A lot of youtubers (Game theory for example) and other people that I know have been talking a lot about the gaming industry and how we are affecting it. A lot of gamers say they want something new, something fresh. That's not the case. Game's like Mario and call of duty are some of the highest rated and best selling games that basically reuse the same idea over and over again. There is really no new objective to the game. While being very fun they are almost the same game evertime. When a new series come, its hard to compete against franchises like those. I want to know what your point of view on the matter is. And please don't get the wrong drift. I have no intention of being rude. 

While I do enjoy some smaller franchises and used to be a huge mario fan, I personally have played many kinds of games that were not from a franchise. Acme Arsenal, Wall-E, Geometry Wars Galaxies, Sky Captain, Defender and Q*Bert are just a few of them. Franchises are good, but I do get bored with those that are the same game over and over again. Mario does break away ever now and again, however. Mario galaxy, Mario Sunshine, and Mario Vs Donkey Kong are a couple!

I think popularity has something to do with this matter. There is a reason why Mario games, Call of Duty games, and other game series are so popular. They have a huge loyal fanbase that keeps their business going. The huge fanbase stays loyal as long as they like what they say and there are more games created within the franchise. The fan base and their perspectives play a major role into this in general. If a whole new unfamiliar game franchise were to come up, people would not be intended to buy it just because it's not well known or they think that it cannot compare to the games that they like. 

While the general concept or idea behind games such as Mario or Zelda may remain the same, the ideas are usually expanded or taken in new directions. Super Mario Galaxy and its sequel aren't 2 of the most critically acclaimed games of all time for no reason. They took the core 3D platforming of Mario and perfected it, taking it in new, brilliant directions.

When a new Mario game is made, subtle improvements are usually made as well. Compare the camera from 64 to Sunshine to Galaxy, for example. In each game, subtle improvements were made, until it neared perfection in Galaxy.

While the objective often remains the same for these games (save the princess, save the kingdom, etc. etc. etc.), the path that is taken to reach this goal can differ quite a bit. To play a game with only the end in mind is to not experience it to the fullest. If you play Super Mario Galaxy thinking "Welp. Mario saving Peach again. I've seen this before.", then you won't experience the sheer wonder this game can bring.

These games may follow a same core formula, but they are not always nearly the same to their predecessors. Compare Sunshine or Galaxy to 64, and you will quickly notice that many things change drastically between each, often for the better. Sunshine's camera was even more of a mess than 64's at times, but the addition of FLUDD redefined the platforming genre. Galaxy revolutionized the genre in MANY ways, and doesn't quite feel the same as any Mario game before it. Sure, the core mechanics are the same, but are more highly polished and used in many different ways.

Also, new mechanics and options opened up through use of the Wii remote. I consider Galaxy 2 to be the pinnacle of the platforming genre, and an experience every gamer should experience, partly for this reason, but more for the reason that the platforming was so perfect and brilliantly implemented. I do not feel quite the same about Mario 64 or Sunshine, although I acknowledge their greatness in the platforming world. They would do well with HD remakes.

Also, compare Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess and you will get two vastly different experiences. The core mechanics are very different between the two, even though TP had a Wii version. Skyward Sword is much more linear, has a different tone, and features motion controls as an integral part of play (whereas it was more of an afterthought in TP). Also, Skyward Sword features a system by which you collect things in order to make your gear stronger, and features unique items and potions. It is also much more linear. In addition, it included a stamina gauge for running and performing certain actions. This had never been included in a Zelda game before, and forced the players to adapt to a new playstyle to survive.

That's a good question, I don't really see us destroying the industry per say, but more like molding it, not whether that mold will turn out to be good or bad, and create another collapse of the industry I do not know, oh E.T. from NES the horror the true horror of that game. Actually now that I think of that game, I should of said that game instead of typing of the dead in the thread asking about the most disappointing game you ever played.

ThatBigGamer : I don't think that the big franchises are ruining anything. They are a big part of what heps the video game industry. I don't know where the industry would be without Mario and Zelda and other franchises like that.

Yes, a lot of us are.

Unfortunately, too large a portion of the gaming community is very similar to a herd of sheep; they all mindlessly say the same things and develop opinions based on what others are saying without really understand what they mean or actually want. 

Too many gamers nowadays hear people saying "we want innovation!" and decide they want innovation, too, when, in reality, they would be as happy as a pig in s___ to get a new Mario, Pokemon, or Call of Duty that basically reuses the exact same concept as its predecessor. It's frustrating and saddening, and it embarrasses me.

I love new concepts, and if you could check my Steam library, you would see a pattern, but many of the games were ones that revolutionized the franchises or made one. I love innovation, but I do agree with many. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and many other games do just reuse many concepts, but, that doesn't ruin the gaming industry...

I play wow and I see the same thing. People say, "I am bored, I want new content"! Then the new content comes or something gets changed and it is nothing but whining about how the old way was better. Myself, I know I like predictability and the same old, same old, so I play and buy the new Civ games and Sim City games, because I expect it to be an upgraded version of the same concept.

In a word? No.

I agree that some fresh ideas are needed, but people seem to be missing two very key things here: first off the game industry has changed a lot these past few years. Much like NFK said, we just tend to repeat what we hear, or at least those of us that wish to be in the deep discussions of the business without having to actually study it out do. And it's come to the point where we're just saying it because we're used to saying it.

A perfect example: Five years ago everything was FPS, with Halo and COD hitting full stride. Whereas in the past twelve months we've seen more and more Adventure, Puzzle, Action, Hack 'n' Slash, Platforming, you name it, heck we're even seeing the return of Beat 'em Ups which practically died back in the nineties! And as such, fewer FPS titles are flooding the market. When asked about the fact that Sony showcased so many Action/Adventure games last E3 a representative said that the revival of that genre was because people were wanting to see more diversity again and were tired of the same old things that they'd been getting for the last generation. One person was even bold enough to state that gaming was more than FPS.

In short, developers are starting to put out more diverse titles now, and while there are still many FPS and carbon copy titles being released, that era is quickly coming to an end. Many of the game community are just stuck repeating what they've said for nearly a decade. Just watch the lineup for Sony and Nintendo systems this year.. you'll see what I'm getting at.


Second: Even if today's games were all the same, we're seeing billions of dollars being spent each year on them, so apparently we're enjoying them.

Now my question is this: if we're enjoying the games as they are, are we really destroying the game industry by allowing our purchasing of said games to influence the developers to make more of them? After all, isn't the whole point to Video Games to entertain us? As long as we're getting games that do that, then the industry is doing a good thing and serving it's purpose. It's kind of like people ranting about how they hate the new generation of consoles and how retro games are so much better...then dropping $400 on a new system. lol


To summarize that long winded reply: The game industry IS putting out more diverse titles as of the past few years, and as long as we're having fun with what we have then the industry is doing well.

Also I apologize if it seemed as though I was attacking your view or anyone else's. Such wasn't my intention, I just get passionate and plain spoken when speaking about the industry I've come to love so much.

I would add, game developers and their supporters (gamers like us) have a symbiotic relationship.  The industry is a product of this relationship, and it really does take two to tango. What I am getting at is, the idea that gamers alone are responsible for the state of the industry isn't right. There is an entire science that the industry professionals apply to try and influence gamers into buying their carbon copies. Those eyeing the balance sheets in the upper echelons of these businesses also encourage and even enforce the lack of innovation - because it feels like it's a safe bet to them. Better to pass a carbon copy that you know will probably sell, than to pass an $25,000,000 experiment that you have no guarantees for.

This is not a new trend, any time a successful game idea crops up it can and will be ridden for all it is worth. That's just good business.

Like on what I normally say that the rapid fans are the ones that destroy that industry or series, like I can name a few series that has suffered this fate.

Anyways, when it comes to the gaming industry coming to a close, I highly doubt it will, sure, I know I had heard rumors about a possible crash just like what happened in 1983 with the "Great Crash of '83" happen sometime in the near future, but I don't think it will happen.

Games has been changing just like Eirinn said, it was all about platformers in the late 1980's / early 1990's, then it was Fighting games in the 1990's, then it ended up being RPG in the early-mid 2000's, then Shooters in late-2000's / early-2010's, and now back to Platformers in mid-2010, so we have like a little bit of a pattern.

I think it will be tough for the gaming industry to fold on us anytime soon.

IgorBird122 : The great crash of the 80s was wrought by an extreme overabundance of mediocre titles and blatant copies that drove away the burgeoning interest in the industry. Given the recent trends toward mediocrity and copy pasta'd video games, IMO, it could still happen again. It does seem less likely now, though, due to games not being a new and uncertain territory.

Man, I think you're right though - about which genres dominated when. I still love my platformers though, so much so I bought physical copies again recently.

Personally, I think fanboys are one of the reasons why gaming kinda has everyone at each other's throat at times. Because most fanboys I have seen, are just arrogant and ignorant.

Also one of the biggest issues in the gaming industry is lack of creativity, and rushing games. Even the awful games back in the day, had some creativity. Now, they lack creativity. Part of that is because modern gamers don't want something creative. They would rather have your typical cookie cutter military FPS. That is why I enjoy more indie gaming then the big titles. Don't get me wrong, there are good games out there that are big titles, but the smaller/indie developers are what I enjoy checking out the most.

Also, the stupidity of some of these developers and publishers, like EA, Activision, Capcom, and Square Enix. The greedy crap they pull. Look I understand they want to make money, but they can make money, and make their fans happy. They choose to piss them off, and then make money, because they know the fanboys will eat it all up.

I wouldn't say the gaming industry is being destroyed by us, but there are some issues there. I look past a lot of it, and look at the games that are coming.

The gaming industry follows the money.  People will shell out money over and over to play the same thing like Call of Duty.  Why would I, as a programmer or video game producer, risk time, money, and effort to try something new when I know something else will work.

Look at movies.  There are the same movies over and over and over and over.  We get a few comic book movies and Marvel movies and they just keep doing that because it's money.  

Look at Pokemon.  It's the same thing over and again the past fifteen years.  Kid trains at low gyms, meets kind of a girl, and saves the world from the same bad guys.  There's not much change in how it goes.

If gamers stopped buying the continuation of games and demanded something new by not buying the next year of Madden, Call of Duty, Pokemon, etc, then the industries will find something new.

Yes, it's the gamers who buy the same crap over and over that stifle the industry.

Yes I definitely think that the consumers are a part of it. Like you said we often say we want new and innovative games but at the same time we constantly buy the same games like Call of Duty, Mario and even though I hate to admit this one personally Pokemon.

Since these games employ concepts that have been proven to work and they make boatloads of cash there's not really much of a reason of a developers risking their time and money to try and innovate when in the end it'll most likely not be worth it. Why try making a new innovate IP when you can just re use the same concept that has been proven to work and get away with it since people will be more than happy to hand out money for it.

With that said I don't neccesairly think developers re using the same concept again always is a bad thing, not every game needs to innovate in some big way to be good. I personally love the Pokemon games and buy pretty much every new installment and some of the best games out there are once that simply took an already good concept and improved upon it. But it's gotten to a point where nearly every mainstream developer does it and where I feel it's hurting the industry as a whole. Luckily there are still some developers who do try to innovate but they are in the minority and it is very rare for their games to actually succeed in becoming a mainstream success.

So yes I do feel we play a very big part in it, I honestly think a second crash could be what the industry needs but it's unlikely to happen due to how big of a role gaming plays in today's society compared to when Atari lead the video game scene.

When gamers/consumers condone iffy business practices that's when they're doing the most harm to the gaming industry as a whole. If people would stop buying pointless DLC and stop pre-ordering, then we'd make some progress.
Then there are the franchises that always release the same game year after year, but what can you do? Fans will keep on buying them no matter what. It's risky for the developers to change the mechanics of a franchise and implement something truly innovative into their games, since you never know if the fans would backlash and dislike the game!

I believe piracy is still an issue, people illegally downloading games, and copying them, etc. But I also believe this is partly caused by some developers, who charge OUTRAGIOUS prizes for their games. Some publishers also treat their customers like garbage by charging dozens of dollars for a simple map-pack DLC (Battlefield / Call of Duty). We're not destroying the game industry, I don't think that would ever happen. But piracy is still a thing that harms developers and publishers by missing the income they would need to create and publish more games. But it's caused by several parties.

I will simply put it this way, without gamers seeing people on YouTube play these smaller games, then most games we play today wouldn't even be bought or even seen without gamers to play and show it to thousands of other people. Basically, yes, gamers do affect the gaming industry, but it can be both good and bad for the gaming industry, not destroying it like you have mentioned, maybe smaller gaming industries are being thought lesser of and put out of business, but that is not going to ruin the gaming industry as a whole.

ThatBigGamer : Well, some people may look at it that way and I agree, it's hard for newer series to compete. I also think us gamers are very picky at games and either keep playing the series or we just stop paying attention to the series making it harder for the developers to improve on what you hate