Life after VIDEO GAMES crashed.
<div class="IPBDescription">instead of peak oil.</div><a href="http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html" target="_blank">http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html</a>
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Comments
Blizzard<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I lol'd at that
Especially how the PS3, new games, etc just focus on prettier graphics and nothing more.
This is why nowadays I spend most of my time playing my DS or freeware games. They do not worry about bigger and better graphics. They worry about new and unique gameplay. This is just the ranting from a person who played Super Metroid the day it was released and the type of gameplay was revolutionary. Ironically, one of the few games which I feel made the same step as super metroid was metroid prime. Mario 64 was also a huge step. It fixed the problem of what to do about a 2d game in a 3d world, where you can't just have a bunch of levels with a single goal. The solution? make a smaller number of levels, which have many goals. The gameplay is basically the same, but there are diffrent exit gates for each level. Brillant. Then, it got copied about 50 times.
The harbringer is almost no non-freeware games are making a step or breaking ground. Even one of the most potentally great games this season, Bioshock, has technical stats that will make most people cry and is basically a copy of the Sysshock 2 gameplay with better graphics. If it is great, it will be because sysshock2 was great.
The age of innovation is over. I can't imagine what will happen in the next few years.
<img src="http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/sadbear3.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
On topic, I agree with most of that article (especially about the price you need to pay to "experience" the ps3), but I think he's underestimating the power of Wii. Both my parents and both my siblings play my Wii regularly, and none of them were gamers before. I think if Nintendo can put out more games like Wiisports, they could have a console that appeals to a far bigger crowd than the normal gamers.
another good one on that site is the WoW one..
<a href="http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wowworld.html" target="_blank">http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wowworld.html</a>
Certainly an amusing read though'. : )
--Scythe--
he largely ignores PC gaming, and the indi games scene, entirely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but who plays those <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I bought a PS3... I waited in line for it on launch day... I was offered 2 grand on the spot for it... (Well, he left early and gave his phone number to someone else. I was too freaking cold to care). But still.
Yeah, I would have sold it now, but then... it was all an experience, which is priceless.
almost exploded with laughter at work with that paragraph.
I pretty much agree with the article, and I hadn't really thought about it like that before. It seems true that it's the innovative things that keep people interested. Games aren't going to stay very popular unless they can keep up with the innovation, which seems to be harder and harder.
The whole MMO prediction sounds accurate too, though I revile at the thought of MySpace: The Video Game...
how long til we have VR games? it's too bad the Virtual Boy sucked hard.
dumb dumb
<i>dumb</i>
Wut?
This is why nowadays I spend most of my time playing my DS or freeware games. They do not worry about bigger and better graphics. They worry about new and unique gameplay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1600848:date=Jan 22 2007, 02:04 AM:name=Redford)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Redford @ Jan 22 2007, 02:04 AM) [snapback]1600848[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The age of innovation is over. I can't imagine what will happen in the next few years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh?
Just what is this article saying is going to happen? A video game <i>crash?</i> Like, all the sudden no good video games are going to come out or something? That's idiotic. Sure alot of the industry has become high commercialized, which means they lean more towards what just makes money. However that is the case for every form of entertainment. Most movies nowadays are just stupid cliches of each other, but that doesn't mean that there aren't fantastic movies put out every so often. He seriously couldn't find anything worse to be worried about?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
he meant as the output of interesting games decreases, the customers moves away from the industry just like what u mean concerning about movies, i guess
Any other month and they make a measly 100 million dollars, pah!
Eh?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They mean that people will no longer go "OMG WTH, THAT LOOKS SO REALISTIC. I MEAN WTH, VIDEO GAMES ARE LOOKING MORE AND MORE REALISTIC.". Instead, they will go "Back in the day, we didn't need grapihcs, we just had blocks to represent characters".
The article is more pointing out that graphics are becoming less and less of a selling point for video games. Which is true of course. Graphics are near it's peak.
They mean that people will no longer go "OMG WTH, THAT LOOKS SO REALISTIC. I MEAN WTH, VIDEO GAMES ARE LOOKING MORE AND MORE REALISTIC.". Instead, they will go "Back in the day, we didn't need grapihcs, we just had blocks to represent characters".
The article is more pointing out that graphics are becoming less and less of a selling point for video games. Which is true of course. Graphics are near it's peak.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So instead of old people having war stories, old people have computer game storys?
Back in my day Pacman had a bajillion levels...
A $400 and $600 consoles, make to lose money for the sake of initial market share. It's safe to say as of now, only the truly dedicated bought either of those.
I know some of us still play games at 30, studies say about 25% of gamers are now over 35. But can you play games at 40 or 50 without looking like an intellectually-stunted manchild, there in your sweater vest, the control pad tangled in your long, gray, drool-soaked beard as the creeping hand of death stalks your every thought?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's being overly pessimistic here. I think as our generation ages we will keep playing games. My 58 year old dad, for example, still plays games for probably an hour or 2 a day while managing his own business. Most people that age still watch a lot of TV. He plays HL2 instead.
I always say video games are better than movies, TV, or reading because with them (at least some of them) YOU are the one who determines what happens. They teach you to be active rather than passive.
Game ideas do not get "old." It is the environment inside the game that gets old. Now, obviously there are some games (like WoW) that you tire of because that 'game idea' doesn't stick with you, but when you find a genre of game you truly enjoy and love, you don't simply tire of the gameplay it provides. For example, I love good first person shooters. If someone came out with a first person shooter that had a plausible story attached, some good gameplay, and delicious graphics, I would play it and enjoy it - so would the great majority of the rest of the world. Nothing has to be incredibly new or innovative about it, because I'm still enjoying blowing someone's head off, and I have been for the past fourteen years since DOOM came out.
The gaming industry will not crash.
Halo:CE sold five million units.
Halo2 sold 9.2 million units.
right-o.
how long til we have VR games? it's too bad the Virtual Boy sucked hard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FYI the Virtual Boy wasn't as bad as you might think. The only reason it phailed was because it was found to (omgWTHbbqhax) EMIT HARMFUL RADIATION!
the article states that people hate the same thing over and over again.
Halo:CE sold five million units.
Halo2 sold 9.2 million units.
right-o.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gasp! A <i>two game series!?!?!?</i> Truly, this is the height of monotony! If people will buy the sequel to a game, clearly they would buy anything!
This month alone, Blizzard made nearly half a billion dollars. (With the B:C expansion and monthly fees)
Any other month and they make a measly 100 million dollars, pah!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is ###### criminal when you realize that the blizzard studio makes a game like every 3 years or so.
It's hard to rationalize exactly what the hell blizzard is doing. As far as I'm concerned they are an evil empire siphoning the riches and work hours of the world away into an empty meaningless hell. I don't see how the hell anyone or any capitalist company can make 100 million dollars on a monthly basis and sit on it with big grins on their face. They are quite literally doing massive damage to sociaty as a whole.
2) You live in a capitalist society.
I've enjoyed nearly every single game Blizzard has come out with. They always delivery quality and I can't find many reasons to be bitter towards them. The reason they're filthy freaking rich is because they make damn good products, and thats the way it should be.
Oh and don't forget how much it costs to make games these days. Especially if you look at the massive budget on the fallout mmo, I have a feeling the next blizzard title won't be too far off that in term of expense. So I don't think they rip your money, I think you are just 'tight'.