I think that new hardware developments have been instrumental in altering the face of electronic technology worldwide. Thanks to the internet, I can be annoyed instantaneously by a bunch of morons on another continent.

What are the main audience of video games? Teenagers? Adults? or Kids under 12?

The answer is kids under 12 and adults. Kids only care about victory and not the depth of the game at all, and adults only want to play the game with their kids to have some fun, so they don't care about depth too. The problem with depth is that it hurts your brain, it's like...how often do you see people play chess compare to playing fast paced action games that don't require much thinking.

As Iron Chef said, today's games pretty graphic is made by the hardware we're given now. You don't need a 3D accelerator to play Tic-Tac-Toe, but in a few years, you won't be able to play any games without a physic accelerator.

If you want to look for games that's fun, look into games that are mod'able.
Most RTS are considered mod'able and a few RPGs too. Mod'able games are more likely to be fun because it allowed the players to configure their own game, or..make their own game with little effort.

What I don't like about today's single player games is that they are too easy to beat.
There is always this pointless advancing thing. You advance a little bit, then you save, you advance more, then you save.
You never have the risk of starting the game all over.
The games may be longer, but they are not challenging and just tedious.
So the game feels more like a day time job. Yay I killed more monseters, I have better weapons, I have only a 1000 more monsters to kill to advance to the next level.
And they will never make it too hard to beat.
And yes, I am an old geezer.

Quote:

Original post by lightblade What are the main audience of video games? Teenagers? Adults? or Kids under 12? The answer is kids under 12 and adults. Kids only care about victory and not the depth of the game at all, and adults only want to play the game with their kids to have some fun, so they don't care about depth too.

That's a pretty risky generalization - and it isn't even true, in my experience.

Survey: Video gamers getting older, heading online
Average game player is 30 years old
Average gamer age trends toward low 30s over the past 10 years

Most adult gamers I know very rarely game with their kids, if they even have any old enough to game. By contrast, I know many adult gamers who are constantly bemoaning the lack of depth and challenge in modern games. Heck, I know a few kids who do, too. If you have good twitch reflexes, you can play virtually any FPS with a reasonable degree of competence, for example. There are a few more stimulating titles out there, and they tend to be popular simply by virtue of not being dull and mindless (BF2 teamplay comes to mind, Starcraft, Deus Ex, etc. etc.)


The problem isn't so much that nobody cares about or wants depth; the problem is depth is risky. Dealing with complex subject matter, or presenting complex gameplay, is a major risk - it isn't widely appealing, so it probably won't sell "well" compared to more mainline fare. As such, depth is avoided because it doesn't have the potential to produce as much money as bland accessibility.

If you look at the business structure of the industry over the last 20 years, the reasons for this are pretty clear: games have become big business. Money is handled by investors and publishers for the most part, and development houses rely almost exclusively on this money to survive. This means that risky houses aren't going to get as much funding - which means less good games will be produced. Unfortunately, this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: since nobody can fund a risky game, none are made - or worse, those which are made are low quality. The business people then see this and (wrongly) conclude that investing money in risky games (i.e. deep games) is a bad idea.

Contrast this to "the Good Ole Days" when a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night gig could produce successful games on a tiny amount of money. [iD software, anyone?] In those days, it was thoroughly possible to make risky games and succeed, so the statistical number of risky games was higher. As games have become more advanced, more involved, and more expensive, the business side has taken over, and the creative side tends to suffer as a result. The trend is only going to be bucked when the control of game content is wrested away from publishers and returned to developers - which, considering the cost of game production, is no trivial task. It may not even be a good idea.


There are a lot of us out there in the industry who would love to get more interesting gameplay and subject matter into gaming. But the simple fact is that the situation is pretty complicated, and it's just not that easy to make "deep" games.

Quote:

You never have the risk of starting the game all over. The games may be longer, but they are not challenging and just tedious.

I completely agree. The old simple games had a more pleasing sensation attached to them because you were attached to what was happening as opposed to the monster killing day job. Chess is still a better game than Doom.

At a certain point in the near future physics engines will be running full tilt, particle effects will be rampant and polygon texturing will blur the lines between the real and the digital. The pendulum will have to swing back to inventive and risky design at some point.