Complete the analogy

[thenefariousone]

With every new "generation" of console hardware, we hear about the potential of the medium. But we also hear all the complaints such as the video game industry still has plenty of places to go before it is regarded in the same light as other more established mediums, such as film and books.

Creation and distribution costs too much, not enough innovation, the medium's only for kids (despite the facts that prove otherwise), it's unhealthy for people to play games all day, etc...blah...rinse...repeat...

Every other medium had to combat these growing pains at some point, and this industry is no different.


The objective of the game is simple: Come up analogies that compare the current state of the video game industry to other mediums/technologies at different points in time. The sillier the better.


For example:

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...a brick mobile phone.

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...a 1996 version of the search engine AltaVista.

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...Windows Vista Public Beta 2

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...

 

[cthellis42]

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...Carrot Top.

 

[asmara]

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as...an ATI fanboi. ( or nvidiot )

 

[Guden Oden]

The objective of the game is simple: Come up analogies that compare the current state of the video game industry to other mediums/technologies at different points in time. The sillier the better.

I don't see how this thread is appropriate for a technical forum. Maybe you meant to post this in general?

Anyway, the games industry isn't exactly immature, it's been around since the 70s after all. That's older than most gamers I'll wager, so this entire thread is pretty moot regardless of where it ends up.

 

[kyetech]

Ok, Lets try and salvage something from this...

Comparing games to book and films is very valid. (even thouh the premise for this thread is not) Film has been around for over 100 years since the late 19th century.

It can be argued that it has only been quite recently that the film industry has mastered and matured enough to full understand the medium and delivery of film making. (the process of portraying any story, and evoking the right emotion among the target audience the film is made for)

film as all entertainment mediums went through an early experimental era of hits and misses that led to a better understanding of the format. Somthing which games has been going through for the last 30 years, and more so in the last 20 ( since the mainstream intro of 3D)

Games, are I would say half way through their maturity as an entertainment media, Developers more and more are fully realising, what methods of interation work best for different styles of gaming problem. They are getting closer to fully underdstanding how a story can also be told with a game. And how to evoke emotions in the games players that thrill / entertain and involve.

Games and films have one problem in common, (more so in games). Technology moves so fast that RnD and production costs limit small companies, and makes developing for the industry very risky.

Its my belief that when the games industry has fully matured, and technology has levelled out (or technology is no longer a focus) Innovation and diversity amongst developers (of all sizes) will once again flourish, and games will eventually be as widely accepted as film by all ages / both male and female, as an established, accepted, mainstream entertainment media.

 

[thenefariousone]

I don't see how this thread is appropriate for a technical forum. Maybe you meant to post this in general?

Anyway, the games industry isn't exactly immature, it's been around since the 70s after all. That's older than most gamers I'll wager, so this entire thread is pretty moot regardless of where it ends up.

The criticisms are fair enough.

The idea was more or less to create analogies comparing the state of the medium and the technology within it to other mediums.

Where Kyetech is going with his comments, is more or less what I had in mind.


And as others have already mentioned, many of the current problems the industry has are purely technical. It's still technically difficult to do a lot of things, like realistic lighting, shadows, AI, physics.

The hardware's also not powerful enough yet to to brute force whatever you're doing even if your code isn't well optimized ala most non-gaming software on a modern pc.

Technically, games are not at the point of say, a point and shoot camera, where the major technical hurdles have long been solved, and a great picture can be taken with any camera on the market today.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It can be argued that it has only been quite recently that the film industry has mastered and matured enough to full understand the medium and delivery of film making. (the process of portraying any story, and evoking the right emotion among the target audience the film is made for)

film as all entertainment mediums went through an early experimental era of hits and misses that led to a better understanding of the format. Somthing which games has been going through for the last 30 years, and more so in the last 20 ( since the mainstream intro of 3D)

A couple of points. 1) Film has progressed a lot with technology, enabling different types of film. If you try to create a special-effect flick before the FX technology can carry it effectively, it can hamper the experience.

2) People have adjusted to the experience. Movies with no emotional impact for us could be striking for it's original audiences. There's plenty of tepid afternoon oldies shown that were controversial for their time. There's plenty of B-movie FX that are somewhat laughable to us now, but which really impressed people back then.

3) Films started as extensions of the stage, and so employed dramatic style. What was good for stage didn't transcribe well to screen and gave us Hamming It Up. It took a while to learn how the medium should be used, which was different to the precursor theatre experience.

From this, I see a few things

1) Technology enables more. There are games we can do now that couldn't be done 10 years ago, and likewise games done ten years ago that couldn't be done 10 years before that.

2) Regardless of the types of game being created, the technology will appeal to the current audience. Pong was fantastic in it's day, but I doubt you'll get many LAN parties for that game any more. As long as you work within the confines of your tech, you don't need to wait for better technology to make the experience. The wait for better tech is for new experiences unobtainable any earlier.

3) Game development doesn't always understand the medium and how to use it. Many of the most successful games aren't complex nor involving, but accept they're entertainments and provide that. These comparisons with games and movies is trying to simulate one experience on a totally different medium. It's like shooting a play and calling it a movie, instead of designing for a movie. Trying to create a movie with a game is a bad idea.

For me, gaming will reach maturity when the developers stop trying to be soething they're not. It doesn't need deep stories or emotional intensity to be a good game and satisfy the role that games satisfy. Something like LocoRoco shows the best fun is often very far removed from any deep storydriven, plot-twisiting cinematic extravaganza. Before then, games were Chess, Monopoly and Bridge. None of these were Opera nor Ballet nor Moving Pictures, but they were essential for keeping people entertained. Games are something you do, not something you watch. Now by all means integrate good story arcs, characters, etc. drawing from centuries of story-telling knowhow. Use amazing artistic lighting and subtle sound to set the mood. However, don't create a story and call it a game. Create a game that tells a story through it's gameplay. Or just create a game.

This constant need for the gaming industry to size up next to movies and proclaim they're bigger just reaks of insecurity to me. You don't get books or the theatre measuring their worth by how much revenue they turnover next to Hollywood. They do their own thing. The gaming industry needs to accept it's thing, whether that's bigger or smaller than Hollywood, and be the 'interactive pasttime with story' rather than try to be the interactive story.

 

[kyetech]

lots of very valid points.

Of course I realise not all games need to have stories and not all games need emotion. (tetris et al)

However, if we *choose* to, then we understand the medium well enough that we can put stories and all the rest of it in there. And make it work.

The point about a medium being mature, is that you can pull off whats needed for the intended style of game.

I still think there is a good few generations yet before we are really there with that.

good post shifty.

 

[ninzel]

The barrier between creator and consumer needs to be as low as possible.
Anyone with a pencil and paper can write a great book. This leads to you being able to walk into Chapters and having a huge selection of books to read from many different authors and at many different types and scope. The technological barrier between creator and consumer is low.
A certain level of technology is neccesary for gaming,but technology can at some point crosss the line between being an enabler to being a barrier. At that point you have the same dozen or so big dev and pubs controlling the market. So in that sense I think MS and Sony are going in the wrong direction.Gaming is already niche compared to other forms of entertainment, raising prices higher won't likely help that in the long run.
You can give devs some more power while still holding costs down.
I would love to see the same level of variety in gamng as you see in books or TV. Many different games,from many different devs in many different price ranges.

Now some people will say that you can just wait for the prices to come down. But I think that ignores a very important factor that drives the popularity of entetainment and human nature. That's the water cooler factor. OR the communal factor
Ideally you want everyone to have the experience of a game or TV etc. for the first time
together.Right now in gaming you have a small percentage getting games at first then slowly the rest of the community gets the games as the prices lower. This creates a very fractured community,not to mention a have and have not mentality.
Compare that to TV almost everyone will watch Lost Season 3 premeire at the same time because practically everyone can afford TV. And then you will go to work the next day and talk about it around the " water cooler". Same thing with something like American Idol. And the more people watch it,the more word of mouth catches and and the more popular something becomes.
That just doesn't happen to the same extent with gaming because the community is buying games at such different times.
Contrast that with how the typical gamer experiences a game. He goes home and most often plays the game by himself. He might talk to a small group of people on the net about it but the next day will you go into work and talk to your friends or coworkers about that great level on Prey? Not likely. When you take a complete look at how a gamer experiences a game, you find most gamers experince their games in near isolation.
Too many devs just look at how the gamer experiences the game while playing instead of looking at the whole experience of gaming,pre,during and post.

Taking a a broader look at how a gamer experiences gaming,you begin to see a connection, and this is true for most forms of entertianment.

The way most gamers experience games is indicated of the place gaming as a whole fit's into society.
The more isolated the gamers experience the more islolated the industry.

 

[cthellis42]

I don't see how this thread is appropriate for a technical forum. Maybe you meant to post this in general?

It's not. But I'm impressed you guys managed to salvage something I was going to reply to snarkily once and watch fade away!

 

[thenefariousone]

Interesting points ninzel. The barrier to entry is also limited by the means of distribution and markets available.

Movies -> theatres, video on demand, rental, dvd, broadcast
Books -> hardback, soft back, audio book
Games -> boxed copies.

Recent efforts have started to change this, but since most sales come from sales in stores, there is a lot of pressure to make the same old types of games, and pressure not to upset the retail chains.

Most games make most of their money in their first (and often only) two weeks on the shelves for this reason. Without a viable aftermarket, you have nowhere else to recoup costs, if the project isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

It's a huge gamble of money. In the movie business, if you don't make a lot of money domestically at the theatres, you can always try foreign markets, or go to dvd. The video game industry needs those options too.

The barrier between creator and consumer needs to be as low as possible.
Anyone with a pencil and paper can write a great book. This leads to you being able to walk into Chapters and having a huge selection of books to read from many different authors and at many different types and scope. The technological barrier between creator and consumer is low.
A certain level of technology is neccesary for gaming,but technology can at some point crosss the line between being an enabler to being a barrier. At that point you have the same dozen or so big dev and pubs controlling the market. So in that sense I think MS and Sony are going in the wrong direction.Gaming is already niche compared to other forms of entertainment, raising prices higher won't likely help that in the long run.
You can give devs some more power while still holding costs down.
I would love to see the same level of variety in gamng as you see in books or TV. Many different games,from many different devs in many different price ranges.

Now some people will say that you can just wait for the prices to come down. But I think that ignores a very important factor that drives the popularity of entetainment and human nature. That's the water cooler factor. OR the communal factor
Ideally you want everyone to have the experience of a game or TV etc. for the first time
together.Right now in gaming you have a small percentage getting games at first then slowly the rest of the community gets the games as the prices lower. This creates a very fractured community,not to mention a have and have not mentality.
Compare that to TV almost everyone will watch Lost Season 3 premeire at the same time because practically everyone can afford TV. And then you will go to work the next day and talk about it around the " water cooler". Same thing with something like American Idol. And the more people watch it,the more word of mouth catches and and the more popular something becomes.
That just doesn't happen to the same extent with gaming because the community is buying games at such different times.
Contrast that with how the typical gamer experiences a game. He goes home and most often plays the game by himself. He might talk to a small group of people on the net about it but the next day will you go into work and talk to your friends or coworkers about that great level on Prey? Not likely. When you take a complete look at how a gamer experiences a game, you find most gamers experince their games in near isolation.
Too many devs just look at how the gamer experiences the game while playing instead of looking at the whole experience of gaming,pre,during and post.

Taking a a broader look at how a gamer experiences gaming,you begin to see a connection, and this is true for most forms of entertianment.

The way most gamers experience games is indicated of the place gaming as a whole fit's into society.
The more isolated the gamers experience the more islolated the industry.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Compared to other mediums, the video game industry is currently as mature as Ho Chi Minh.