It seems reasonable to say that had players only been accustomed to games like Pong and Space Invaders, that they would have had a very hard time accepting a complex game like StarCraft. It almost seems like certain kinds of games would need to have already existed and been popular in order for other kinds of games to be acceptable by the mass market. Eventually, there has been enough exposure to make the primary genres (FPS, RTS, RPG) playable by most. Battlezone is one example of a game that combined genres (FPS and RTS), and very well done, mind you, IMO. You got exposure to another genre by liking at least one of them. The take of this topic is about how games seem to come out almost as companions to other games that already exist, as a way of perpetuating the video game market as a whole and sucking us in. Think about the kinds of shows on TV, or the current pattern of movies at the theatre. Is there the sense at all that movies and TV are designed to leave us wanting more so that we continue to see movies and continue to watch TV to get more of the same? It's not coincidence that certain shows are lined up a certain way. Heck, now they even start the next show without a commercial break. Do you think maybe Hollywood instructs the filmmakers to do it that way, to keep people wanting what comes out of Hollywood, to keep depending on it? Could the same be true of video games? Blizzard caused an addiction craze with Diablo 2. We played all these other RPG games, and then Blizzard tosses this quick and easy, hop in and play, best of all RPGs game, and we ate it up like dogs wanting Milkbones. We were used to the other RPGs already, and knew what our likes and dislikes were about them. Diablo 2 was designed, I'm sure, around what the crowds were saying. But it was also designed to be addictive. Now, I know there is the element of how the individual receives these things. It's up to us to not become addicted, to not get sucked in. But, sometimes it happens anyway. I remember the levelling bar of EverQuest. They stuck a chunk of metal hiding the end of the bar, hiding a few advances of the bar. They did it that way just so that you'd play a little more to be able to see the orange liquid again emerging from the other side, and since you were that close to levelling, heck why not go for it! Addicting. VERY addicting. I guess this isn't a great example of what I'm talking about because it doesn't derive from other video games. But EverQuest did start the MMORPG craze. And they definitely made use of addiction tactics. We complain about games not being original, and users are cautioned to not become addicted. And yet all these games collect together much the same as our favorite music, TV shows (and the commercials in between), and movie styles present... ... and we just keep on playing. And we buy the next game. And we expect the industry to give us more when we are done with what we have. We don't care who puts it out. But we expect a steady stream. Is it possible that game designers use that as part of the formula for their games? Not just to make the game itself successful, but to help fuel the industry? To keep an awareness of what other games will be out there as well? I know this is a very subjective question - I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks this way about it. [edited by - Waverider on February 26, 2003 5:36:35 PM]

OMG - thats a long post

I dont really think its the fact that they want to keep the industry alive but more the lack of creativity and bravery. It isnt easy to come up with a completely new concept everytime so when you find a xxx tycoon that people love you might wanna create a zoo tycoon, rollercoaster tycoon etc... just because you know people will buy it.

Its more that the devellopers need to be sure the next game will pay back the depts they made. That makes it hard to start new stuff & easy to just continue a series of previously made games

PS : not native english speaking but guess you could tell that allready

Prolly not...

It has to do with the first to break prinicipal. The first to do something to make money recieves the greatest reward! The first spammer, the first telemarketer, the first new video game.

Then as everyone sees that first person making money, people start dilluting the system, more spam, more telemarketers, more video games, until the system is bled dry.

Now if I were investing money, who would I choose? The video game manufacture that has the first new video game, that may not succeed, or follow the crowd, even doom-clones made money!!

Now as a game developer, whatever people see, people do, its a confomity thing. People play EQ, and say, I can make an Ultima Online, except less bugs, and in 3D! And then the next generation of MMORPG games are born.

Now addiction, which is a totally seperate field, and I believe EQ is designed with addicition in mind. The lack of numerical stats is very addiciting, a person can always con themselves into thinking they they are doing a good job. Is it right? depends, we have less people watching TV, and as long as they can have a social life besides EQ, then that might be good, and it can be unhealthy too, seeing how people have died because they forget to do important things, like eat or drink...for hours at a time.(my ex-gf played for 12 hours straight, on a 12 pack of mountian dew, and some crackers).

So to answer your question, I think that there isn''t a "conspiracy" of video game manufactures, that put out crap, but games like EQ can, and prolly are designed to be addicting

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you want to generate a piece of work that stands well completely on its own, or release something that contributes to the continuing market, or possibly develop on a pattern you''ve become known for.

Blizzard naturally capitalized on Warcraft 2''s success with StarCraft and then WarCraft 3.

ID has it FPS''s, and the maker of Command and Conquer continues that series, etc. etc.

I was just curious if any game developers imagined themselves being part of "the industry", rather than focussing on coming up with their own original piece of work. I guess, in the end, it depends on the individual.

As usual.