What are your views on mainstream games?

[Turtiathan]

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.

[WHAM]

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?

[Radiant]

I haven't played mainstream games in a long while.

[Wonkyth]

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. 

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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!!!

[Buckethead]

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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".

[hedgefield]

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.

[selmiak]

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.

[InCreator]

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?

[qptain Nemo]

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.

[smiley]

Still waiting for next XCom

2K is going to release a shitty FPS in Q1 2012, they dare to call 'XCOM'.

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...

[FamousAdventurer77]

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.

[SpacePirateCaine]

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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...

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

Somehow 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!

[InCreator]

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.

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.

[Turtiathan]

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.