State of the video game industry

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

As a big fan of Bosch and the Wire I do find it funny having Lance Reddick as the morally grey character in Horizon:Zero Dawn. But, studios shouldn't blow out their budget trying to get A-list stars or pivot late in development just to add one (which is what happened with Cyber Punk).

I have trouble also seeing how MTX can be done well. There's less bad like F2P games with only cosmetics. But the concept is abused as hell.

I'd also like to add that there is a difference between acting and voice acting even if it doesn't always seem like it. A-List celebrities often know very little about video games and probably even less about the role they're supposed to play.

Death Stranding sure had a lot of celebrities in it but I certainly wouldn't argue that made the game better when other VAs could've gotten the job done just as well. For the most part they're just a marketing ploy to grab attention.

 

[Gardner McKay]

The biggest issue for me is that many games feel hollow and empty.

It feels like many studios have forgotten that games are here for fun and entertainment, not just spectacular visuals. IMO, this results in beautiful games that become needlessly complex as a substitute for well thought out gameplay and intriguing stories.

Also, your larger developers put so much time and money into a game and they take so long to develop that it results in games that stay strictly within the lines. What I mean is, there are few risks taken. They stick to a formula that they know will result in a sales success because they can't afford such a large investment in a flop.

 

[Commander Clueless]

The biggest issue for me is that many games feel hollow and empty.

It feels like many studios have forgotten that games are here for fun and entertainment, not just spectacular visuals. IMO, this results in beautiful games that become needlessly complex as a substitute for well thought out gameplay and intriguing stories.

Also, your larger developers put so much time and money into a game and they take so long to develop that it results in games that stay strictly within the lines. What I mean is, there are few risks taken. They stick to a formula that they know will result in a sales success because they can't afford such a large investment in a flop.

It does feel like most AAA companies push the graphical boundaries while generally playing it safe with mechanics, while leaving mechanical innovation to the indies. There are, of course, exceptions.

Yes there are a ton of indies pedaling the same crap and some gems get lost, but they do compensate for a lot of the shortcomings of the AAA side.

The good news is we still get a lot of great games, even if many of our favourite IPs fall off.

 

[93LEAFS]

It does feel like most AAA companies push the graphical boundaries while generally playing it safe with mechanics, while leaving mechanical innovation to the indies. There are, of course, exceptions.

Yes there are a ton of indies pedaling the same crap and some gems get lost, but they do compensate for a lot of the shortcomings of the AAA side.

The good news is we still get a lot of great games, even if many of our favourite IPs fall off.

Nintendo is the obvious exception among the studios that make AAA games. But, it's like mainstream action films. It's hard to take the immense risk by not following a formula. Sony has been willing to fund things like Returnal with a big budget, which was unique in the big-budget world of games (but common indy genre).

 

[Panthaz89]

I just want pay to win bullshit to stay out of games that you already paid for. I'm not sure how the "ultimate" team stuff isn't recognized as obvious gambling to prey on gullible peeps at least increase the age rating(a lot of people ignore this anyway) of the game so kids don't get caught in that garbage. This is why I prefer the strategy 4x games as they tend to be relaxing and a new experience on every playthrough.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

-every game having to have a bloated uninteresting open world.

I'm getting so sick of open world games these days. So many of them don't actually have any need to be open world. They sprinkle in some BS crafting mechanic & throw in all sorts of collectibles for busy work. Just something to do to grind to make you feel like you accomplished something even though it's not fun. Meanwhile, most of your game time is just running through the open world to the next objective. Or you can use fast travel when applicable to basically just make it feel like a linear game.

I miss when open world games were much smaller but every corner had meaning. Terminator Resistance was a good recent example. It wasn't truly open world but a lot of maps were a big, wide open level. There was reason to explore every nook and cranny but the maps were small enough that it didn't feel overbearing. The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series was great for it too. Every location had meaning and impact. It was fun to explore, it felt rewarding, it was still challenging. I wish open world devs would take note from those games but I guess they just want to follow the marketing buzz words of "Our game is XXXX sq km! You won't ever see 90% of it because it's just an empty void but you COULD see this much land!"

Want me to list you 10+ games I enjoyed playing in the past 5 years alone? Here you go, this is off the top of my head without giving it much thought:

Divinity: Original Sin 2
Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Crusader Kings 3
Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Super Smash Bros Ultimate
Super Mario Odyssey
Red Dead Redemption 2

These are games I actually enjoyed playing even though I wasn't able to finish some of them due to a very hard personal schedule. I'm sure there are other good ones out there that I haven't had the chance of trying.

I feel like listing about 2.2 games you enjoyed per year over a 5 year span isn't as good of an argument as you think it is. That's what one of the concerns about this topic is, the great games are few and far between. One great game on average of every 5-6 months with how many studios are making games is not a very high percentage.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I think streamers do more harm than good for the gaming community and placating them has become too big of a priority in modern gaming. This could just be a generational gap as i don't understand the appeal for people watching someone else play a videogame, but allowing games to be molded according to what streamers and their audience will flock to has not been good.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I think streamers do more harm than good for the gaming community and placating them has become too big of a priority in modern gaming. This could just be a generational gap as i don't understand the appeal for people watching someone else play a videogame, but allowing games to be molded according to what streamers and their audience will flock to has not been good.

Watching someone else play a game is a good way to gauge your interest in the game if you haven't purchased it yet while also getting a (hopefully) objective view on it.

As for the streamers themselves, it often comes down to personality. I find that most of the more popular names out there are bland or their "personalities" are hilariously forced (Ninja is a good example), but some of the smaller time ones are definitely more enjoyable.

 

[SuperScript29]

I feel like listing about 2.2 games you enjoyed per year over a 5 year span isn't as good of an argument as you think it is. That's what one of the concerns about this topic is, the great games are few and far between. One great game on average of every 5-6 months with how many studios are making games is not a very high percentage.

I listed games that I thought were great regardless of generation. I'm sure I would list more if I had time to play, but running a home with 3 kids, day job, other obligations, etc takes a huge time away from playing games.

Like I said, I would worry the day I'm looking for a new good game to play, and I find nothing.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Watching someone else play a game is a good way to gauge your interest in the game if you haven't purchased it yet while also getting a (hopefully) objective view on it.

As for the streamers themselves, it often comes down to personality. I find that most of the more popular names out there are bland or their "personalities" are hilariously forced (Ninja is a good example), but some of the smaller time ones are definitely more enjoyable.

Fair enough, i think it's a dumb waste of time but if there's an appeal for it...to each their own. But that doesn't change my opinion on how catering to these people leads to a lot of changes that only appeal to a select few while affecting everyone. Not to mention this idea of games "dying" because streamers won't play it. You see this in shooters where the "pro's" have a lot of input which shapes how the gameplay and maps are designed...sometimes being good for everyone and sometimes only being good for the pro players. I'm not big into fighting or racing games but i'm sure it rears it's ugly head in these genres as well, think Smash and Forza. It's popping up in Ultimate Team modes again (which i quit playing recently and am very proud of my adult self for doing so ) where a select few streamers advocate for changes, claim to have the ears of these larger gaming companies, and then can't handle the backlash when these changes are made and the community hates it.

It's a broader sign of a fundamental apathy gaming studios have towards communicating with consumers. They don't listen to the complaints made by thousands of people but will listen to the half dozen streamers with thousands of "followers" who are usually at the elite end of the competitive spectrum for their respective games. So streamers get what they want while the majority of the community gets additional problems to deal with. Seeing a game company address select issues frustrates people who play these games a lot. it shows that these companies ARE capable of hearing and reacting to criticisms..but only if it caters to streaming eyeballs. GTFO.

Community response is tricky because you don't want your game dictated entirely by community feedback, but to see the only feedback relevant to studios being from the streaming community is disheartening as it chases short term solutions over generalized ideologies for fixing issues and creating better games.

 

[Mikeaveli]

Fair enough, i think it's a dumb waste of time but if there's an appeal for it...to each their own. But that doesn't change my opinion on how catering to these people leads to a lot of changes that only appeal to a select few while affecting everyone. Not to mention this idea of games "dying" because streamers won't play it. You see this in shooters where the "pro's" have a lot of input which shapes how the gameplay and maps are designed...sometimes being good for everyone and sometimes only being good for the pro players. I'm not big into fighting or racing games but i'm sure it rears it's ugly head in these genres as well, think Smash and Forza. It's popping up in Ultimate Team modes again (which i quit playing recently and am very proud of my adult self for doing so ) where a select few streamers advocate for changes, claim to have the ears of these larger gaming companies, and then can't handle the backlash when these changes are made and the community hates it.

It's a broader sign of a fundamental apathy gaming studios have towards communicating with consumers. They don't listen to the complaints made by thousands of people but will listen to the half dozen streamers with thousands of "followers" who are usually at the elite end of the competitive spectrum for their respective games. So streamers get what they want while the majority of the community gets additional problems to deal with. Seeing a game company address select issues frustrates people who play these games a lot. it shows that these companies ARE capable of hearing and reacting to criticisms..but only if it caters to streaming eyeballs. GTFO.

Community response is tricky because you don't want your game dictated entirely by community feedback, but to see the only feedback relevant to studios being from the streaming community is disheartening as it chases short term solutions over generalized ideologies for fixing issues and creating better games.

Playing video games is also a dumb waste of time lol. I don't know how you can see that in watching a stream but not in playing a game yourself.

Anyways, can you give some examples of what you're talking about here? I've never heard of a streamer dictating the design of a game. If anything its mostly angry mobs on Reddit and Twitter that game devs fold to.

 

[Panthaz89]

Fair enough, i think it's a dumb waste of time but if there's an appeal for it...to each their own. But that doesn't change my opinion on how catering to these people leads to a lot of changes that only appeal to a select few while affecting everyone. Not to mention this idea of games "dying" because streamers won't play it. You see this in shooters where the "pro's" have a lot of input which shapes how the gameplay and maps are designed...sometimes being good for everyone and sometimes only being good for the pro players. I'm not big into fighting or racing games but i'm sure it rears it's ugly head in these genres as well, think Smash and Forza. It's popping up in Ultimate Team modes again (which i quit playing recently and am very proud of my adult self for doing so ) where a select few streamers advocate for changes, claim to have the ears of these larger gaming companies, and then can't handle the backlash when these changes are made and the community hates it.

It's a broader sign of a fundamental apathy gaming studios have towards communicating with consumers. They don't listen to the complaints made by thousands of people but will listen to the half dozen streamers with thousands of "followers" who are usually at the elite end of the competitive spectrum for their respective games. So streamers get what they want while the majority of the community gets additional problems to deal with. Seeing a game company address select issues frustrates people who play these games a lot. it shows that these companies ARE capable of hearing and reacting to criticisms..but only if it caters to streaming eyeballs. GTFO.

Community response is tricky because you don't want your game dictated entirely by community feedback, but to see the only feedback relevant to studios being from the streaming community is disheartening as it chases short term solutions over generalized ideologies for fixing issues and creating better games.

Watch someone stream a rage game you'll be laughing in no time. Also Youtube should remove all the lootbox opening videos with a special emphasis to the ones that are obviously rigged.

 

[SuperScript29]

I think streamers do more harm than good for the gaming community and placating them has become too big of a priority in modern gaming. This could just be a generational gap as i don't understand the appeal for people watching someone else play a videogame, but allowing games to be molded according to what streamers and their audience will flock to has not been good.

I'm actually glad there are people who stream games and put their videos on youtube. I don't necessarily watch them, but it's a good way for me to decide whether the game is worth a play or not based on first gameplay impressions.

 

[Tonneau]

Watch someone stream a rage game you'll be laughing in no time.

It's especially funny if you've played those games before.

I've never heard of a streamer dictating the design of a game.

Path of Exile is a game that is 100% designed for professional type players (many of whom are streamers).

 

[93LEAFS]

Fair enough, i think it's a dumb waste of time but if there's an appeal for it...to each their own. But that doesn't change my opinion on how catering to these people leads to a lot of changes that only appeal to a select few while affecting everyone. Not to mention this idea of games "dying" because streamers won't play it. You see this in shooters where the "pro's" have a lot of input which shapes how the gameplay and maps are designed...sometimes being good for everyone and sometimes only being good for the pro players. I'm not big into fighting or racing games but i'm sure it rears it's ugly head in these genres as well, think Smash and Forza. It's popping up in Ultimate Team modes again (which i quit playing recently and am very proud of my adult self for doing so ) where a select few streamers advocate for changes, claim to have the ears of these larger gaming companies, and then can't handle the backlash when these changes are made and the community hates it.

It's a broader sign of a fundamental apathy gaming studios have towards communicating with consumers. They don't listen to the complaints made by thousands of people but will listen to the half dozen streamers with thousands of "followers" who are usually at the elite end of the competitive spectrum for their respective games. So streamers get what they want while the majority of the community gets additional problems to deal with. Seeing a game company address select issues frustrates people who play these games a lot. it shows that these companies ARE capable of hearing and reacting to criticisms..but only if it caters to streaming eyeballs. GTFO.

Community response is tricky because you don't want your game dictated entirely by community feedback, but to see the only feedback relevant to studios being from the streaming community is disheartening as it chases short term solutions over generalized ideologies for fixing issues and creating better games.

Haha, this reminds me of season one Mythic Quest and their relationship with that kid streamer. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to watch a video game stream or watch people play it competitively. I'll watch reviews, or news, but I don't have the patience to watch a stream, and I'm not too worried about being burned on a game (outside of a few releases and Nintendo games, I wait until sizable sales).

 

[Shareefruck]

A stream's no more of a waste of time than a podcast, director's commentary, or reading a discussion on a message board like this one, really. Count me in as someone who thinks watching people appreciate, interpret, and give their impressions on things can be just as interesting as seeing the thing itself (hell, it's why I enjoy this place). They're essentially like extended in-depth reviews.

The typical gimmicky degenerate popular rage streamer with an attitude problem is definitely pretty insufferable, but some streamers are legitimately insightful, charismatic, and witty personalities with interesting perspectives on videogames (I'm a fan of Kyle Bosman from Easy Allies, for example).

 

[Osprey]

Playing video games is also a dumb waste of time lol. I don't know how you can see that in watching a stream but not in playing a game yourself.

I'd say that there's a pretty big difference between playing a game and watching someone else play one. It's the difference between active and passive participation. Playing games is a lot more mentally stimulating and engaging than just watching, similar to sports. I wouldn't call it a dumb waste of time compared to other forms of entertainment that are more passive.

I'm actually glad there are people who stream games and put their videos on youtube. I don't necessarily watch them, but it's a good way for me to decide whether the game is worth a play or not based on first gameplay impressions.

I think that a distinction needs to be made here between, say, YouTube gameplay videos and Twitch streams. YouTube gameplay videos are, indeed, very handy for seeing if a game is your type of game or learning how to do things in them. Twitch streams, which I think that x Tame Impala is referring to, are less for educational/informational purposes and more for entertainment, IMO. Maybe some people watch Twitch streams to find out if they'll like a game, though, I don't know, but I think that he's referring more to the community that keeps following and watching streamers play games that they've already seen or played a lot of.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Playing video games is also a dumb waste of time lol. I don't know how you can see that in watching a stream but not in playing a game yourself.

Anyways, can you give some examples of what you're talking about here? I've never heard of a streamer dictating the design of a game. If anything its mostly angry mobs on Reddit and Twitter that game devs fold to.

Right but the point of a videogame is to actually play it. Even if it’s a turn-based game, or super narrative driven, or simming franchise mode you’re still the one actually doing it. That’s what makes it fun!

Montage videos were very cool when I was younger, always loved those, but the thought of watching someone play even something I loved like BOTW sounds incredibly boring. I’d get no enjoyment out of that whatsoever.

I gave two examples in the post you quoted

 

[RandV]

I'd say that there's a pretty big difference between playing a game and watching someone else play one. Playing games is a lot more mentally stimulating and engaging. I wouldn't call it a dumb waste of time.

How I break the streaming thing down through anecdotal experience of having a large extended: young kids who may not yet be able to grasp the complexity of the game (guesstimate up to about age 10 or so) get as much enjoyment if not more watching the grownups/older kids play. This was my experience prior to youtube being much of a thing, but with that available I can just imagine how much time kids can spend doing this. And now it's been around long enough that you have a generation of now gaming adults to whom it's 'normal'.

Personally on Steam it annoys me when I click on a game on a store page and it loads up playing in the top, I hate seeing their stupid faces and I close it as soon as possible. But otherwise I don't judge and can understand other people liking it. Again the only time I've been able to find actual entertainment from watching others play is with Starcraft 2.

As for the topic thread... really it's nothing new, this stuff has been going for probably 20 years. Only difference is the next big trend for companies to chase changes every few years.

 

[Ceremony]

A stream's no more of a waste of time than a podcast, director's commentary, or reading a discussion on a message board like this one, really. Count me in as someone who thinks watching people appreciate, interpret, and give their impressions on things can be just as interesting as seeing the thing itself (hell, it's why I enjoy this place). They're essentially like extended in-depth reviews.

The typical gimmicky degenerate popular rage streamer with an attitude problem is definitely pretty insufferable, but some streamers are legitimately insightful, charismatic, and witty personalities with interesting perspectives on videogames (I'm a fan of Kyle Bosman from Easy Allies, for example).

This largely sums up my views on the subject, with the addition that if you're playing something that's competitive or predominately skill-based it's often a helpful way of learning more about the game.

 

[Shareefruck]

Right but the point of a videogame is to actually play it. Even if it’s a turn-based game, or super narrative driven, or simming franchise mode you’re still the one actually doing it. That’s what makes it fun!

Montage videos were very cool when I was younger, always loved those, but the thought of watching someone play even something I loved like BOTW sounds incredibly boring. I’d get no enjoyment out of that whatsoever.

I gave two examples in the post you quoted

Nobody can really reasonably have much of an issue with you personally finding it boring and being unable to get any enjoyment out of that, but that doesn't make it dumb.

Personally, not even just with videogames, when some piece of entertainment really blows me away, I'm overcome with a strong impulse to share it with everyone, gush about it in conversation, and pass that feeling along (though that's often a lost cause)-- again, it's what I use this place for. It's just an empathy/self-satisfaction thing, and watching a stream to see another perspective can be an outlet for that. It's technically a "waste of time", but in the same way that any form of entertainment/communication/comfort-food is. Watching a comedian or listening to a podcast with a relateable perspective or like interests is the same thing.

Outside of that, it's just a useful sampling tool that as a reference, is arguably superior to dry Youtube references, because it's in context of an actual first-hand impression, which is going to be more revealing (especially for someone like me who doesn't care about the idea of spoilers). Just like how a review is more revealing than a spec sheet.

That said, I do despise the creepily parasocial, baby-sitting, paying-for-attention, "How's everyone's day?" side of streaming (rather just nuke the chat, most days), but that's true of anything that can be over-invested in and is more of streamer-choice issue. When the engagement is strictly focused on the game, I really see no issue with that.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Nobody can really reasonably have much of an issue with you personally finding it boring and being unable to get any enjoyment out of that, but that doesn't make it dumb.

Personally, not even just with videogames, when some piece of entertainment really blows me away, I'm overcome with a strong impulse to share it with everyone, gush about it in conversation, and pass that feeling along (though that's often a lost cause)-- again, it's what I use this place for. It's just an empathy/self-satisfaction thing, and watching a stream to see another perspective can be an outlet for that. It's technically a "waste of time", but in the same way that any form of entertainment/communication/comfort-food is. Watching a comedian or listening to a podcast with a relateable perspective or like interests is the same thing.

Outside of that, it's just a useful sampling tool that as a reference, is arguably superior to dry Youtube references, because it's in context of an actual first-hand impression, which is going to be more revealing (especially for someone like me who doesn't care about the idea of spoilers). Just like how a review is more revealing than a spec sheet.

That said, I do despise the creepily parasocial, baby-sitting, paying-for-attention, "How's everyone's day?" side of streaming, but that's true of anything that can be over-invested in and is more of streamer-choice issue.

To each their own. I find it a hollow way to immerse yourself further in an already time-wasting endeavor like playing videogames.

 

[Shareefruck]

To each their own. I find it a hollow way to immerse yourself further in an already time-wasting endeavor like playing videogames.

For me, that really just depends on how good/substantive the specific game itself is and how much meat there is to chew on and discuss (as well as how much interest the streamer has in that/how effective they are as a companion-piece to it). I definitely don't see the point in watching time-waster games, or watching for the sake of seeing someone rage-- that's a pretty cheap/hollow andrenaline rush, IMO. But that's just about being selective.

For example, a person might hate reaction videos, but would love to watch someone like Larry David comb through every episode of a great series and pick his brain. That spectrum applies to streaming too.

My view on art/creative mediums is that it's normally a waste of time, until it gets good enough that it's not, and then it becomes arguably more valuable than most things that aren't a waste of time. Videogames aren't necessarily an exception to that, I think.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I would rather watch an 8-10 minute video discussing Hollow Knight or BOTW or Dark Souls or whatever than watch someone play it. Sitting there for a half hour watching someone else play a videogame will always seem boring to me and I’ve loved videogames since I was 5 years old playing Sonic the Hedgehog for the first time.

I’d watch a buddy play a game in person for a little while sure. But some random on the Internet, no thanks. I like “Act Man” on YouTube every now and then but the thought of watching him stream Halo, talking about the game, has no appeal to me

 

[Shareefruck]

I would rather watch an 8-10 minute video discussing Hollow Knight or BOTW or Dark Souls or whatever than watch someone play it. Sitting there for a half hour watching someone else play a videogame will always seem boring to me and I’ve loved videogames since I was 5 years old playing Sonic the Hedgehog for the first time.

I’d watch a buddy play a game in person for a little while sure. But some random on the Internet, no thanks. I like “Act Man” on YouTube every now and then but the thought of watching him stream Halo, talking about the game, has no appeal to me

Some games stream better than others. I've never been able to watch Soulsborne games either--too repetitive and most of the satisfaction of those games is playing it, but I've seen what I felt were some really worthwhile streams of things like Super Metroid, Disco Elysium, Inside, and Final Fantasy Tactics, personally (where the appeal is as much about dissection and admiration for craft/what's being communicated). I sort of feel the opposite-- watching a buddy play a game in person sounds like it could be mind-numbingly boring/frustrating to me-- what are the odds that they have anything interesting to say? But someone with an interesting perspective and is actually engaged/inquisitive? Sure. Whether it happens to be a stranger or a friend seems like it should be irrelevant.

There's definitely an issue of whether someone has the time/patience for the investment, but there's also a difference in value between seeing edited down final thoughts and seeing something organically unfold first hand that isn't worthless, IMO.

To me, it's kind of like saying "Why watch that 'Get Back' Beatles fly-on-the-wall documentary when I can just listen to the finished album/roof-top performance? It's just mindless indulgence."-- Not really. There can be something additionally interesting about diving into the longer form process and seeing the magic/circumstances unfold organically.

Right but the point of a videogame is to actually play it. Even if it’s a turn-based game, or super narrative driven, or simming franchise mode you’re still the one actually doing it. That’s what makes it fun!

Seems like a very narrow and rigid way of looking at it. Like saying the purpose of music is to dance or bop your head to it rather than think about it afterwards, and that the former is the only way to obtain any fun out of it. Not necessarily.

The "purpose" of any medium is whatever you can draw from it that has value, however that's done.