permantely be Luke Skywalker does not mean that no one will ever replay the game. The games keep bringing people back. While I agree with him that in fact the market for 'Buy this game cause we have modeled dust particles' is going to die, the whole market won't. Games that are good and inventive will still survive. A lot of companies will drop out, no doubt. But the ones like Nintendo that can still be inventive with gameplay and still bring about a great experience will still go on.
As for the movie analysis, there is a difference he hasn't taken into account. The Internet. Not only can we have games that involve ppl in stories but we have games that can involve people in stories with their friends. When you add the fact that not only you but your friend can play, the possibilities grow exponentially larger. Look at WoW and Everquest. They may not even be games anymore. Rather they are environments the user can interact in. You don't get the same with a movie. With a movie you are forcefed the producers/directors vision of what he wants you to see. With games you get a choice. You get to skip shit you don't like and focus on stuff you do like. And with the birth of the Internet, those choices will multiple with future games, not decline. And the 'online gmers' he talks about are by far a minority in my experience. I know a lot of people that play games online just for fun and not becuase they have a need to boost their self esteem by zerg rushing noobs. In addition, with improving AI's we also are losing the predicatble games. The Future? In one game, the opponent may be down a hall, in another he may have moved a different direction. We are quickly moving away from bound points and set patrol paths. In the future, you will be attacking units of enemies, not just pre defined defenses. Take a look at the plans for Thief 3 if you don't believe me.
In additon, if his analogy was true, we would have never watched movies as long as we have. Afterall, there are only so many romances you can watch, only so many war movies right. The novely of seeing them on the screen should have worn off and left us all back with our books. So why hasn't it? Hollywood and books gives us experiences that are different and hence they both can exist together. T
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
While the author makes a good point that point-and-shoot gameswill only go so far, I think he misses three key points:
1) We're starting to see more and more action games merge with elements of role-playing games. I thought that GTA: Vice City was really moving in this direction, where instead of physically growing stronger you get more influence and wealth to do whatever you want but you can take it in whatever order you want. Granted, there are several aspects of RPG that could be incorporated into that game if someone felt like it (control your own fate, have some kind of karma scale that causes people to react differently towards you, etc.), but expect to see many more games incorporating both these aspects in the coming years. Some of these will be retreads of VC or any number of already existant games (note similarities between Fallout: BOS and Dark Alliance 2 for Xbox) but others will forge new frontiers (Crimson Skies?).
2) Online gameplying is *burgeoning*. My brother plays Star Wars: Galaxies almost every other day and has two characters. He knows people from around the world just by playing with them and interacting digitally. Look at Final Fantasy XI and the huge number of Japanese and American players on it: the companies involved get $(X)/month without having to do much more than upgrade the system and its option every so often. I predict that this will turn into a mainstay of the video game market, especially for the true RPG fans.
3) Like it or not, the advanced military projects of VR and newer man-machine integration systems will eventually become incorporated into video game systems and maybe even the Internet. Imagine video games in a 3-D setting either by VR or "plug-and-play" a la Matrix from Shadowrun. Predicting where technology will go is tricky, but developments in holograph technology and other *exotic* computer applications are already being worked on. Maybe we've hit a temporary plateau, but that doesn't mean it is permanent by any means. How long is it before we could see a quantum processor running a fully interactive video game system with either Resident Evil 13 (where you can feel the zombies attack you and maybe play as one yourself?) or Grand Theft Auto: 7.0 in the city of your choice with fully accurate maps. The possibilities for technological advancement are endless and should not be automatically discounted just because things have "slowed down" in the last few years.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
What made good games in the past is different then what makes a good game now.
Consider the programming restrictions that a C64 game had compared to any modern game. The programmers knew that they could only do so much with the graphics so they consentrated on plot/level design.
Most modern games only get harder because the AI is instructed to "shoot straighter". Take any FPS game and the only difference in levels is that the AI is a better shot.
RPG's suffer a similar fate (although a bit more understandably) where the bad guys have more health and more powerfull weapons/spells BUT (not understandably) heal quicker too.
Consoles by nature should always have more exciting game-play (same reason for quality on C64), while PC's should always have a wider range of games available (using more horsepower).
Maybe I am just getting too old for this anymore, but I miss the days of playing a game that kept me captivated. RPG's have just become boring, FPS are repetative twitch-fests (I only play T2 anymore), strategy games have been done to death. Moo2 & Civ are still excellent, but I can win on any setting because I have played them so much I know the games limitation and advantages in the tech-tree.
RTS are just Turn-based games for the twitch players. Whoever builds more units wins.
The original D&D C64 games were winners, so were most turn-based strategy. The only original quality FPS was Descent (everything else was an evolution of Wolf3d).
Here's an idea: let writers create game ideas, not programers. Too many big-biz software publishing houses only make "safe" games. This is the same reason that 90% of the Hollywood movies suck too.
There is no creativity left.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Yeah, seriously. On one hand, he complains that the only difference between this year's releases and last year's is the graphics quality and bemoans the lack of an increase in gameplay quality.
However, he completely ignores games like Madden, which are constantly improving the accuracy of their simulators. Every year, the players act and move like real players. The opposing team makes better decisions and doesn't run the clock out on itself. Using the increased processing power to have a better AI is exactly what this franchise has done and why it has always been so sucessful. And it's exactly what the author wanted to see in modern games.
I guess pointing this out wouldn't suficiently pander to his target-demographic of doomsday naysayers.
"To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
Perhaps its a need to defend my love of gaming, but that article was mostly bullshit. Most of time I was reading it, I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. I hope it was.
:).
I won't waste time arguing about how games are repeating their formulas, which you've all mentioned already that Hollywood does the same; that like Hollywood, games will simply refine and re-tell. I won't waste a good rant on how fucked up an argument could be that gaming, indeed technology, has reached a graphical plateau.
There is one good point, however: the aging First Generation and the New Generation.
Someone earlier mentioned that most of the First Generation, defined by me as anyone who *remembers* when the NES was rolled out (or any earlier console), are getting on with their lives, getting married, having children, and basically getting weighed down with other responsiblities. I'm 25, consider myself a First Gen Gamer (my first 'console' was a TI-99/4A, with speech synth!!), married, have a baby boy, a house, a career, and the other crap. Gaming these days isn't like it used to be. Along with that, I find myself drawn to only the best of the best of games. I don't have time or money to buy and sift through the crap games from the greats.
Personally, I think its the switch to the New Generation of gamers thats gonna be the problem, not the industry itself. Most of us First Gens gaming will slow to a crawl, and the New Gens will be the ones screaming to the developers as to what they want. Most of the New Gens aren't as wowed by ever-increasing technology as us First Gens are. For us, the novelty is still there while the New Gens mostly expect it.
The industry isn't going to know how to deal with the New Gens at first. They're a completely different breed. And us First Gens are only gonna slow in our gaming (tho we may not necessarily slow down in the purchasing of them
Then again, the switch could be seamless. Who knows.
Just watch Japan. If it happens in the game industry, it will happen there first.
Because it comes off like it's trying to make a point, but never really backs it up - instead it just hides it's tongue deep in cheek to cover up a rather loose munging of facts.
Yeah, OK - Red Faction 2 wasn't much different than Goldeneye, especially if you aren't counting texture depth, level size, polygon count, vehicles AND geomod technology. Just because two games can produce screenshot of blockish rooms doesn't mean they're even remotely similar.
Which kinda pulls the rug out of the "tech plateau" which seems like, if there is a foundation for a logical argument, is the only one.
If technology has plateau'd so much, how come game requirements keep going up at nearly the same rate? I'm guessing his next article is "The Radeon 9800 is a capitalist conspiracy!!"
We're on a technological plateau. The next real leap, the next real difference in how we play games via sensory suits or neural inputs or whatever, is still too far away and too expensive.
Yes, a fair amount of time will likely pass before the next technological innovation that makes a significant change in computer based games, and even more time will pass before that technology is cheap enough that it's widely distributed.
That said, the computer game industry seems to me to be subset of the larger game industry more than of the technology industry. The reason that game designers are different from demo designers is that a game is not indended to display how a creative person can push the limits of technology in an appealing way; rather games are intended to be fun to play. There might be a "holy crap, how did they do that?" element to a computer game, but that's not really the point.
Take MMORPGs, for example. A technological advance was required for these games to be possible, but they're not popular because networking technology is cool...they're popular because they're a new, fun kind of game to a lot of people. (And yes, I know that they're basically not new in any sense, either from a game design or technology perspective, but you know what I mean.) In all the cases that I've seen, in fact, the gee-whiz graphics factor has been noticeably lacking...the cool technology is invisible from a gameplay perspective.
The SIMS became absurdly popular for a while. Pretty FPS games were big before that. "You Don't Know Jack" had its day in the sun. Myst and its knockoffs ruled the world ages ago, and we haven't even come close to far enough back to hit the Age of Atari discussed in the article. In all these cases, the popular game or games presented something new, or offered it in an intriguing new way...technology almost always played a role in that, but in my opinion the tech was rarely the primary factor. Gameplay, basically, rules.
Hmmm...I started this post about three hours ago and just now got back to it. Eh, you all get the idea of my ravings...no point in finishing it... :)
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
Sorry but thats not exactly the whole 'Video Game" ladscape. Back in the mid and late 70's arcades arose, and blossomed at a ridiculous rate. This large growth in the "Arcade" market spawned home consoles. Atari 2600 being the first in the US to really penetrate a large percentage of US homes (sorry don't know about the rest of the world, simply relying on my memory as a kid). This set up the downfall of arcades, as well as parent groups wanting these arcades to be shut down for reasons that are still beyond me.
See I don't think the home console market crashed, I believe the entire Video game market crashed because of the growth in the home market cannibalized the arcade market. This sudden and abrupt shift was too much and poeple lost alot of money, Warner Communications (who bought Atari with greed in their hearts) started firing people left and right, and thats around the same period that retarded ET game came into being.
Anyway, Arcades imploded in the early and mid 80's, and dragged the home market along with them.
The current situation is no where like that today. There is no similiar, yet competing industry to destabilize the current dominance of video games as a whole. PC and consoles are the closest markets and they are so similiar that there really is no difference at all.
off to play some SOCOM II...
-a 34 yo gamer
--
"Hear someone complaining about something that someone else likes, and you will hear someone not understanding something that someone else does."
--My grandpa.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
In my opinion, the reasons video games have become more stagnant is that develors use graphics and technology as the centerpiece of the game rather than the affability of the gameplay itself. The reason that games like Mario and Tetris still hold some value today (I actually play Mike Tyson's Punch-Out all the time on my friends NES) is that they were gameplay centric and fun no matter what Mario's head looked like.
Today it seems that game companies are content to have it really look like Luke Skywalker but be truly boring to play after the first time through it drolling at the graphics and the cut scenes. That is why the classics, are the classics and todays games don't have the same staying power as they do. It is always so disappointing when you have games based on immersion, a la Star Wars, that has no value from the gameplay.
This is why games like GTA and the Sims are successfuly because they focus on the gameplay, with graphics only as the medium, and not what the gamer is paying for
Interested in Sports with a brain? --> http://dispatchesofj.blogspot.com/