Dvorak Trashes Modern Gaming Industry

oskard writes "John C. Dvorak recently posted a PCMag.com rant trashing the gaming industry, predicting a complete market-meltdown in the near future. Titled 'Doom 4: End of the Game Industry?', it was interesting to see how the 3D Realms Forums reacted to the article. He claims that 'games have hardly changed since the invention of the first-person shooter.' His kids have obviously showed him too much Halo 2, and not enough Half-Life 2." From the article: "The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?"

Comments

Storytelling will differentiate tomorrow's games

[22RealMcCoy]

Huge opportunities will abound in the gaming industry as tools are released that lets the global community mod their favorite games. Storytelling will come to dominate games at every turn, as graphics, physics engines, and audio approach reality. The stories will also need to approach reality. http://autumnrangersgame.com/ is an example, based on the novel http://autumnrangersnovel.com/ and movie http://autumnrangersmovie.com./

HL2

[DrXym]

Certainly Half Life 2 is a step above the standard FPS fare, and has some great graphics, but it still very much suffers from the same faults as many FPS games - linear game play, scripted events, levels that box you in, zombies, stupid AI, health meters, a standard range of weapons etc. Its not that much different from most other FPS games in that way.

With that said, the cut-scene engine is excellent, the production is good, there's a semi-coherent plot and the gravity gun is a lot of fun. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than the invisible rail shitfest that is Doom 3, that's for sure.

Re:Don't fall for it.

[Kombat]

It appears that people are becoming more and more addicted (or "drawn to" if you prefer a less inflamatory term) to video games as they become more interactive and realistic.

I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a "cause-and-effect." I actually think that the ever-increasing realism of some particular genres will work against the games. I mean, Mortal Kombat was fun when you could rip the loser's spine from his body, and it was obviously fake blood and gore. But what will happen when it actually looks like footage of a real man, actually ripping out another man's real spine? Of course, it will still just be a simulation, but is society ready for a generation of kids who literally can't tell reality from fantasy?

It's (relatively) easy to distance yourself from video game violence when it is so obviously CG, but technology will eventually approach the point where the video will achieve startling realism. What will that do to the kids who've grown up playing these games, and who have a pretty good idea of what an actual gunshot wound looks like? People complain that kids are desensitized to violence by today's video games, but as realistic as they are, no one would ever confuse them with actual video footage of an actual murder. What sort of desensitization effect will games have when they become indistinguishable from video of actual violent acts? Will the desensitization effect rise to a new level? Are we ready for the potential implications?

Or will game makers simply shy away from the truly graphic, photorealistic violence, and save such abilities for ever more realistic non-violent games, like racing or flying simulations? Then again, maybe a photorealistic "Flight Simulator 2010" is just what Al Queda needs to properly train for their next mission?

Food for thought.