I wish I could make the box a lot bigger. But alas...

2009-03-24T16:19:00.000-07:00

I wish I could make the box a lot bigger. But alas, I haven't gone so far as to figure that out. I put the word better in '' for the simple reason that most games are simple improvements on the original. You still have, after all this time, a dude running around in an environment doing something, a group of dudes in the same interface design as the 80s running around a dungeon doing something, or you've got a play on much older games like chess, GO or whatever else you might choose.

I say 'better' because it seems to me that the network of gaming is an embodiment of the capitalistic environment. 'Better' here represents faster, more realistic games. I wish I could remember when it happened, I wish I could remember when realism entered into the fray, but when it did it did so in a big way and when that happeend, the idea of a better game meant that a better game looked better.

You could say that it began with Donkey Kong Country. It was a classic platformer, not very deep in terms of difficulty or even playability, but it looked great and sold wonderfully. You follow this up with the now boxy looking FFVII and you see pretty games meet with maturity and producing something unheard of before.

I say better but what I mean is prettier. I say gamers want this in that monetarily it is what is selling. We live in this system so I have to judge from the success scale that that system provides.

Now, as for WOW and SC, Blizzard has long had their finger on the 'thing all boys and girls would want'. WoW, Diablo, SC, they're games that are polished as hell, epic as hell, and are easy enough to feel the rise to power in. It's addicting. Although these games are old, they are still playable in that their creators thought of enough balancing keys to keep things constantly interesting.

There's a lot more to talk about but that's all I got for now!

"I think that the creation of the cycle of al...

2009-03-23T19:51:00.000-07:00

"I think that the creation of the cycle of always 'better' video game system hinges on the idea of the gamer network constantly wanting better games."

I think this is more part of consumerism as a whole than a part of video games, and perhaps less applicable here than in many other facets of life. With a few exceptions, the introduction of 'better' games rarely prodcues a genuinely 'better' game, but instead tries to make one that looks better, or even just different. A past game i.e. one that a company can no longer make profit one doesn't actually need to be outdated to encourage people to buy the new iteration, it just has to look outdated.

However, on to why I think this idea of continuing growth/development is less applicable here. There are two really great examples to illustrate this point, those being WoW and SC. WoW is 5 years old now, but this juggernaut of a game is still the most successful MMORPG in history. It could be argued that each successive update to the game produces a 'better' game, but I think a comparison would be to say that each time you play D & D, the dungeonmaster introduces new content, but it's still the same game. The enduring popularity of starcraft is just incredible, who would have thought on its release that it would reach the popularity it has, with celebrity players competing in huge arenas? How many people out there are there who wouldn't believe it now?

Games also tend to pick up players who will stick with a game, a prime example of this being that people still play MUDs and other similar 'outdated' games.

In short I don't think that this desire for 'better' games can be defined as part of the consumer, but instead should be viewed as part of the supplier.

Vistani

P.S. Why do I have to type into this crappy little box?

Comments on What Happens Before Game Design?: Video Games, ANT, and you

I wish I could make the box a lot bigger. But alas...

"I think that the creation of the cycle of al...