Someone probably already asked this question before but what the hey. By mainstream games, I am talking about the games that we see and hear about all the time. (PC, PS3, X-Box 360, etc.)
I think some of it is fun while others are overrated.
For FPS shooters, I think Halo is very overrated when I tried it. I used to like Call of Duty but I think it got boring when I played S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. Stalker was more challenging since the gun ballistics were more like that of real-life. You can learn how to shoot a gun in that game.
I also like the Civilization series. Sim City is fun too.
Grand Theft Auto can be enjoyable but I still think it is overrated.
For RTS games, I like Starcraft 2. I used to like Command and Conquer more before EA Games ruined it. In addition, I like the Dawn of War series (based on the Warhammer 40K sci-fi story). Dawn of War 2 had an interesting way of combining RPG elements into a RTS game.
As for RPGs, I like Fallout and Arcanum. It is a shame they never released a sequel (or at least an expansion) for Arcanum.
Personally my main worry is how, in many mainstream games, the importance of story and character developement is diminishing, and how singleplayer elements are being shunned in favor of multiplayer-heavy high-profile games.
I know it's a useless ideal to think "the good old days" of gaming, namely early 90's, should come back with their infernally hard but somehow rewarding games, but one can hope, right?
I haven't played mainstream games in a long while.
Only mainstream game I've played much of recently has been Deus Ex: Human Revolution, because I was such a fan of the old game.
In my eyes, DE:HR is still just as awesome as the original, but with a few upgrades. :D
Also, on a side note, if you're interested in games like Fallout and Arcanum, you have probably already played loads of games from Spiderweb might want to look at Spiderweb software's games. They just recently got a game onto steam, which has brought them a little more out of the shadows.
The problem with mainstream games is that they are, by definition, mainstream. That means they are designed to be bought by as many people as possible. That translates into 2 facts :
- They must appeal to everybody - they must not shock, and they must feel familiar. Hence they can't bet on new, daring artistic choices
- They must be impressive - loads of money invested (reminder: more than in Hollywood) - so even less risks are taken.
The only exception to this is when the game's creator has a strong reputation with the producers and manages to impose his views... But that's very rare.
In the end you get a very dull game, with a totally generic gameplay. Call of Duty vs. Stalker is the perfect example. Compare the budgets!!!
Well the thing is that the economic times are pretty dark and big studios don't want to take many risks. Lots of studios work on Call of Duty games because they know it will sell well. This bother me quite a lot because I don't like games like Call of Duty and Battlefield in general.
Not only mainstream games have to feel familiar though. Most games use blue prints to make sure the game can be picked up easily. You could argue that that would make them mainstream aswell. But I don't think that's true. Games like Demon's Souls have controles that are familiar but the game is super hard. So certainly not mainstream.
Quote from: Buckethead on Tue 30/08/2011 11:54:47
Not only mainstream games have to feel familiar though.
Logic flaw spotted! :-)
I asserted that "mainstream games have to look familiar", not that "non-mainstream games have to look non-familiar".
I think each area has its own merits. I play loads of mainstream games too and I enjoy most of them because I don't expect too much out of it. I spent a long time recently only playing innovative indie games and deep RPGs and adventure games, so when I fired up FEAR 2 after that it felt so good to just run and gun for a bit. Don't think, just have fun. I like to balance my videogame experiences that way.
Portal 2 is FUN!
and Dead Island looks like fun too ;)
other than that I mainly play indie games or/and AGS Games or scummVM/snes9x/originalSNES/PS2. I don't like call of duty and the like too.
Mainstream... the problem with mainstream is that it's a shitstream of multiplayer shooters and consolish third person shooters.
1) What happened to real-time strategy?
Only classic-feeling mainstream RTS over last 5 or so years is Starcraft II which is basically not much more than Starcraft with modern looks.
Which is even more tragic because Company of Heroes showed a way to revolutionize genre without losing any fun... I was expecting great things after this... And then... it just halted?
2) What happened to turn-based strategy?
Still waiting for next XCom and Jagged Alliance, but it seems that only ones trying anything at all are small Russian studios, especially 1C, and unfortunately, none of their games feel like AAA title but more like B-movie: the game :(
Also it's interesting that:
* Free-world-roaming games are losing their touch. At the time, GTA3 felt magically cool, but any latest similar thing becomes dull rather quickly, including GTA IV.
* Capitalistic warfare/quarreling companies is killing good, established game series. Max Payne 3? Where is it? Why did Duke Nukem Forever suck so much? Unreal Tournament? Even Call of Duty is going down quickly, MW2 was just same as first game with additional content and third one - judging by media seen so far - does even less leaps, looking like MW2 with simply different maps. CoD series are too formulaic anyway, you always get that high speed chase, stealth mission and loads of dull shooting to fill the rest of the game time.
* Shooters are getting way too realistic/overbalanced to be enjoyable. That's why Team Fortress 2 is *STILL* hot item.
I'm afraid that game making has turned too much into dry product business and strayed too far from arts & entertainment. "Will it sell?" seems to be loads of more important question than "will it be awesome, unique and fresh?". Just like Hollywood. I'm interested where's the ceiling here and what happens when it's reached. Will the system reboot?
My opinion of mainstream games is very low and if I'd go into details my post would just turn into a long unpleasant rant, but I'll however point a couple of important things. First is, mainstream games are very generic and miss the strangeness, the uniqueness, the personality of non-mainstream games that I appreciate very much and value very highly. Secondly, mainstream games try to please generalized audience, so even if present, attention to details is aimed at the most obvious banal and trivial things that no one will possibly miss, thus making one's journey in such game very non-personal and non-intriguing. Thirdly, mainstream games barely ever try new approaches to things and even if they do they do it so clumsily and cowardly that you almost wish they didn't even try.
On a positive note, that's exactly why I often find AGS games very refreshing and soothing. Games like The Vacuum, Technobabylon 2 and How They Found Silence made me deeply breathe out with a huge relief, knowing that there're still are honest and wise gamedesigners in the world who know what the hell they're doing and aren't afraid of doing it exactly how they see it.
Quote from: InCreator
Still waiting for next XCom
2K is going to release a shitty FPS in Q1 2012, they dare to call 'XCOM'.
Quote
and Jagged Alliance
bitComposer is currently working on a remake of Jagged Alliance 2, the best turn-based strategy game ever created by men. Of course it's not going to be turn-based.
There's a new Heroes of Might & Magic coming out soon. Haven't checked, but I guess it's going to be a cover-based shooter...
Like the music I listen to, I make a point of avoiding the mainstream unless it's something that's lesser-known even within that context.
Because they don't have the same heart, soul, and depth as games that have real developers behind them with real stories, character development, and well...good gameplay. They're made by companies that just want to follow a model to make money, rather than wanting to make something with integrity but still turn a profit at the same time.
Crappy games resulting of that are also because shareholders and investors demand to be pleased more than the people buying the games (ironically.) I totally agree with InCreator that it becomes a question of "what sells" instead of WHY is it selling.
Business is a funny blood sport though. I say this as an accountant who was a former MBA candidate before deciding to concentrate in tax and representation issues. These money-making models fail because they please the investors in the short run, but fuck over the most important stakeholder of all-- the consumer, who's tired of seeing crappy games and eventually stops buying them and tells others NOT to buy them.
In the long run, it's better to have a captivated audience who'll always want to buy and will tell others to do so.
But they don't think of the long-run consequences of their actions, be it with making shitty games or cooking the books.
I prefer to leave the labeling of games as 'mainstream' or 'niche' out of my decisions when enjoying or disliking a game. I'd prefer to play a game based on its own merits, as opposed to blanket loving or hating a game just because it falls within a certain genre or is or isn't popular. I've always been against the whole hipster attitude of hating things just because they're popular or have 'sold out'.
There are reasons why really successful and popular franchises get that way. Admittedly a number of studios do tend to hop on this or that bandwagon and make a lot of derivative content, but those games aren't bad because they're mainstream, they're bad because they're unoriginal. I think that people should put their prejudices and expectations aside when trying a game and just see if it's good or not their own personal standards.
I happen to be one of the people that prefer the more creative niche titles. I love things by independent developers and more creative companies like Double Fine or Valve (Maybe not the best example, since they're also fairly mainstream) or even my current company. But at the same time I also really enjoy a good high-profile blockbuster title like Mass Effect, the new Fallout Games (I also loved the originals) or Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which I just started playing today, for instance. I don't think that a player should limit themselves. You're missing out on a potentially great experience if you just decide to hate something because it gets a lot of press.
I understand wanting more high-risk, fun games. Hell, if I had a million dollars that I could invest in making a quirky, new experience, I'd do it in a heartbeat; but there is a lot of fun to be had in the mainstream market as well.
I rarely play 'mainstream' games anymore. Not that I have anything against them... It's just an expensive passtime and I'm not willing to spend £50 on a game that I probably won't finish. I quite often see a game trailer and think 'if I had a PS3, I'd buy that', but I don't have a PS3 and unless I win won, or get given one, I probably never will.
As for PC games, I don't even have a proper computer, just a cheap 3-year-old laptop that stuggles to run even some cheap 3-year-old games, so I'm very picky about what games I play.
I could care less about labels like "mainstream" or "indie" blah blah blah ... it's all nonsense to me. If I enjoy a game I don't care what anybody else considers it!
Having said that I don't play many video games really but I am drooling for Uncharted 3! I have played the shit out of the first two and haven't had the kind of love for a game since the mid-90s. I suppose it could be argued that they are, essentially, adventure games with some run-n-gun mixed in but, again, I don't care to label it as long as I enjoy it (which I do).
I don't know why so many people say "mainstream" like it's a bad word though? These big game companies are in the business of making money and they deliver games the majority of their audiences want. To me it's logical. It's obviously working or they'd not keep making them... so obviously people want these games! Sure this mass-production-of-generic-games might stifle some innovation but imagine if every game that came out tried to innovate? Scratch that... if every game being made tried to be innovative very few games would actually come out!
I think [we] adventure gamers are a bit more selective but we're also fans of a dead genre...
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 31/08/2011 16:46:32
Sure this mass-production-of-generic-games might stifle some innovation but imagine if every game that came out tried to innovate? Scratch that... if every game being made tried to be innovative very few games would actually come out!
Somehow it worked pretty well in the 90s and before. Most games tried to innovate and stand out.
Quote from: Ascovel on Wed 31/08/2011 17:09:24Somehow it worked pretty well in the 90s and before. Most games tried to innovate and stand out.
Valid point.
However the gaming world now is
vastly different than it was then! It's soooo saturated now! I think the problem with innovation is it will [almost always] extend the delivery date! And these big companies want to get their games on the shelves (making money) as quickly as possible so they spit out "generic" games to the masses!
1) Don't misunderstand; I'm ALL about innovation!
2) There's still plenty of innovation happening (thankfully) but in regards to the "mainstream" label I was just pointing out why so many "generic" games are produced!
Darth: It's not the non-innovation that sucks but the fact that generic sure-sellers kill genres, see my post above. Since it so horribly easier to make a first person shooter that sells, nobody wants to make a strategy game anymore. Half-brained* people with their shiny consoles don't help also, since you cannot use mouse on console and you cannot play strategy game with gamepad.
* - If they weren't half-brained, they'd force industry to innovate and find a way to play strategy games on console. But instead they buy & are happy with that 3rd person shooter shit and dump money on business that doesn't justify its profits nor care for consumers.Quote from: smiley on Tue 30/08/2011 23:46:56
2K is going to release a shitty FPS in Q1 2012, they dare to call 'XCOM'.
There's actually real sequel in works too, promised by the end of the year.
http://www.xenonauts.com/
It looks better, truer to the original and with more potential than previous 101 fan attempts, so I hope it's the one that will really end up released.
As for Jagged Alliance, there will be next one soon (Q1 2012)! Or it seems that even two.
http://www.jaggedalliance.com/en/
But since it's made by Germans, I'm afraid it will have crappy English voiceover and lazy localization.
So suck on this, "mainstream" games.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 30/08/2011 10:39:27
Personally my main worry is how, in many mainstream games, the importance of story and character developement is diminishing, and how singleplayer elements are being shunned in favor of multiplayer-heavy high-profile games.
I know it's a useless ideal to think "the good old days" of gaming, namely early 90's, should come back with their infernally hard but somehow rewarding games, but one can hope, right?
I think the quality of the stories peaked sometime around the mid-90s to the mid-2000s.
Older games actually don't have that much of a plot either. I know this is true for a lot of side-scrolling games from the Super Nintendo. For example, UN Squadron had a really basic ending where the pilot just said, "Well that was a tough battle. Let's go home now." No character development was done for the three different pilots that you can pick. You just know their advantages in combat. Something is similar for the Gradius series as well. However, they were fun.
I agree that older games are harder too. I am still not able to beat the original Command and Conquer and Red Alert 1. At the same time, Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 were easy. Even Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2 were easy games. Then I heard the original Metroid game was very challenging.
Multiplayer does seem to be more of the focus in games today. Personally, I just play games for the story and/or the gameplay.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 30/08/2011 21:17:37
1) What happened to real-time strategy?
Only classic-feeling mainstream RTS over last 5 or so years is Starcraft II which is basically not much more than Starcraft with modern looks.
Which is even more tragic because Company of Heroes showed a way to revolutionize genre without losing any fun... I was expecting great things after this... And then... it just halted?
Dawn of War 2 has a gameplay similar to that of Company of Heros. I haven't play Company of Heros but I have heard good reviews on it.
Quote from: Stupot+ on Wed 31/08/2011 16:00:25
I rarely play 'mainstream' games anymore. Not that I have anything against them... It's just an expensive passtime and I'm not willing to spend £50 on a game that I probably won't finish. I quite often see a game trailer and think 'if I had a PS3, I'd buy that', but I don't have a PS3 and unless I win won, or get given one, I probably never will.
same here
I stopped playing on consoles anyway. I mainly just play PC games. I like how I can buy games on Steam rather than flood the home with clutter.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 31/08/2011 16:46:32
I could care less about labels like "mainstream" or "indie" blah blah blah ... it's all nonsense to me. If I enjoy a game I don't care what anybody else considers it!
agreed
Don't judge something unless you try it.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 31/08/2011 16:46:32
Sure this mass-production-of-generic-games might stifle some innovation but imagine if every game that came out tried to innovate? Scratch that... if every game being made tried to be innovative very few games would actually come out!
If every game designer tried to be innovative, we would also get a lot of games that won't feel like games. I don't mind playing the same style multiple times if it works.
Over here in Austin, we have a well-known live music scene. The people here are also interested in being weird and creative so we get a lot of bands that try to innovate. A lot of them fail badly and produce something that doesn't sound like music. I remember one band just made sounds of glass cracking. ::) It's all a desperate attempt to be unique.
I agree with Darth. If I like a game that's enough...I don't care if it's mainstream or whatever...I play games on my 360/ps3/wii more or less every day and loving it. Especially Fallout 3/New vegas, Oblivion...I've had a blast recently with Divinity II - The dragon knight saga...Incredible game IMO.
Assassin's Creed, that's an example of a mainstream franchise that's pushing it too hard. The original game was revolutionary down to its awesome parkour sim ;D Assassin's Creed II was just as good. Then you have Brotherhood and more recently Revelations... there hasn't even been an AC III yet. And now an AC movie!? They're squeezing every single $ out of a game that did reasonably well. They get more shallow story-lines each time and just rehash the game mechanics with some multiplayer elements thrown in for the sake of it.
Another thing I noticed is they get more namby-pamby as you go along, to the point where it almost insults your intelligence. For example, you've been climbing for a while, Ezio slips, and a cutscene shows some column fall into place. He actually tells you the column is a shortcut up, as if you didn't figure that out. The combat system absolutely SUCKS now. You can take down a whole load of guards with your hooded assassin dudes with one button press.
... I will NOT be getting Revelations, or any other AC game, until they put some life back into it and come up with another setting!
The majority find multiplayer fun and e-sports are huge now but for me, I'm not too keen on it. People expect some form of multi-player in games now - it's the industry standard. If it's single-player only the dev is nuts (exceptions for Elder Scrolls series :)) because people play to socialise.
To be honest when I choose games I don't discriminate between them as 'mainstream' or 'not mainstream' anyway. I play the prior more because by nature they get my attention more but I certainly wouldn't be put off just because something is/isn't mainstream.
Quote from: Turtiathan on Thu 01/09/2011 13:33:17
If every game designer tried to be innovative, we would also get a lot of games that won't feel like games. I don't mind playing the same style multiple times if it works.
Over here in Austin, we have a well-known live music scene. The people here are also interested in being weird and creative so we get a lot of bands that try to innovate. A lot of them fail badly and produce something that doesn't sound like music. I remember one band just made sounds of glass cracking. ::) It's all a desperate attempt to be unique.
Once again, I wanted to point out that game creators were constantly innovating in the 90s (probably before that too) and nothing like you describe happened. In fact that approach worked very well for creating great games.
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 01/09/2011 23:06:29
Once again, I wanted to point out that game creators were constantly innovating in the 90s (probably before that too) and nothing like you describe happened. In fact that approach worked very well for creating great games.
A
portion, a small portion, of game developers can be held up as innovators, in whichever decade of gaming you care to choose. But every decade also had mountains of populist product that did nothing to further the "art" of video game design. I wouldn't say it's gotten better...or worse.
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 01/09/2011 23:06:29
Once again, I wanted to point out that game creators were constantly innovating in the 90s (probably before that too) and nothing like you describe happened. In fact that approach worked very well for creating great games.
Indeed, if we kept the analogy with music, then the "innovations" that are talked about would be more like "hey, we're a rock band, lets a violin into our songs or try to play all the guitar parts with the violin", the "breaking glass" to make sounds is just a small percentage that has to exist, not only cause there are people who like that but also because another musician might use it as sample or just say "hmm, glass doesn't sound right, but lets throw a box down the stairs and see what that does".
What I am saying is that extreme inovation might not work out in the begining, but it often leads to inspiration and when it's properly applied and implemented it can be great.
Also inovation is not a must for a game to be good, interesting, ground breaking - there is a lot to be said about perfecting a system or gameplay. But it is strange that after so many design work/money and history/experience goes into "mainstream" games, there's little stuff that doesn't get messed up in some games. I know sometimes some elements combined don't make a perfect match, but I am really disappointed when AAA titles mess up some part, how is that not spotted in the produciotn...
Can I be completely honest with you guys... I don't really like most indie games.
Obviously some are great but a lot are just guuuh with the gimmicky gameplay and the bland retro graphics and the never-ending randomly generated levels and the low concept storytelling and the relentless difficulty and the save-the-princess goals and the fixation with zombies that's admittedly better than the mainstream's handling of zombies and the arcade atmosphere and I'm really glad these games are being made and people buy them and bedroom programmers get to show off how clever they are but it's just not my cup of tea.
So what's your cup of tea when it comes to modern games, Eggie? Big franchises like Call of Duty? Simply curious.
I think, in my humble opinion that THERE IS innovation in the game market. But not in the form that we are hoping to see. The way I see it, Kinect is pretty innovative, isn't it? It's innovative as in 'a new way to play video games'. Come on, Star Wars Kinect is like giving infinite candies to my inner child. (But I'll never own a console anyway. Personal rules).
The visual pornography is also an innovation in certain levels. I mean, in two day they'll probably be able to render a sun that can ACTUALLY BURN YOUR EYES when you stare at it on the screen. That's okay by me. Not that I care a lot about graphics and LENZ FLAREZ and all, it's just what they're working on now. It doesn't bother me a lot if they spend millions of dollars advancing technology in games instead of the whole experience. A day will come, probably in a few years, that the technological advancement will get slower, because there won't be to much to advance, and every game will have to focus on something else to sell.
Something like gameplay, history, it doesn't matter. And then, all will be good.
I think I learned a valuable thing from being a poor geek. There's nothing wrong in not being able to play the games that came out this year. Just this year I've got my first video card ever (okay, second, I had a voodoo back then), and my first graphics card is a Nvidia Mx 4000 that someone gave me because they had it gathering dust somewhere. And I'm happy with it. I CAN'T EVEN PLAY AGS GAMES IN DIRECT 3D MODE and I'm happy with it. Why?
Because there are SO MUCH GOOD GAMES that my pc can still run, so much good old games to play, why would I ignore then because some game now is 10000x times more advanced?
When I finally manage to catch up with the technology games will be better. And if not? Well, then I'll have a few rare good games that came out obscured by the CALL OF DUTY capital letters. Like DX Human Revolution. Yeah. I'll probably just play it by 2027 and then I'll say "Yeah, they we're wrong. We don't have augmented human parts now."
Untill then, my best friends are DosBox, Scummvm, and windows compatibility mode. ;D
I don't even own any current consoles; I did have a Wii that I hacked, but then I still played it to play emulators. :P
I play both indie and mainstream. The mainstream and its technological progress ( or visual porn as someone has called it) fascinates me because I just love seeing where we're going with the quality of modern graphics. Things that were impossible when I was a kid with a Commodore 64... I dreamed that one day this and that will happen....and, well, it's happening now, and it's beautiful!!! For me, it's a dream come true!
You get something different out of every game, don't you? You'd play Call Of Duty for an adrenaline rush and incredible graphics and set-pieces, but also it's somehow nice to know that you participate in this global ritual that's bonding for so many gamers across the world... And it's not quite the equivalent of pop music. FPS games are still black magic to non-gamers and most of caual gamers.... And any idiot can listen to shitty pop because the only requirement there is to have ears... I think these games don't as much get easier, as we get better at playing them, too.
There are also great games in the indie corner, such as Limbo, which I played recently, and loved it, too. But it's always quite risky buying an indie game.... I didn't "get" Path at all, for instance, and reading about it I thought it had everything I look for in a game.... But then, I just hated it, and I can't even explain why.... Other games can be essentially broken, too. I strongly suspect some of them are made by bigger companies who realize they've not done very well and decide to go the "indie way"...;)
It is said, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a mainstream game to be innovative.
Still, from the last decade I really enjoyed the likes of Half-Life 2, Bioshock and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Extremely rich in detail, fun and well-crafted. Not as lovable as all those unique games from the 90s though.
Quote from: Grim on Sat 03/09/2011 03:38:04...but also it's somehow nice to know that you participate in this global ritual that's bonding for so many gamers across the world...
I don't understand what satisfaction is to be found here. Brushing your teeth is also a ritual that millions participate in every morning. Why would mass appeal make games more fun to a specific person playing them?
QuoteFPS games are still black magic to non-gamers and most of caual gamers.... And any idiot can listen to shitty pop because the only requirement there is to have ears... I think these games don't as much get easier, as we get better at playing them, too.
I'm pretty convinced that the best and most ardent FPS players are kids who devote all their time to it, and are ignorant when it comes to all other areas.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sat 03/09/2011 09:43:34
Quote from: Grim on Sat 03/09/2011 03:38:04...but also it's somehow nice to know that you participate in this global ritual that's bonding for so many gamers across the world...
I don't understand what satisfaction is to be found here. Brushing your teeth is also a ritual that millions participate in every morning. Why would mass appeal make such games more fun for a specific person?
It's not mass appeal but as I mentioned before, I get a kick out of seeing the technological progress. For me it's a personal pleasure. It so happens that these games that you hate so much in the last few years have served as a great showcase of what we're capable of in terms of graphics. And for a developer, it's always good to see what the big guys are up to;)
Anyway, like there is nothing wrong with brushing your teeth in the morning, there is also nothing wrong with saving a world in the evening by running and gunning and so on. Actually, both things are good for you. Healthy... ;) Because in life there is time for intellectual entertainment and brainless fun, too. After a hard day at work, you sometimes just want to let off some steam... ;)
QuoteFPS games are still black magic to non-gamers and most of caual gamers.... And any idiot can listen to shitty pop because the only requirement there is to have ears... I think these games don't as much get easier, as we get better at playing them, too.
Quote
I'm pretty convinced that the best and most ardent FPS players are kids who devote all their time to it, and are ignorant when it comes to all other areas.
I rarely play multiplayer... But devoting your 6-8 hours to a single player campaign isn't rteally that much of a sacrifice.
Then again, I USED to play online ( Left4Dead) and can't remember any kids on my friends list on Steam. On the contrary, I had a great group of people to play with! - we often teamed up with an Albanian mathematician, Jamaican web designer, German teacher and a Brit who did voiceovers for a living, and as different as we all were, it was great to know we shared a lot of passion for one particular game...
There are kids out there, sure. You give them a smack on the ass for trying adult games and send them off to play outside... :)
I don't play many mainstream games nowadays but I have nothing against them. They serve a purpose.
There does seem to be a prevalence of 3rd person shooters that I personally find a complete turn off these days. I have enjoyed shooters in the past - the early Medal of Honors, Call of Duty 4 to name a couple - but these days I find the marketing impressively dull.
I mostly play old games - those retro classics that I missed out on, especially adventure games - and indie games. I sometimes play casual games on my iDevice too. It's a real pleasure of mine to support independent developers and this, for me, is where the real action is. There's some incredibly talented people out there (and here too, you know who you are! ;)) doing some really cool things. It's a very exciting time for games I feel.
I think cost does come into it. Console games in particular are prohibitively expensive. I'm more than happy to spend £50 on a game if I think it will be worth it, but growing up my pocket money certainly wouldn't have stretched to that! I only just got a PS3 last year so all those games I thought were so important when it first launched are in the bargain bin now. They don't seem so 'must have' any more though.
Of the mainstream PS3 games I have played, the original Assassin's Creed was a disappointment. Yeah, it's cool initially with all that leaping around, but it's incredibly repetitive. It's the same mission over and over again with little room for creativity. I haven't finished it and I don't intend to try the other games in the series any time soon.
Then again, Little Big Planet is a super bundle of loveliness - Stephen Fry doing the voiceover with full subtitles is pure awesome - and it's a great example of a genre i'd like to see more of: co-operative multiplayer games. Not everyone wants to frag* people online you know.
Mainstream games do have to have mass appeal, which might explain why so many of them lead us by the hand, but I don't think they're all carbon copy clones. I'm especially liking the trend towards episodic games like the recent Back to the Future games - and this coming from a big company. There's so many delivery platforms these days, I think there's opportunities for even established franchises to experiment a little.
I agree with the point about Kinnect: It's a great innovation and a really fun way to play games (Especially after the bells on hogmanay when i've had more than a wee dram ;)) I do find new approaches to games like this really refreshing so long as it's not too gimmicky.
*is that the right term, kids?
I find very few mainstream games even appeal to me these days.. Portal was the last one that did on any level. My only beef with mainstream games is the lack of creativity / depth and the endless stream of fps yawn-fests that continue to get released (and sell by the bucket-load).
Quote from: Grim on Sat 03/09/2011 03:38:04
[...] because I just love seeing where we're going with the quality of modern graphics. Things that were impossible when I was a kid with a Commodore 64... I dreamed that one day this and that will happen....and, well, it's happening now, and it's beautiful!!! For me, it's a dream come true!
Tru dat. Indie games are great, and are usually where the innovation is to be found. But mainstream games are where the money is spent, and graphics are probably the main beneficiary of this money.
I'm constantly amazed at how quickly graphics are improving. When I first played the likes of Tomb Raider and Resi, couldn't envisage graphics getting much better, or even needing to. but they did anyway. I remember played Gran Turismo 3 for the first time on PS2 and thinking 'surely this is it, they can't possibly get any more realistic than this'. And now, some 10 or so years later, it looks comparitively rubbish. Although it's almost impossible to envisage, experience tells me that even the most beautiful-looking games of today are going to look a bit rubbish in another 10 years time, and I can't wait to see what games look like then.
Quote from: Grim on Sat 03/09/2011 17:15:22
It's not mass appeal but as I mentioned before, I get a kick out of seeing the technological progress. For me it's a personal pleasure. It so happens that these games that you hate so much in the last few years have served as a great showcase of what we're capable of in terms of graphics.
"Games that you hate so much"? I don't hate mainstream games. I love how some of them look and play same as you. I was just surprised about by what you said about the global ritual of playing them and the bonding power it has. I simply love overanalyzing things like that. :)
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 04/09/2011 15:18:12
Quote from: Grim on Sat 03/09/2011 17:15:22
It's not mass appeal but as I mentioned before, I get a kick out of seeing the technological progress. For me it's a personal pleasure. It so happens that these games that you hate so much in the last few years have served as a great showcase of what we're capable of in terms of graphics.
"Games that you hate so much"? I don't hate mainstream games. I love how some of them look and play same as you. I was just surprised about by what you said about the global ritual of playing them and the bonding power it has. I simply love overanalyzing things like that. :)
Look, I quit smoking five days ago. I'm going a bit crazy. If you don't hate them, then maybe I will! :) I need to hate something right now......
No, sorry. What I mean is that I might've got the impression that you're really against callofduties and such and said "hate" but I didn't mean it in a nasty way;)
Now, because I've run out of things to say and because my son is attacking me/ stopping me from thinking straight, I will place this here smiley at the end of the post ( I never understood what it represents so I might not get another chance): :=
Ok, I've been playing new DeusEx for a day or two now and...well it is really freaking confusing, the game is a cross between Vampire the Masquarde and Mass Effect 2...and while the gameplay is not bad and options to play you want is really good, one thing that bothers me is - graphics and game world.
First of graphics wont let me play on higher settings but god damn it this game still looks weird - character models bend their hands very badly, face animations are off as is lipsynch and so much stuff is recycled/reused and this is not the only game that looks like this and I don't know why. It wouldn't be that bad if for 2 things - this is an AAA title and, again, this game hogs the hardware...I didn't get this in ME as well, it just freaking has trouble with graphics that really aren't that special, I really don't get it.
A bit connected to this is the gameworld - it basically promises so much and yet it's so restricted (ME and Vampire did this as well and while in ME you're on a space station most of the time, when you're in a big city it is just breaking the illusion).
So that's my view - I think it's mostly because game designers don't really care anymore about the hardware and optimisation. Say for instance Civilization V - there was really no need for them to make all the units etc. in 3d but they did anyway and when you get to a later stage in the game (bigger empire) it starts to lag a lot (not really that bad cause the game is turned based, but still breaks the experience).
That's what makes my blood boil, when they try to do something that's been done before, but then mess up on the fundementals.
And while I'm having a fit - god damn Crysis Warhead - I get this cool suit of armour and then I'm trapped in a forest with robots that are so much tougher than me and even worse I really can't tell where the bullets are coming from even when I see them on the radar. That's just poor design. It is also a game that I had to put on lower settings where I cant even see the shadows, because of the vegetation...now all the trees might be realistic, but I don't want to play it realisticly, I want to bring the wrath of cybernetics on peons damn it. What I end up doing is hiding like a little girl in cloacked mode waiting for a chance to shoot with an imprecise gun.
Quote from: Grim on Sun 04/09/2011 16:55:33
No, sorry. What I mean is that I might've got the impression that you're really against callofduties and such and said "hate" but I didn't mean it in a nasty way;)
Well, yeah, I'm not personally attracted to callofduties (which I don't think has anything to do with them being mainstream), but I don't have anything against them being made and I enjoy quite a few other mainstream games.
If anything, the fact that such series as CoD represent the mainstream right now adds meaning to making totally different small indie games of my own.
Btw:
http://ludusnovus.net/2011/08/15/why-so-few-violent-games/
Quote from: anian on Sun 04/09/2011 17:54:16
Ok, I've been playing new DeusEx for a day or two now and...well it is really freaking confusing, the game is a cross between Vampire the Masquarde and Mass Effect 2...and while the gameplay is not bad and options to play you want is really good, one thing that bothers me is - graphics and game world.
New Deus Ex is crap. At everything set to highest, graphics and animations still look like something released 6 years ago. Consolish clunky camera and cover system almost elminate way to play it as a smooth stealth game, plus for me, it crashes to desktop in every 30 minutes or so (same with FEAR 3), despite well-maintained high-end system with no driver conflicts or spyware/etc.
One of the worst buys for me over some time, fell totally for hype.
Interesting enough, I've been getting into love with Paradox Interactive games. You know, the ones with gazillion menus and stats on the screen, especially Europa Universalis III and Crusader Kings. Those games feel like a nightmare until you force yourself to play one 3 hours straight. After that time, you actually chew through this hell-on-earth-of-variable-management, need to do superhuman multitasking and furthermore, cannot help about forgetting about food, sleep and peeing. It's that addictive... Civilization doesn't have much to counter those games with, even though I'm a hardcore Civ fan. Only problem is the scope: I spent 7 full days of playing EU3 just to conquer only Scandinavia and after this, instantly dropped my idea of taking over the whole world or even Europe.
There is some kind of assumption that FPS games are the 'mainstream', and that they are the sole genre dominating the medium of video games, so I dug out some games sales figures from 2010 to see how true this was:
(http://g.imagehost.org/0499/Biggest_2010_Games.png)
Source (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/83386/top-selling-games-of-2010-multi-wii-ps3-psp-ds-x360/)
By my count, there are five FPS games in there (six if you include New Vegas, but as far as I'm aware that's generally classed as an RPG?)
Let's look at the (obviously not yet complete) list for 2011:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/83386/top-selling-games-of-2010-multi-wii-ps3-psp-ds-x360/ (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/83386/top-selling-games-of-2010-multi-wii-ps3-psp-ds-x360/)
In the top fifty games, nine are FPS (and some of them only count twice because they are multi-platform). The first one appears at number eight.
As for the rest of the year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_video_gaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_video_gaming)
I spot five FPS games not yet released (Resistance 3, Serious Sam 3, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 and Halo: Anniversary.) Interesting that they're mostly '3's (and one remake), but hardly a majority.
I don't know if they count game units bundled with Wii and Kincet - which would probably change number a bit, because Stuff like Wii Sports and Kincet Adventures wouldn't be that high on the list.
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Mon 05/09/2011 10:06:36
There is some kind of assumption that FPS games are the 'mainstream', and that they are the sole genre dominating the medium of video games, so I dug out some games sales figures from 2010 to see how true this was:
Of course (most) FPS games are part of the 'mainstream' and even your chart shows that very well. I have no idea where did you get the idea that connecting FPS games to mainstream makes it the sole genre that should top the charts.
Why do you obsess about the highest grossing games anyway? It's hardly the big picture of mainstream.
My point, in part, was that when people say 'mainstream' they immediately rant about Call of Duty and/or Halo, and the lack of innovation within that. What I'm saying is that mainstream is more than that, there's a variety of stuff the public are buying. Most FPS games are mainstream, sure, but most mainstream games are not FPS games.
Also, if mainstream isn't the games that most people are buying (and, we can infer, playing,) then what is mainstream?
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Mon 05/09/2011 10:06:36
There is some kind of assumption that FPS games are the 'mainstream', and that they are the sole genre dominating the medium of video games, so I dug out some games sales figures from 2010 to see how true this was:
(http://g.imagehost.org/0499/Biggest_2010_Games.png)
Source (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/83386/top-selling-games-of-2010-multi-wii-ps3-psp-ds-x360/)
By my count, there are five FPS games in there (six if you include New Vegas, but as far as I'm aware that's generally classed as an RPG?)
Your statistics are console-only, not sure if you noticed that. :D
Quote from: dkh on Mon 05/09/2011 12:12:31
Your statistics are console-only, not sure if you noticed that. :D
I hadn't noticed! You are correct sir, I apologise. I'd imagine PC game sales stats are a bit difficult to acquire, what with there being more outlets (I presume you'd have to collate Steam, GoG, retail, etc...)
Also it would be interesting to compare sales of PC games vs console games, to see how that affects the genres most bought. Is "mainstream" on PC different from "mainstream" on console?
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Mon 05/09/2011 12:04:59
Also, if mainstream isn't the games that most people are buying (and, we can infer, playing,) then what is mainstream?
You provided a chart of only a few titles on the market, and not very representative of the rest to boot.
In 1997, when most adventure games were bringing losses, the charts of highest-grossers were being topped by Myst, Riven and Blade Runner.
In other words, franchises are not a great way to show what types of games are currently selling the best. Lego Harry Potter is not selling great because of it's gameplay, but because it's Lego and Harry Potter. Same with Pokemon and the rest.
In 1997 Riven sold amazingly because of being the sequel to Myst. Nevertheless, the great majority of Myst buyers never solved a single puzzle and never looked at another adventure game besides it (so even buying and playing don't always go in hand!).
If you want to have the big picture of mainstream sales and trends, you'd have to provide something like a chart of most profitable/popular genres and styles of play.
Are you dissing the Lego games? :P
I'm just sayin' Lego sells, usually regardless of quality.
One should define "mainstream game" by number of boring youtube gameplay videos nobody ever watches. That's why CoD series got Theater thing, to increase amount of useless content created.
*Thinks back to days when only game videos in the internet were Counter-Strike ones and usually only really gooooood ones that were really amazing to watch*
Youtube is a wild west of 10-year olds.
Of okay, less bitter definition should be the prevailing game chosen in a game store: Say there's 100 people with 10 similar games to pick but money for only one. This is where CoD's and Halos leave other games behind.
Mainstream is defined by a product's prevalence in the collective conscious. In our current generation of games, this includes three major players: The big franchises, which are your Marios, Fifas and Call of Duties, The Blockbusters - extremely hyped games that are designed and marketed for the Male 18-34 demographic, and there is the new kid on the field, "New casual", which includes most popular iOS titles, most games on in the Wii X series and other games that are not designed for who we would generally call "gamers", or our core market as an industry.
If you break down the list that VWG posted, you'll see that basically every title on the list falls into one of the three categories I mentioned:
CoD: BO - Blockbuster, Franchise
Wii Sports - New Casual
New SMB Wii - Franchise
Wii Sports Resort - New Casual
Wii Fit Plus - New Casual
Fifa Soccer 11 - Franchise
Halo: Reach - Blockbuster, Franchise
RDR: Blockbuster
Kinect Adventures - New Casual
Pokemon Colors - Franchise
CoD MW2 - Blockbuster, Franchise
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Franchise
AC: Brotherhood - Blockbuster, Franchise
Mario Kart Wii - Franchise
Madden NFL 11 - Franchise
Pokemon B/W - Franchise
GT5 - Franchise
Just Dance 2 - New Casual, Franchise
Battlefield: BC2 - Blockbuster, Franchise
Wii Party - New Casual
Just Dance - New Casual
FFXIII - Blockbuster, Franchise
Mario Kart DS - Franchise
Lego Harry Potter - Franchise
Medal of Honor - Blockbuster, Franchise
New SMB DS - Franchise
Monster Hunter P3 - Franchise
Fallout: New Vegas - Blockbuster, Franchise
DK Country Returns - Franchise
GOW III - Franchise
Now, there are very good reasons why these games are your mainstream titles. The Blockbusters are of course the easiest to explain: These games have extremely high marketing budgets, so enough PR is possible in order to make them easy to recognize even amongst hundreds of other titles. They have commercials on TV, are consistently covered in the games news media, and in some cases popular media, and you can generally mention them in passing to a non-gamer and have it be recognizable a decent percentage of the time. Doubly so in the case of Franchise Blockbuster titles, which have an existing fanbase to perpetuate the spread of information even more.
Which brings me to Franchises - These are the games that don't need to be marketed so aggressively, generally speaking, to still turn a profit. By their simple existence, they will receive sales because people liked or heard of earlier games in the series. They may not necessarily do as financially well as their predecessors without sufficient PR pushes, but can be generally guaranteed at least 70% of the sales of the first game as long as they hit the major gaming news outlets of their country of publishing.
Then we have the New Casual. This is a very special case because although it's not at all a new concept (It's hard to find people who've never played solitaire or Minesweeper), but the increased accessibility of games to non-traditional-gamers has created an influx of patronage to the industry in games that are designed not necessarily to have the depth of their larger, more well-established genre brothers, but because of their ease of play, and because the "average Joe" has the devices necessary to play them, they generally try and enjoy, and therefore purchase games that fit in this area. Nintendo and Apple are the real trailblazers in these areas, with Apple supporting game development on their varied iOS platforms, and Nintendo smartly choosing to license games that at the least have the semblance of function (Brain Age helping to sharpen your wits, Wii Fit/Sports Resort/Just Dance promoting fitness, etc.).
The most successful non-mainstream titles that I can think of have to be Minecraft and Amnesia: The Dark Descent - both of which managed to, despite not having the budgets, brand recognition or function, still managed to be at least relatively successful. Even so, these games were marketed to a decent extent, and managed to garner a fair amount of viral exposure.
Non-mainstream titles are things like your independent games, basically everything ever released using the AGS engine, or your average Strategy title: I'm talking more Majesty, Stronghold, Sins of a Solar Empire or Tropico (All games that I love dearly) than Civilization or Star/Warcraft, which owe much of their popularity, aside from being very tightly designed, to legacy Franchise clout.