Re: Graphics vs ideas; the tide has turned
Again, thanks for the good replies. The information there gives an interesting insight into indie gaming.
A couple of points. As always in discussions, things tend to come across more extreme than they are. I do not intend to abandon indie games, but I do intend to put aside my prejudices against mainstream games. I have always known that there is great game play on the indie side and strongly doubted there was any on the commercial side. I was too narrow-minded and need to change that, largely because I think the world is changing. Also, I now believe that game enjoyment is often improved by good graphics. You need both and the indie games usually fall short.
The comment about the eleven new games that look great and only one or two being interesting is exactly what I mean. Those one or two interesting games also have great graphics and are probably going to be more fun overall than a game that is interesting and has poor graphics. And really, how many great games come out a year right now? One or two a year. Previously I stayed in the indie world and never left. Now I will look outside first and only look back in as a second choice.
As an aside, from a purely practical point of view, I will be continuing to download indie games. In Kenya, our retail options are limited, as is our bandwidth. I can manage a download for 20 MB, but not 200MB. Furthermore, I will not be near a real games store until a business trip in six weeks, so I won’t be picking any commercial titles up until then!
As for pricing, I differ with Scott, but that is the joy of the free market. And if the indy companies are doing well, it shows they have priced their products well and that they are good business folks. Ballsy, but good. More power to them.
I agree, Shrapnel has not changed their focus. The gap between commercial and indy graphics has widened and that is what is changing my view. I would like to clarify something about hobbies though. I would argue that many people make money off hobbies, especially hobby stores. However, I don’t think that anyone expects the efforts associated with that to turn into world class affairs. In my opinion, Shrapnel is going to be like a hobby store.
I do not mean to denigrate the work of any of the game designers, this is a philosophical discussion. Further, I play these games as a hobby, my income comes from elsewhere, so this is not a moral judgment. My argument is that a game with great ideas is good, but a game with great ideas and great graphics is better. I may be arguing for an impossible ideal world, but the great games are going to combine both. And, because we live in a less than ideal world, the great games of the future will come out of a big commercial developer. The games that make a big impact and are remarkable by pretty much anyone’s standards (Half Life, The Sims) have both game play and strong graphics for the time. I really only see the combination coming out of the big boys.
As for the niche titles and Diplomacy, I want to present that differently than in my first post. Did Diplomacy succeed? No. Did a commercial firm invest real money in a niche title and try to use graphics in a novel and creative way? Yes. Was a game on city planning pretty niche? Yes, yet SimCity did well and had commercial backing. Rollercoaster design? That has got to be niche, there are probably only a few dozen engineers in the real world who do that. Yet Rollercoaster Tycoon did well, with commercial backing. The commercial companies do occasionally try out niche games and new ideas. It is not the bulk of their work, but with the growth of the games industry, there are now more of these unusual games every year. The “blandness” of the mainstream industry is actually fairly spicy.
In short, I do not agree on Scott’s points about the niche market and that is another reason I think the next “great” games are going to come out of the commercial field. The ideas may well start as indie, but they will bloom as commercial, with graphics. When I say great, I do not mean number of units sold, though that should not be dismissed outright as a measure of value. What I mean is great games which provide excellent game play, have a smooth interface that allows you to focus on the game, pleasing graphics which do not cause your friends to make jokes about Intellvision (obviously a moving standard over time) and provides some level of originality, which make them stand out of the crowd. It is all rounded and pleasing by all standards. It is also going to take money, money that is in the highly commercial side of the business.
This is a long way of explaining why I am leaving the indie scene as my primary source of new games. I will still visit, but for overall quality of experience, I can now get good game play outside and great graphics. I am not so abstract and cerebral that I don’t enjoy watching my troops leave the enemy as a bloody mess on the screen after my clever, deep and realistic strategy took advantage of good game design. (Of course, those who know me will point out that my strategy is rarely clever or deep, but you know what I am trying to say!)
|
Linear Mode
