Slyk,
I think the big issue isn't so much that the gamers are dumb as much as they are....I dunno...lulled for lack of a better word. They don't perceive that they have any power to affect the industry as a whole and aren't even sure of what they WANT. They just know what they DON'T want.
RO isn't for everyone, and games like the BF series are a lot more accessible to a wider audience. That's just the nature of the beast. RTS games like Dawn of War and Warcraft are more accessible to players than a turn-based game like World at War or the old Battleground series. No big deal. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla.
But someone here (I forget who) made a good point -- a lot of people don't even know there ARE options and alternatives. That's why the public, I think, will continue to buy flashy-but-empty games. They don't know they have a choice, they don't know their choices determine what gets made, and thus the gaming companies have no incentive to change what games they produce.
It's only after a VERY gradual shift that things change, OR when something comes completely out of left field and revolutionizes the industry. You see this periodically in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Scenario 1 (the Slow Evolution Version): [Content Creator/Distributor] puts out a successful, but generally same-as-it-ever-was product. The public approves, buys it in mass quantities, and [Content Creator/Distributor] makes several sequels. Meanwhile other similar creators make "me too" versions of the same thing, and the industry slowly orients itself around this approach, only slightly changing things here or there, while generally retaining the same core approach to the product. Things only change very gradually with this model because, while the public may grow dissatisfied, the content providers will tweak the product just enough to keep the basic model still saleable. It's only after a LONG time that the original model bears only a slight resemblance to the current model, and that's only because they've had to change it over such a long period of time.
Scenario 2 (The Radical Mutation Version): The usual process of Scenario 1 is cooking along nicely. Out of f-ing nowhere, it's David Hasselhoff -- er -- a new model entirely!!! Examples: The Beatles, Hendrix, Nirvana, Doom, BF1942, etc. This is where there may be gradual change and slow development, but someone comes along and REALLY shakes things up. Usually in an unexpected way. In the gaming industry, consider what happened with Doom. Prior to Doom's release, FPS shooters were virtually nonexistent (Yes, there was Wolfenstein 3D and some clones). Mostly you had platform side-scrollers in the old Nintendo way. Then along comes Doom with not only a fresh technological approach, but also a radical departure in terms of setting, content, etc. Doom was ultra-violent (for its time), presented the player with a COMPLETELY different experience visually than what they were used to, and resulted in TONS of knockoffs. This knockoff trend continued, and evolved (IE: Quake as the logical evolution into 3D, but still basically the same as Doom), until BF1942 came out. There'd been class-based games before, but none on this scale, and none with vehicles, large maps, capturing territory, etc. Then came the BF1942 clones.
Right now, I think we're firmly entrenched in Scenario 1. The gaming industry is pretty much static, only slightly tweaking its models here and there to make the game palatable. Look! Unlocks! And flashy graphics! And stats! But still basically the same old same old when it comes to gameplay. RO, I think, is not QUITE a radical departure, but it's close. It's realistic, certainly, but it still retains a lot of the BF style. It's because of this that RO is destined, I think, to remain a niche game. That's fine and dandy, and you can build a successful business model on appealing to an otherwise untapped niche, but you have to identify that niche and cater to it. To the extent you bring in new players not of the niche (or who didn't know they were part of it), that's great, but you have to do so in ways that maintains the core audience's expectations. For the most part, I think RO has done this, although some changes have been less successful than others (or less successfully implemented, even if the underlying idea behind the change worked fine).
Right now, I think gamers are sort of stuck. They're waiting for Scenario 2 to happen. While they're waiting, they're buying games designed within the Scenario 1 context. And while some are happy, I think there's a growing number that aren't.
My message to those who aren't happy: Be a more discerning consumer. You CAN spur the industry to faster change or to be more willing to take a risk with a new approach. You do this by simply NOT buying any game except those that meet EVERYTHING on your list of criteria. Try out the single player demos BEFORE you buy. Read the reivews from the gaming mags AND the reviews by other players. Wait a month or two (better two, in my opinion) AFTER a game is released before buying, so you can see if it's developing any kind of community. ETQW was decent enough in the demo, but I figured I'd wait to see what happened with the final release and the online community before buying. I'm glad I did. My misgivings in the demo weren't corrected in the full game, and the online community never really materialized.
If gamers do that sort of thing more often, the industry will change. Major earth-shattering changes like Scenario 2 are due to a combination of factors, especially luck and timing. The timing of things has to occur right when the Scenario 1 thing is at a low point and sales are down in general, but the luck aspect has to come into play as well -- someone's crazy-a$$ idea has to really take off in a big way instead of falling flat on its face. Well, that and they have to have found someone equally crazy to bankroll the deal.
Time will tell what will happen in the industry as a whole. Personally, I think we're deeply entrenched in Scenario 1, and Scenario 2 has been waiting to happen for a long time. No sign of anything on the horizon yet, though. Time will tell. Until that point, it's up to the market to try and drive innovation by simply refusing to buy the usual crap.
I think the big issue isn't so much that the gamers are dumb as much as they are....I dunno...lulled for lack of a better word. They don't perceive that they have any power to affect the industry as a whole and aren't even sure of what they WANT. They just know what they DON'T want.
RO isn't for everyone, and games like the BF series are a lot more accessible to a wider audience. That's just the nature of the beast. RTS games like Dawn of War and Warcraft are more accessible to players than a turn-based game like World at War or the old Battleground series. No big deal. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla.
But someone here (I forget who) made a good point -- a lot of people don't even know there ARE options and alternatives. That's why the public, I think, will continue to buy flashy-but-empty games. They don't know they have a choice, they don't know their choices determine what gets made, and thus the gaming companies have no incentive to change what games they produce.
It's only after a VERY gradual shift that things change, OR when something comes completely out of left field and revolutionizes the industry. You see this periodically in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Scenario 1 (the Slow Evolution Version): [Content Creator/Distributor] puts out a successful, but generally same-as-it-ever-was product. The public approves, buys it in mass quantities, and [Content Creator/Distributor] makes several sequels. Meanwhile other similar creators make "me too" versions of the same thing, and the industry slowly orients itself around this approach, only slightly changing things here or there, while generally retaining the same core approach to the product. Things only change very gradually with this model because, while the public may grow dissatisfied, the content providers will tweak the product just enough to keep the basic model still saleable. It's only after a LONG time that the original model bears only a slight resemblance to the current model, and that's only because they've had to change it over such a long period of time.
Scenario 2 (The Radical Mutation Version): The usual process of Scenario 1 is cooking along nicely. Out of f-ing nowhere, it's David Hasselhoff -- er -- a new model entirely!!! Examples: The Beatles, Hendrix, Nirvana, Doom, BF1942, etc. This is where there may be gradual change and slow development, but someone comes along and REALLY shakes things up. Usually in an unexpected way. In the gaming industry, consider what happened with Doom. Prior to Doom's release, FPS shooters were virtually nonexistent (Yes, there was Wolfenstein 3D and some clones). Mostly you had platform side-scrollers in the old Nintendo way. Then along comes Doom with not only a fresh technological approach, but also a radical departure in terms of setting, content, etc. Doom was ultra-violent (for its time), presented the player with a COMPLETELY different experience visually than what they were used to, and resulted in TONS of knockoffs. This knockoff trend continued, and evolved (IE: Quake as the logical evolution into 3D, but still basically the same as Doom), until BF1942 came out. There'd been class-based games before, but none on this scale, and none with vehicles, large maps, capturing territory, etc. Then came the BF1942 clones.
Right now, I think we're firmly entrenched in Scenario 1. The gaming industry is pretty much static, only slightly tweaking its models here and there to make the game palatable. Look! Unlocks! And flashy graphics! And stats! But still basically the same old same old when it comes to gameplay. RO, I think, is not QUITE a radical departure, but it's close. It's realistic, certainly, but it still retains a lot of the BF style. It's because of this that RO is destined, I think, to remain a niche game. That's fine and dandy, and you can build a successful business model on appealing to an otherwise untapped niche, but you have to identify that niche and cater to it. To the extent you bring in new players not of the niche (or who didn't know they were part of it), that's great, but you have to do so in ways that maintains the core audience's expectations. For the most part, I think RO has done this, although some changes have been less successful than others (or less successfully implemented, even if the underlying idea behind the change worked fine).
Right now, I think gamers are sort of stuck. They're waiting for Scenario 2 to happen. While they're waiting, they're buying games designed within the Scenario 1 context. And while some are happy, I think there's a growing number that aren't.
My message to those who aren't happy: Be a more discerning consumer. You CAN spur the industry to faster change or to be more willing to take a risk with a new approach. You do this by simply NOT buying any game except those that meet EVERYTHING on your list of criteria. Try out the single player demos BEFORE you buy. Read the reivews from the gaming mags AND the reviews by other players. Wait a month or two (better two, in my opinion) AFTER a game is released before buying, so you can see if it's developing any kind of community. ETQW was decent enough in the demo, but I figured I'd wait to see what happened with the final release and the online community before buying. I'm glad I did. My misgivings in the demo weren't corrected in the full game, and the online community never really materialized.
If gamers do that sort of thing more often, the industry will change. Major earth-shattering changes like Scenario 2 are due to a combination of factors, especially luck and timing. The timing of things has to occur right when the Scenario 1 thing is at a low point and sales are down in general, but the luck aspect has to come into play as well -- someone's crazy-a$$ idea has to really take off in a big way instead of falling flat on its face. Well, that and they have to have found someone equally crazy to bankroll the deal.
Time will tell what will happen in the industry as a whole. Personally, I think we're deeply entrenched in Scenario 1, and Scenario 2 has been waiting to happen for a long time. No sign of anything on the horizon yet, though. Time will tell. Until that point, it's up to the market to try and drive innovation by simply refusing to buy the usual crap.
Upvote
0
