Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Games are getting better
I read a lot of complaints about the state of the game industry only producing bad sequels, and no good games any more. And I don't think that is true. In fact gamers nowadays have it so good, they don't even know any more how bad it used to be.
My first computer was a Sinclair ZX81, back in 1981, a quarter of a century ago. That computer had 1 kilobyte of RAM, extendable to 16 kilobyte. And there was a version of Space Invaders running on it, in black and white, 64 x 48 pixel resolution. The ZX81 also played chess, text adventures, and other games, many of them text-based, or with very primitive graphics.
My next computer was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. So now I had 48 kB of RAM, and 15-color 256x192 graphics, making a lot more complicated games possible. There were even the first jump-and-run games, like the famous Manic Miner. But gameplay was horrible, you couldn't save your game, and you had only 3 lives. When you lose your last life, or you turn off the computer, you have to start from the first level again. The levels being rather hard, I ended up using a cheat for infinite lives and leaving the computer turned on, so I could finally see all the levels. The Spectrum also ran a version of Elite, using primitive vector graphics. I didn't play no role-playing games on the Spectrum yet, but there was a text adventure named The Hobbit, based on Tolkien's book, which showed some basic graphics, but was still based on a text parser. So if you saw a boat and typed "board boat", you'd get a message that this wasn't possible, until you found out by trial and error that the correct command was "enter boat".
A few years later I got a Commodore Amiga 2000, the first machine which actually looked like a desktop computer of today. Its graphics were far superior to the PCs of that time, with up to 4096 colors at 640 x 256 resolution, and a "blitter" enabling fast movement of sprites. On the Amiga I played my first computer role-playing games, like The Bard's Tale, or the first "3D real time" RPG, Dungeon Master. But it wasn't real 3D, you couldn't move the camera around yet, you just had first-person view and could only turn in 90° angles, and move square by square. There were strategy games like Empire, which were my first multiplayer experience. Multiplayer meaning several players taking turns "hotseat" on the same computer.
After the Amiga I bought my first PC, and I'm still mainly playing PC games. But PC games also have come a long way. You only need to look at the different versions of Civilization to see how far we have come. I remember playing PC games in 4-color CGA, with horrible magenta and cyan tones. And it isn't only the graphics. With the typical RAM of a PC having grown from 640 kilobyte to 1 or more Gigabyte, games have become a lot more complex too. And they have become a lot more user-friendly over the last 25 years.
But what has happened is that the market for video games has grown enormously. There are now far more games produced every year than before. That automatically results in two things: Not every game is highly original any more, and some games are better than others. It is not that games developers have somehow lost the ability to produce original games, it is only that the number of games being thrown onto the market has depassed the number of new ideas. Instead of 10 new games being released having 5 new ideas, we now have 100 new games being released having 10 new ideas. The percentage of original games is decreasing, but not the total number of them.
And with several games of the same genre available, people start comparing them with each other. Is Dungeon and Dragons Online a bad game? Compared to World of Warcraft, probably. Compared to the old The Bard's Tale it is revolutionary and far superior. You could say that the rising tide lifts all boats, even the junk games of 2006 that get a "4 out of 10" rating in a PC games magazine or review website are much better than most of the games I grew up with. Which is why everybody is playing today's games, and very few people still play Sinclair Spectrum games on an emulator. Everybody who was there at the time will agree that let's say Elite was one of the best games ever, but nobody wants to play it any more. Because it was great only compared to the other games of that time, not compared to what is on offer now.
And I do think that this will continue. The games of 2010 will be better than today's games, and not only in graphics. Following Sturgeon's Law, 90% of the games of 2010 will be crap, compared to the other 10%, although still beating most games of the year 2000. And with the video games market having grown further, 10% of it will still be quite a lot of games. There are already more good games out there than I have the time to play, especially if some of them (like WoW), have the ability to entertain me for a thousand hours and more. And while the doomsayers will always be around, I think we can look into a bright gaming future.
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
You wrote: "There are now far more games produced every year than before"
Wrong. The number of games is steady every year. Reason: development time rises every year and with that the budget too. So less games produced per team per year compared to the grwoth of the development teams.
My first gamnes I produced (for example Katakis, Turrican) needed 2-3 people for 3 months, maybe 4 max. And those were big projects.
Today we need 25+ people, some teams are 120 or even 400 people big. I produced games for US$ 12.000 in 1985, today no PC triple A title is under 1.5 Million, most (like Company of Heroes) are 8 Million plus. Don't ask what WoW did cost...
On a game site (which is no longer active unfortunately) they tracked triple A PC titles in USA. For 4 years they had a stable 250 PC games each year (not counting Budget games).
Wrong. The number of games is steady every year. Reason: development time rises every year and with that the budget too. So less games produced per team per year compared to the grwoth of the development teams.
My first gamnes I produced (for example Katakis, Turrican) needed 2-3 people for 3 months, maybe 4 max. And those were big projects.
Today we need 25+ people, some teams are 120 or even 400 people big. I produced games for US$ 12.000 in 1985, today no PC triple A title is under 1.5 Million, most (like Company of Heroes) are 8 Million plus. Don't ask what WoW did cost...
On a game site (which is no longer active unfortunately) they tracked triple A PC titles in USA. For 4 years they had a stable 250 PC games each year (not counting Budget games).
I am one of those "yesterday's games were better" people. Better is a relative term right? My personal quality era of gaming computerwise was the amiga/atari ST period and the 16bit console era, early Playstation titles got quite a good impact too. There are reasons for the feel of games getting worse. For once games are not magic anymore for me. Now there are reasons why gameplay is fun or it sucks. Years ago anything was kinda fun, just cause it made the screen glow.
Second aspect is sheer mass of games. Years ago i just could not afford to buy the number of games i would like to and so those rare gems left a bigger impression than game_04 i bought last week. The number of titles getting released really is kinda static. Once in a while i read old gaming mags and boy even in the ancient times of gaming there were piles of crap finding a publisher.
Expectations for games skyrocketed in the last decade. Gamers of today are way more hard to suprise than anytime before. As graphics get better, there is quite a demand for games reaching the storytelling level of movies, cause they begin to look similar, so they should feel similar, right? But the majority still is just old concepts only polished, lacking depth.
I do believe that there is a certain time span in a gamers life, where titles are able to leave an impression wich last forever. It doesn't matter how good those games really are then. To witness real technical milestones in gaming is just luck i guess. No matter how realistic looking todays games are, i still put the first sighting of Quake above anything, even now.
What i do think is correct, is the lack of diversity in genres and styles today. How many WWII. shooters flood the market this year? Many old genres died, new ones were created but still more disapeared, than were born. Selection feels narrowed and so less games leave a mark on your mind.
Second aspect is sheer mass of games. Years ago i just could not afford to buy the number of games i would like to and so those rare gems left a bigger impression than game_04 i bought last week. The number of titles getting released really is kinda static. Once in a while i read old gaming mags and boy even in the ancient times of gaming there were piles of crap finding a publisher.
Expectations for games skyrocketed in the last decade. Gamers of today are way more hard to suprise than anytime before. As graphics get better, there is quite a demand for games reaching the storytelling level of movies, cause they begin to look similar, so they should feel similar, right? But the majority still is just old concepts only polished, lacking depth.
I do believe that there is a certain time span in a gamers life, where titles are able to leave an impression wich last forever. It doesn't matter how good those games really are then. To witness real technical milestones in gaming is just luck i guess. No matter how realistic looking todays games are, i still put the first sighting of Quake above anything, even now.
What i do think is correct, is the lack of diversity in genres and styles today. How many WWII. shooters flood the market this year? Many old genres died, new ones were created but still more disapeared, than were born. Selection feels narrowed and so less games leave a mark on your mind.
I think i even played a RPG game on my ZX81.
It was called Dictator and ofcourse purely text based.
I think the only character advancement that you could reach was the amount of money on your swiss bank account ;)
Thorsten
It was called Dictator and ofcourse purely text based.
I think the only character advancement that you could reach was the amount of money on your swiss bank account ;)
Thorsten
My first gaming experience was on an Apple II+ playing the game Castle Wolfenstein (non 3D). For those who remember, that game was a stick man who ran from screen to screen similar to the first Zelda game, until confronted by other stick men. The shooting was inaccurate and the computer scored hits nearly all the time, but other than that, I thought the game was a blast (at the time).
I'm optimistic when it comes to new games because even some of the games that have been released lately have been quite fun for me: Titan Quest reminded me of what carpule tunnel syndrome felt like again, WOW taught me what it's like to truly feel as if my character is alive in some far away universe, and The Battle For Middle Earth series was a nice break from commanding tanks all the time. To the people that claim PC gaming is on it's way out, I quote the sometimes wise Arnold Schwarzenegger "Stop Whining!"
I'm optimistic when it comes to new games because even some of the games that have been released lately have been quite fun for me: Titan Quest reminded me of what carpule tunnel syndrome felt like again, WOW taught me what it's like to truly feel as if my character is alive in some far away universe, and The Battle For Middle Earth series was a nice break from commanding tanks all the time. To the people that claim PC gaming is on it's way out, I quote the sometimes wise Arnold Schwarzenegger "Stop Whining!"
Wasn't Elite originally a BBC micro title? I remember playing it on a Beeb when I was supposed to be studying in college.
I agree with what you say Tobold, the march of time is very unkind to most video games. I like to think that some games are so well crafted that they do stand the test of time. One such game, for me, is the original Homeworld. I played it again this summer and it is still a superb gaming experience - extremely atmospheric and very engrossing. Even though the graphics technology is old the game still looks beautiful. I think WOW has managed a similar trick by avoiding photo-realism in favour of stylised graphics that won't date.
Now for some gratuitous bragging: Since quitting WOW back in April I have played from start to finish: Quake 4, Oblivion, Far Cry (again), Homeworld (again), Battle for Middle Earth, Peter Jackson's King Kong and Half Life 2 (again). I have also spent significant time in Minions of Mirth, Age of Mythology, Rome Total War and Guild Wars and I am currently having tremendous fun in Mount and Blade. Not too bad for an old fogey with a job and a family.
I agree with what you say Tobold, the march of time is very unkind to most video games. I like to think that some games are so well crafted that they do stand the test of time. One such game, for me, is the original Homeworld. I played it again this summer and it is still a superb gaming experience - extremely atmospheric and very engrossing. Even though the graphics technology is old the game still looks beautiful. I think WOW has managed a similar trick by avoiding photo-realism in favour of stylised graphics that won't date.
Now for some gratuitous bragging: Since quitting WOW back in April I have played from start to finish: Quake 4, Oblivion, Far Cry (again), Homeworld (again), Battle for Middle Earth, Peter Jackson's King Kong and Half Life 2 (again). I have also spent significant time in Minions of Mirth, Age of Mythology, Rome Total War and Guild Wars and I am currently having tremendous fun in Mount and Blade. Not too bad for an old fogey with a job and a family.
I will have to disagree that in general games have gotten better. I think games have gotten way more polished but the key thing that isn't significantly improved is gameplay. Take Civilization sequels, the only thing that is improved is the graphics but not the general gameplay (Alpha Centauri is actually better IMHO in making each faction more distinct). For many old games, the graphics and the user interface are too obsolete to get the same enjoyment that you had when you first played it. Gamer expectations have increased for the playability and visual experience. But what is still elusive is that sense of fun that great games have.
WoW has captured that "fun" quite well at least for levels 1-60. And that despite non-cutting edge graphics and no revolutionary changes in gameplay over other online rpgs.
Post a Comment
WoW has captured that "fun" quite well at least for levels 1-60. And that despite non-cutting edge graphics and no revolutionary changes in gameplay over other online rpgs.
<< Home