Are games dead?

I remember growing up that major cultural watershed moments happened through games: technical advancements in graphics and in input were marked by milestone releases with games such as Doom and Half-Life. However in the last 10 years, I don't remember anything as monumental of a release as either of those two games.

We also used to have huge video game firsts like "the first game to have gameplay mechanics with real-time lighting" or "the first game to use AI controlled enemies that have procedural behavior patterns" or "the first game to have a persistently online world" but it doesn't seem like we have any of those firsts anymore... it just seems like everything we've wanted to accomplish is already... done...

Are we now at the point where all significant ideas have already all been expressed in games? Are games now at the same point where film and music is? Have games stabilized to the point of being culturally irrelevant?

No. You're just at that point in life in which you choose to kill yourself or suffer on eternally. Your call.

Nope. Making games is just so expensive nowadays so no one innovates.

>Are games dead
Yes, and you should thank overshit for that

>Are games dead
no but they're stagnating

No. Advertising is expensive, making games is not. And for some reason people want to toss out their games into the real media rather than through internet ads or reviews, which probably costs tens of thousands more per second of exposure.

The main problem are executives and developers. Executives care more about profit than they do about how good the game actually is, or what it's about. The problem is that executives in the game industry care more about short term profit gain than long term. Look at EA and how they fucked up a lot opportunities by simply not waiting. The problem with developers is that very few of them care about video games. Devs that work for companies lack any real passion and see making video games as just another crappy 9 to 5 job. Some indie devs are a bit better, but indie devs are usually in it for money and fame, and video games to them are just tools to increase their financial and social standings.

tl;dr: Games aren't dead, they're just being abused horribly by people who don't give a shit about them.

Creative media like this will never completely stagnate, whether it be movies, music, games or books. Sure things might slow down from time to time, but there will always be someone out there innovating.

As for the video games specifically, we are definitely in a dry path of technological advancement. Like you said, a while ago games were spouting that they were the first to use some new method. I don't think that games have stopped advancing, I just think that the marketing for games has changed.

Before when games were in an interesting time and it was only played by fans that could actually understand that technological talk, it was a marketing ploy to try and one-up your competitors bragging about your game having a new technology that other games don't.

The difference now is that gamers just don't care about that at all. I guarantee you that at least ~60% of gamers have no idea what the majority of those terms mean. Also games have become more about the "experience" rather than the game itself, meaning that it's more beneficial to market a game with gameplay mechanics rather than gameplay development. Saying your game has "the largest open world" is equivalent to "the first game with ...".

>but it doesn't seem like we have any of those firsts anymore...
VR, dipshit

Anyone have SFM of light skinned Tracer instead of tanned?

>Tracer

>With an actual ass

>Are games dead?
>overwatch pic
Play better games

>VR
>Our savior
>Can't play anything fast like Quake without throwing up
Yeah no thanks, if VR is our only hope then we're in a dark age of rail shooters and "poetic" experiences.

VR is the final frontier of vidya, but when fully realized they won't really be video games anymore. As far as games with a keyboard/controller go though, it does seem like we're largely down to executing concepts well rather than discovering new ones.

Creative media never stagnates, however mainstream 'creative' media will. That's because corporations control anything where there's big money, and in terms of games, they will care more about appealing to the masses and rushing a game out to meet deadline, nickle and diming you, etc.

The minute gaming became big, a large percentage of it became 'dead'. Happens to everything like that.

>Advertising is expensive, making games is not
"AAA" games are expensive to make and to market, since their development tends to involve costly outsourcing, especially in terms of music/sound-design, and artists. Basically, what said is valid, although it's worth noting that executes always held back creativity of developers throughout most of gaming's history, it's just become far more of an issue in recent years as the marketing aspect of vidya development has become the primary focus.

Very few developers set out to make a game about gameplay now; instead, they'll set out to create a story, characters, and theme (usually to adhere to demands from publishers and marketers) and then try to come up with gameplay to match it. As a result, many AAA games feel 'same-y'.

When did Company of Heroes come out?

But I'd agree there are almost no must-plays or iconic games. Not sure if it's because of people becoming more jaded, worse games in general, or (most likely) increasingly diversified wants and niches. Hard to have an iconic game if it doesn't tailor to everyone

PC developing is dead so nobody strives for graphics or amazing new tech.

>VR
Yes enjoy your rail shooters. I'm waiting for the next actual innovation in games.

VR is legitimately worse for gaming than wagglan was, because:
>fact-paced games give the user nausea
>graphical demands are through the roof for it to work at its best
>most headsets are not comfortable for long sessions of gameplay
>its inherently an anti-social way to play, meaning even less focus on local multiplayer play
>control options are extremely limited, with most relying on previously-panned motion control methods
>UI is an issue for most games, since UI elements cannot simply be shwon on-screen as they break immersion
>AAA developers consider it too big of a risk, so almost no full game projects are being developed for VR as a platform. Instead, you'll get indie titles and "VR Experiences"

I can say with 100% confidence that VR will not take off as a major platform, it'll fail to capture a market for at least another 2 years if not considerably more.

see

VR is the Dark Age of Rail Shooters.

As far as graphics are concerned, we've reached a point with real time rendering where artists are no longer particularly constrained by technical limitations. All the big problems have been solved and we have ample computing power. The limitation is now the amount of manpower developers have at their disposal to create the quantity of assets that are required for graphics of today's fidelity.
We've reached a point where we can't feasibly do much more to push things further, breakthroughs are now well into the law of diminishing returns.

We will keep moving closer to the goal of full raytracing in realtime, and this will have applications beyond graphics like physically accurate modelling of sound in games. And we will get better and better physics and AI, and VR will get better and better, but these improvements will be gradual, it's not going to be like the first time we saw Quake again.

I'm talking when it gets to holodeck or matrix tier levels of simulation, which is obviously decades away. VR as it is now is pretty shit, but most technologies are at the beginning.

I don't really agree with your perspective, I think you're focusing too much on the technical aspect of game development when, to me, the real problem with videogames in the modern market is their lack of creativity and general ingenuity in game design - and that has nothing to do with graphics rendering or other technical developments.

VR is very limiting as a means of playing and experiencing videogames, certain genres have no place in VR and there's a lot of limitations to take into account that can't really be addressed by improvements in the technology itself - one such example is the fact that, whilst the player sees a virtual world presented to them, they can't physically interact or even walk within it, resulting in a bit of a weird disconnect from the virtual reality provided that cannot be overcome.

you just dont find them as fun anymore because you're not a little kid

if you were 10 when pokemon go came out you would think it was anime come to life and be ranting about who it changed gaming forever 10 years later

Yes, I'm just focusing on graphics there. But there's a point, because much of what people remember and consider to be the biggest generational leaps in gaming are the visual improvements.

I agree that the biggest problem is the lack of innovation. Game mechanics and genres have barely changed in the last 10 years, especially compared to the difference from the 10 years prior.

I think there are two reasons for this - the game industry is dominated by massive publishers who won't take risks, and developers with great new ideas are unlikely to get investment.

The second reason is that we've reached a point of maturity in game development where we've iterated and refined until we've found the best game mechanics, the best plots and characters and there's simply nowhere left to go.

>The second reason is that we've reached a point of maturity in game development where we've iterated and refined until we've found the best game mechanics, the best plots and characters and there's simply nowhere left to go.

I hope that's a hypothetical or a rhetorical or something because not a fucking chance have we achieved this.

Yeah, I can see your points - games have been getting visually better by the year, but there hasn't been obvious leaps; rather, the improvements have been gradual as GPU technology constantly and consistently improves, whilst developers don't particularly push it to the limit anymore (presumably due to, amongst other things, cost concerns)

I agree that the lack of innovation is almost certainly due to publisher's demanding a return - I don't mean to be one of those pointing a finger a publishers, however, as I can actually understand that from a business point of view they'd want to make a return on their product. As a result, however, this means less creativity and innovation in the actual gameplay of games, as graphics/story/marketing are the focus points now, since they have proven to be profitable.

>The second reason is that we've reached a point of maturity in game development where we've iterated and refined until we've found the best game mechanics, the best plots and characters and there's simply nowhere left to go.
I don't fully agree.
Certain specific genres, like shooters, racing sims, traditional platformers, etc.; sure, they have been more-or-less perfected, with mostly gimmicks or re-imaginings of them being produced these days, but other genres such as puzzle, arcade racers, etc. I don't feel are reaching their full potential at all, with many of them being completely disregarded in the modern market.

Everything in entertainment is a rehash of some trope now. Nothing is genuinely new any more.

It seems the majority of "must play" games as of recent are only indies.

I can't remember the last time a AAA game came out that actually innovated and blew everyone away.

that is either an incredibly ignorant or overly-generalised opinion you have there. Originality still exists in the entertainment medium, it's just rarely in the spotlight, especially within the videogame platform.

Vidja hit its peak in Gen 6.

You seem like a remarkably boring person if you genuinely think this.

It certainly feels like it.

I just wish it had taken me with it.

>Everything
>Nothing
sick hyperbole bro

Games peaked in mid 2000's yeah.

So let's hear your examples of something brand new in gaming (or otherwise) that was not twist on an old or tried & tested idea.

if you're asking for really recent then I felt Splatoon was a pretty fresh concept, I certainly can't think of anything with the same mechanics.

Portal 1 also had its fair share of unique mechanics and a different take on storytelling that stood out a lot at the time (and has a resulted in many imitations), but I'm not sure if it counts since it's about a decade old now.

lmao

yeh its pretty bad

Who needs uniqueness? I'm fine with playing slightly different takes on the same genres until the end of my life

that's fine user, nobody's saying you cannot enjoy rehashes. Some of us would like to see more original titles, however.

before gaben eat too many pie and valve get lazy

Not even talking about rehashes, I mean stuff like playing different cRPGs. They're all pretty similar, some might have unique magic systems or something

>I remember growing up that major cultural watershed moments happened through games: technical advancements in graphics and in input were marked by milestone releases with games such as Doom and Half-Life. However in the last 10 years, I don't remember anything as monumental of a release as either of those two games.
You are just on the wrong (aka dead) platform.

user, I realise terms like "rehash" have become incredibly negative terms on Sup Forums, but I meant it sincerely and it's the only appropriate descriptive term to use here.

>people unironically find these pictures appealing and justify fat with HIGHTEST posts
lmao

And I'm telling you that's not what I was talking about, regardless of possible negative connotations
If I may stay with the cRPG example, Divinity: OS is hardly a rehash of anything, it is its own game. That goes for every cRPG that isn't a sequel. Even all the terrible "spiritual successors" to classic games aren't rehashes

Consumer VR is 20 years old. It failed just as miserable back then as it is failing now

in that example, Divinity:OS is an original title within an established genre (I've played a bit of it, it's pretty good but the genre as a whole sadly doesn't appeal to me personally), hence not a rehash. You don't have to invent an entirely new genre in order for a game to not be original, that's just absurd but it sounds like that's what you're suggesting here.

>people unironically find this emotionally stunted bulimic attractive

>it sounds like that's what you're suggesting here
Huh? You're the one who brought up rehashes, making the false dichotomy of a game either being completel original or a rehash

then I misunderstood what you meant by "slightly different takes", I'm sorry.

Gonna need some form of sauce

Is this also a disgusting fatty? I'm not a THICKfag so I need to know

Its called diminishing returns.

Think about it like levelling up in an mmo; in the beginning, progress is fast and apparent because you have just started. The higher level you are, the more work and time you have to put in to climb to the next level.

Game development is much the same, progress is always happening, its just less and less apparent as it improves with time.

Look at pic related. There is a huge and obvious leap between the first and second portraits, but as the model becomes progressively more detailed it becomes incrementally less obvious until it becomes pointless to double the tri count any further.

The thing is this idea can be applied to all areas of games development. Using consoles as an example, the jump from PS1 > PS2 was huge, the jump from PS2 > PS3 was still fairly large, the jump from PS3 > PS4 or Xbox360 > XBone was a slow and gradual progression from one generation into another, so much so that a lot of games were released to accommodate both generations of consoles. A lot of people didn't see the need to upgrade because it was relatively marginal compared to the step ups in previous gens.

This is something that can be observed in all areas of technology though. Think about the introduction of smart phones years ago, and how quickly mobile phones progressed from phones to PC's in your back pocket. But now new phones are released all the time but they are only "improved" ever so slightly.

...

Isn't that actually what OP is talking about? It's all incremental progress with diminishing returns, instead of big innovations that bring something new to the table

Super mario sunshine works practically the same
only with reverse concept in a platforms game.
De blob is a more approximate example,

now i gotta fap again

Now, that is one sturdy lass!

I've never played de Blob, but your comparison of Sunshine in relation to Splatoon is so off that I suspect the same of de Blob also - Sunshine and Splatoon play nothing alike, their only similarity is the fact there's gooey liquid in both games, but in no way do they play the same at all, nor is the liquid used for the same thing at all.

>people unironically find that twig transvestite roach attractive
Looks like a cancer patient with a pink wig and makeup

That image was just subdividing triangles which just makes everything smoother instead of actually adding in more detail. More triangles still give more detail.

this fucking picture again

Your problem here is not the jump between versions. It's that you're stuck on the same object.

Naturally if you make the same shit every time with improved resources all devoted to that one vision, you'll get diminishing returns.

Put more triangles in and the bust is virtually the same. Devote more triangles to modelling a dining room around the bust, and wow suddenly it's so much better.

I think there is a misunderstanding here cause I thought you were talking about the idea, not the gameplay.

A rarity a nice THICC asian

GIBS ME DAT

>thiccCcCc asian
>literal average asian girl
I swear to god, you fucking idiots.

>blaming a relatively young game for a decades worth of stagnation

Overwatch is a symptom, not the cause.

Show me where you can find that "average asian girl" so I can be an idiot elsewhere

...

I know when I'm beat. Well played.

That shading makes tracer look like a lizard person in the thumbnail.
Also TL;DR

>Scalies actually post here.

Pretty much. Games will probably only be around in any major capacity for another 5 or so years. Dead tech in an industry that is cannibalizing itself. The only way gaming can continue is with one console on the market, probably a Nintendo console, and most developers/publishers going out of business, with the few that remain focusing on PC.

Do you know what either lizards or people look like?

The issue is that we're closing down on innovation related to game realsim, dynamic lighting, online interaction, game persistence, are all imitations of real world systems. What remains only becomes exponentially trickier even as our hardware limitations are starting to flatten out (we've reached the smallest point a processor can really function at).

We're essentially at a point, technologically, where we can't lose weight and gain muscle at the same time, we have to start focusing more to achieve smaller, but still consistent improvement.

Thinking that games no longer improve significantly is just underageb& style thinking, too short term.

Focusing on technology alone as a way to measure progress in games is stupid. It's like saying that film milestones can only be measured by the introduction of color. Some of the most important movies ever made (Citizen Kane, Chinatown, Taxi Driver) didn't innovate in technology in any meaningful way.

Measure game progress in terms of game design. In that regard we are seeing a slow but steady evolution in formulas, and the branching out from the mainstream into different ideas of design. Games are not stagnant, is just that the technology fetish is over.

Any reason you chose those examples? I'm just asking because "the film didn't innovate in technology" is true for almost every great film ever made

Google American Film Institute Top 100 films of the century. Only a few of what are considered the best films of the decade had big technical innovations (Wizard os OZ, maybe) and none of them are well regarded exclusively for their tech. They are all good at the language of film making.

Games have to be considered in what makes games unique: gameplay.

Game improvement is just more gradual now. With open worlds being released every month, it's easy to forget how stunted they used to be. Open worlds circa 2004 weren't GTA5 with less polygons, they were foggy, even more barren, and full of horrible pop-in.

>Are we now at the point where all significant ideas have already all been expressed in games?
No, you just lack imagination.

if you go back through the reply chain you'll see the conversation was initially about innovative gameplay in modern vidya.

Did you even read my post?
>Only a few of what are considered the best films of the decade had big technical innovations
That is exactly what I said, I just wanted to know why you chose those three examples, out of interest

Because I doubt anyone here has seen Battleship Potemkin, The Manchurian Candidate, or Ran.

>Some of the most important movies ever made (Citizen Kane, Chinatown, Taxi Driver) didn't innovate in technology in any meaningful way.
>Citizen Kane
Maybe not the best example to use, friendo. Still, I agree with the point.

Not really dead. They just change to appeal other kind of people. You know, cancer kind of people.

>Are we now at the point where all significant ideas have already all been expressed in games?

Maybe.

> Are games now at the same point where film and music is?

No. The mainstream train came faster and the traditional fans and devs didnt adapt well. Devs starting shiting on the core audience didnt help at all.

>Have games stabilized to the point of being culturally irrelevant?

According to cancer they are relevant in a bad always (of course).

No, they're middle aged.

The time of discovery and excitement is over. Now it's time to get a fucking job and do it over and over for 40 years.