What are your views on mainstream games?

[Turtiathan]

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.

[Turtiathan]

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.

[Turtiathan]

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.

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.

[Mouth for war]

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.

[Atelier]

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 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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Anian]

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...

[Eggie]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

So what's your cup of tea when it comes to modern games, Eggie? Big franchises like Call of Duty? Simply curious.

[pmartin]

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. 

[R4L]

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.

[Grim]

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"...

[Igor Hardy]

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.

...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?

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.

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.

[Grim]

...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...

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.

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...

[straydogstrut]

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?

[moshboy]

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).

[Stupot]

[...] 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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Grim]

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):