Quote:

Original post by Mike Bossy [...] - Ads everywhere. TV, print, movies, billboards in time square, etc. - Halo 2 is at 7 million copies? - EBX, Gamestop, target, walmart, etc. all have a huge selection of games - Funding is still hard to find but when you get it it's in the millions. - There are now award shows for game developers hosted by Snoop Dog on Spike TV. - Everyone is a gamer. [...]

How are these positive things? I hate ads, and can barely watch TV because of the massive number of them. There are 4 minutes of ads every 10 minutes, and then in the shows there will be characters saying stupid slogans like "Ah, this coka cola is refreshing" or they'll point out their brand name shoes or something like that.
The web is become infested with ads as well, but at least they're optional unlike those on TV (meaning I can easily read a page while the ad blinks away, while a show is interrupted by the ads).

The next two points (and the last) cover the mass market aspect of gaming, which isn't so great since all a game needs to become mass market is exactly what indies cant give - ridiculous amounts of art. It represents the era of craptitde as far as gaming is concerned - people don't even know what quality means (after all, you can't see it on a box) so they'll buy game after game and play each for a few weeks and end up paying tons of money for almost no enterainment without even realizing it. Alternately, there are MMOs with are IMO just as bad, but at least the players enjoy them enough to keep playing and paying. Still, there is no innovation there either really and games are just recycling what the last MMO used without even trying to change something. There are a few exceptions, but far too few and even those have very little innovation (and it is only innovative for MMOs and not gaming in general).

The funding issue doesn't really make much of a difference IMO - many years ago you needed a few months to make a game, and you would get a little funding for a few guys to do that. These days, you need a HUGE team with tons of 3d modelers and texture artists and level designers and it takes years to make a game, and you get enough funding to do that (when you get any).

The award shows are nearly an insult, they're not about games they're about the hosts of the show and how many copies sold of what. Since most places don't allow you to return games, sales is not at all an indication of quality, especially when you throw in the effect of the marketing that huge studios can afford to put out that fool most of the masses.

Summary: Those aren't positive aspects of the industry today. If you want to point out pluses, point out resources like gamedev.net, all the books that are out there, the language choices(thoough most people don't choose, it is possible to since there are good compilers for many languages now even for embedded programming), and other ways development was made easier.

So mass market is bad? Advertising spend is bad? Why don't we just come out and say that sales are bad? A game can only be great if no one hears about it or buys it?

I thought that the reason we made games was to entertain. In that context you want to ability to entertain as many people as you can. Ads, award shows and mass market games allow that to happen.

Games are the premier "interactive" medium. You need people to actually interact with it to enjoy it. If you'd rather not entertain people then why not enter a different artistic which allows you to starve in a small room without anyone knowing about it?

As an artist, which is what I think we are, being able to reach people is a far greater positive then being able to code my games in Java instead of C++. Who cares if my game runs on a PC, XBox, phone, toaster, etc.? Who cares if it's the most innovative thing in the history of man? What I care about is if people have fun playing it. If that's wrong them I've been in the wrong industry for too long.

All the things you listed aren't bad on their own, but when you put them in the real world they ARE negative things because of the way things really happen. Advertisements that tell you about a new product aren't bad, but adverts rarely inform and just about always try to mislead and seduce you into buying some crappy product you don't really want or need.

If I felt that big companies consisted of artists that created products that entertain, I'd have no problem with any of it. I find very, very few games today at all entertaining, and for those that I do enjoy most of the fun comes with playing (something) with friends.

I feel that the huge exposure to mass media is a bad thing for a couple reasons.

Only big name companies making graphically amazing games will sell lots of copies.

Why? The average player doesn't know shit about games and just wants to look at eye candy.

Most of these people wouldn't know a good game if it fell on them.

Example:

Ikaruga is an amazing game. I know 2 people other than myself who have copy.

Why don't newschool gamers like it? It's not endorsed by Snoop Dog, it's not on MTV and it isn't flashy 3D graphics like Halo or Half Life.

The game is freaking amazing but no one cares because mass media doesn't tell them to care.

I really don't want big business and mass media to get involved in the game industry as anything other than a source of capital because they will push originality and innovation out of gaming.

Most of the people I know who are new school gamers have an XBox and talk about Halo like its the best FPS ever. Now with Halo2 they are all talking like online play is the best thing ever.

News flash asshats:

PC FPS games have looked better and had badass online play for a decade!

Compared to PC games, Halo is a joke.

Again, these people like Halo cause tv says Halo is godly. Since a small company can't afford TV coverage like MS can, they won't get the exposure needed to sell a good, innovative game.

What I'd really like to see is more work on AI, user I/O and replay value and less on flashy graphics crap.

Furthermore, I agree with whoever posted that photorealistic graphics suck. I don't want to play a 5' 10" 170lb skinny barbarian. I want to play a hugely muscled, deformed Orc with an Axe.

This is one of the reasons I like what Blizzard has done with WOW so much. The character models are down right goofy but I love em cause they are fun. Orcs look wierd. Taurens look wierd. But, I'd rather play a Tauren with a big scary assed hammer than a photorealistic human with a photorealistic sword.

Photorealism has its place in games. I think games like Resident Evil would benefit greatly from photorealism as it would help draw the user in and make things more believable. For games like WOW, I want fantasy. Stuff I can't go see in real life.

Neways, Rant off...