A gamer with an opinion about today's stunted game market:

[anosou]

People here keep missing the point. He's not saying there aren't odd gems. He's saying that those odd gems should be the NORM, not the exception.

They were never the norm

[zircon]

I think they were. When video games were first developing, up to where they really started hitting the mainstream with the PSX, new genres were regularly being created. Gameplay paradigms we take for granted were still being experimented with. While I love modern games as much as the next guy, it's impossible to deny that massive budgets and expectations lead to less risk taking, just like Hollywood summer action blockbusters. Back when graphics and music were simple, and entire games being programmed by a tiny staff (or just one person) was the norm, people had more liberties to do fun stuff.

I mean, that's what Al Lowe was all about with Leisure Suit Larry. He had the freedom to do that because people were still experimenting with new game concepts and settings. He wouldn't be able to pull that kind of thing today - and in fact, he had a new game idea fairly recently (I can't remember the exact description, but it was something very unusual, but unique) and he couldn't get any publisher interest. No one wanted to take the risk. So don't tell me it has always been like this.

[anosou]

I think they were. When video games were first developing, up to where they really started hitting the mainstream with the PSX, new genres were regularly being created. Gameplay paradigms we take for granted were still being experimented with. While I love modern games as much as the next guy, it's impossible to deny that massive budgets and expectations lead to less risk taking, just like Hollywood summer action blockbusters. Back when graphics and music were simple, and entire games being programmed by a tiny staff (or just one person) was the norm, people had more liberties to do fun stuff.

I mean, that's what Al Lowe was all about with Leisure Suit Larry. He had the freedom to do that because people were still experimenting with new game concepts and settings. He wouldn't be able to pull that kind of thing today - and in fact, he had a new game idea fairly recently (I can't remember the exact description, but it was something very unusual, but unique) and he couldn't get any publisher interest. No one wanted to take the risk. So don't tell me it has always been like this.

It has not always been like this but I don't think they were the norm. I still think the ammount of "regular" games were in majority, it's just that the thing that was "regular" then was also a bit kooky. Like applying a story only in the manual, making characters look a bit goofy (especially because it wasn't possible to make realistic characters).

My point being, he's just being nostalgic and I don't really agree with him because of that.

[The Coop]

People here keep missing the point. He's not saying there aren't odd gems. He's saying that those odd gems should be the NORM, not the exception.

What does he expect... the niche and goofy to become mainstream? If it did, would he then start griping about that two years down the road?

Something tells me he'd be bitching about all the goofy, quirky games if they were the norm. He strikes me as the "never happy" type of gamer, where the grass is always greener at some other point in time... and as a possible Nintendo fanboy (since a lot of his praising is for Nintendo-only games, systems, and people). That last part's not a slam, just an observation.

And keep in mind zircon, when video games were first developing on consoles, it was a lot easier to just make worlds be bright and colorful, with oddly shaped characters. Doing realistic stuff didn't come easily with the systems and their capabilities. Once 16bit hit, realism became more feasible. Now, we can create damn near photo-realistic worlds and people. So, that's where more of the focus is. A lot of gamers kept whining about wanting more realism, and now they're getting it. But, I think once game makers get this "real world" phase out of their system, then we'll see them going all over the place in game design regularly again. Right now though, "real world" is the flavor of the day, so you'll just have to dig through the shelves until then.

Oh, and did this guy's rant remind anyone else of the whole "hardcore vs mainstream" attitude?

[Escariot]

Does anybody else think he sounds like Kroze?

[zircon]

What does he expect... the niche and goofy to become mainstream? If it did, would he then start griping about that two years down the road?

"Niche and goofy" wasn't what he was asking for, simply more variance and creativity from game to game. Not gritty FPS rehash in brown environment #5134. Yes, I'm sure he would be complaining if every game was a bright, colorful Mario ripoff, but he wasn't asking for that. He was just asking that people consider trying NEW ideas and paradigms rather than just taking existing ones and making small modifications (or no modifications).

And you really can't argue with me about the fact that publishers and developers in general are way less willing to take risks now, because they don't want to lose money, those discouraging people with the resources to potentially make a really cool, unique game to actually attempt to do so. Yes, there are indie developers doing some cool stuff, but they are in the TINY minority, and it is rare some of their awesome ideas actually come to light and get distributed widely. Because of the demands of modern gamers too, it is unlikely that a single person can basically create an entire game themselves like they could before (eg. Al Lowe).

[BardicKnowledge]

Now, we can create damn near photo-realistic worlds and people. So, that's where more of the focus is. A lot of gamers kept whining about wanting more realism, and now they're getting it. But, I think once game makers get this "real world" phase out of their system, then we'll see them going all over the place in game design regularly again. Right now though, "real world" is the flavor of the day, so you'll just have to dig through the shelves until then.

It's the flavor of the day with game-buyers too -- the great, innovative games flat-out don't sell as well as standardized gameplay with graphics we've come to expect. Look at the sales figures for Beyond Good & Evil and Psychonauts...both of them are great games, but consumers are just as wary of risks as publishers; until this changes, we're going to be stuck with the type of game this guy is ranting about.

[Avatar of Justice]

I kind of stopped listening when he was complaining about innovation, then immediatly claimed that Smash Brothers Brawl would be "the greatest thing to happen to gaming since jiggle physics." What makes Brawl so world shattering? The graphics are a tad better, but like any fighting game sequel its not that different. I love me some Guilty Gear X2, but I guarantee you that whenever Guilty Gear X3, or whatever the true sequel ends up being called, comes out it isn't going to change the face of gaming. And jiggle physics is the sort of mindless pandering thing he rails against often. Maybe if Smash Brothers Brawl had used the Wiimote motion sensitivity to come up with a new way of playing fighting games he could claim it was some kind of revolution.

It seems like you can mostly sum him up by saying

"I like old games and Japanese games. I hate new American ones."

[I-n-j-i-n]

I don't think just because there aren't new genres every other second in the modern gaming era, all innovative qualities are lost because games often tries to put in game-changing innovations within the games themselves (perks in Call of Duty, dual wielding in some FPS games, changing of gravity in platformers, controlling time in action games, different fighting mechanics in fighting games, etc).

I also think it's a bit of an oxymoron to expect quirky games to be the norm. Seriously, the premise wasn't the reason why Final Fight or Street Fighter or Bionic Commander became so popular. It was because of the gameplay. Even with Metal Gear, that game had the most insipid and boring plotlines in terms of war spy games, but its gameplay paved the way. Also, if such wacky games become the norm, then the wackiness alone becomes the status quo. Like some others have said, the 80's had way too many insipid 'wacky' ideas that never had the lure or the gameplay to make them last very long. I don't want the industry to suffer from lack of creativity, but I don't want them to become slogs in terms of characterizations like in the 80's.

Games like Shadow of the Colossus which is both innovative and has great gameplay (aside from its worst camera system ever) is nice when they come about, but I think it's silly to expect all games to meet that criteria. It IS a business after all, and I think it's perfectly fine for them to do tried-and-true types of games but while adding enough spice to make them new again.

I kind of stopped listening when he was complaining about innovation, then immediatly claimed that Smash Brothers Brawl would be "the greatest thing to happen to gaming since jiggle physics." What makes Brawl so world shattering? The graphics are a tad better, but like any fighting game sequel its not that different. I love me some Guilty Gear X2, but I guarantee you that whenever Guilty Gear X3, or whatever the true sequel ends up being called, comes out it isn't going to change the face of gaming. And jiggle physics is the sort of mindless pandering thing he rails against often. Maybe if Smash Brothers Brawl had used the Wiimote motion sensitivity to come up with a new way of playing fighting games he could claim it was some kind of revolution.

It seems like you can mostly sum him up by saying

"I like old games and Japanese games. I hate new American ones."

Objectively, regardless of new control schemes, SSBB really didn't do anything new. It was just a really good sequel, but yeah, it does seem hypocritical for him to say SSBB is above it, which it isn't. Especially when it's such a rote sequel to the first two games, as great as it turned out. Again, what's so different from something like Halo or Metal Gear or Splinter Cell which all seems to get better and better with each sequels? If you're talking about 'new wacky premises', then none of them really have it. But there's really nothing wrong with sequels either, as long as they try to do new things within convention.

[Vivi22]

"Niche and goofy" wasn't what he was asking for, simply more variance and creativity from game to game. Not gritty FPS rehash in brown environment #5134. Yes, I'm sure he would be complaining if every game was a bright, colorful Mario ripoff, but he wasn't asking for that. He was just asking that people consider trying NEW ideas and paradigms rather than just taking existing ones and making small modifications (or no modifications).

And how many times during the 8-bit and 16-bit days did we plod through colourful 2D platformer #397, or trippy shoot 'em up #153? Honestly, for all the creativity that was going on back then, there were just as many quick rehashes as there are now, and we were lucky if most of those did it as well as the best in their genres, let alone made incremental improvements. Back then, rehashes were quick and easy to make, now games are expensive to make and rehashes are almost guaranteed to sell (just look at Nintendo). Both situations lend themselves to a lot of lackluster copy cat games.

And you really can't argue with me about the fact that publishers and developers in general are way less willing to take risks now, because they don't want to lose money, those discouraging people with the resources to potentially make a really cool, unique game to actually attempt to do so. Yes, there are indie developers doing some cool stuff, but they are in the TINY minority, and it is rare some of their awesome ideas actually come to light and get distributed widely. Because of the demands of modern gamers too, it is unlikely that a single person can basically create an entire game themselves like they could before (eg. Al Lowe).

Honestly, I could just as easily argue that half the reason you don't see as many creative and unique ideas these days is that a lot of them just don't work, and most things that do work have been done already. I just don't think there's much room left for the creation of any truly unique genres and gameplay ideas without a change in hardware comparable to the move fro 2D to 3D. There was easily as much creativity going on in the PSX days as the 8-bit and 16-bit days as developers tried to figure out what worked under the new status quo. Even games these days that are hailed as unique creative masterpieces are usually a proven concept with solid game design and a unique presentation. Okami? 3D action platformer, except this time you use a paint brush to solve some puzzles and perform a few attacks. The style of the game and it's solid gameplay are what really set it apart. Ico? 3D platformer with puzzles, except the puzzles are logical for once and you have to guide this girl out with you. Again, it's solid gameplay and presentation are what set it apart.

Yeah the odd game or two might pop up with a truly original concept that works, but those are few and far between and certainly not for a lack of developers trying.

[BlueMage]

Visuals reminded me of the zero punctuation guy (who I'm not especially fond of) but they essentially worked.

Yeah, that's what I thought - "He's trying to be Yahtzee... he's failing it. Fairly miserably."

And yeah, what's with the "white men with stubble" trend??

Fast beard growth is an indication of high testosterone levels (ie, increased levels of MANLINESS) and you have to admit, when the shit hits the fan, and the world needs saving, you don't want a pussy going out there and fighting for you - you want a guy who'se man enough to fuck anything that moves, and has the chin stubble to prove it.

[The Coop]

"Niche and goofy" wasn't what he was asking for, simply more variance and creativity from game to game. Not gritty FPS rehash in brown environment #5134. Yes, I'm sure he would be complaining if every game was a bright, colorful Mario ripoff, but he wasn't asking for that. He was just asking that people consider trying NEW ideas and paradigms rather than just taking existing ones and making small modifications (or no modifications).

You said it yourself...

People here keep missing the point. He's not saying there aren't odd gems. He's saying that those odd gems should be the NORM, not the exception.

He wants the oddball games and scenarios to become the norm, not the exception.

In the 8bit and 16bit days, a good number of people wanted to be treated to more adult, or grown up stories, because most of what was out there was "silly" with odd tales about hedgehogs, plummers, and guys fighting old horror movie monsters. They didn't want to always be treated like kids when it came to game content. Now, those same people want to be treated to those oddball tales, because most of what's out there is realistic stuff. They went from one end of the spectrum to the other.

If this guy wanted a nice balance of the two, then he would have been pining for the 32bit era, up to about the Dreamcast, where oddness and reality were pretty balanced overall. We got the realism and the outlandish in nice healthy doses. Instead, he was talking solely about the 8bit and 16bit eras, which were dominated by what he's after. That was the norm he liked, when realism "had its place" as he'd put it, but wasn't the dominant aspect in gaming. He specifically pointed to the PS1 era (and the gamers it brought in) as being when the game traits he longs for started going out the window. So, I can't help but think he desires realism in game scenarios to go onto the back burner like the old days, rather than strike a balance between the two sides.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how his rant comes off to me.

Because of the demands of modern gamers too, it is unlikely that a single person can basically create an entire game themselves like they could before (eg. Al Lowe).

You know the Dreamcast game Last Hope which was released last year? It was basically created by two people. Should I even bring up Cave Story, or the many homebrew games that have either a very small staff, or just one person behind their creation? They may not get worldwide physical releases that PC games of old did, but they're easily findable for demos, and electronic purchase for download off of various sites. Some even do get physical distribution (mostly in Japan or Europe, but still). The problem is, like the big staff titles (and PC stuff of old), not all of them are very good, and some of that comes from only having one or two people do everything from artistic and gameplay choices, to graphics and music. The small staff scene may have shifted, but it's still there.

Also, remember that in the late 70s, games weren't nearly as complicated as they are now. Top of the line graphics were so simplistic, and the coding so basic, that it was very easy to have one person do everything. In the 80s, the better resolutions and pixel capabilities still weren't too bad, so having one to five guys do everything was still very doable. These days, having one person be able to code the graphics, music, algorithms and such is not nearly as feasible... not because gamers demand more, but because the consoles are much more complicated. Perhaps that's why the PC homebrew scene is doing so well. As far as PCs have come, they're the most accessible medium to make a game on. Between things like Flash's Action Script, the infamous Java and Java Script, C++, and even those game making programs, you can become a one man army in the PC gaming world... as long as you have graphical and musical capabilities too

[JCvgluvr]

Wow, this topic really took off! I'm glad I could promote such philosophical discussion!

I too noticed that his style seemed to emulate Yahtzee, and contained an unnecessary amount of swearing. But can we really tell if he was just speaking his mind, or if this was truly his intention?

What I most appreciated about his rant was when he attacked sports games and their horrible lack of depth and creativity. I've always wondered, should sports titles even be considered games? After all, aren't games supposed to give you a world where the impossible is possible? Fantastic worlds, original characters, and stuff like that? I can throw a football in real life. Why do I need to play a game where I can do the same thing? But can I shoot futuristic aliens in real life? No, and I never will be able to. Videogames let me do that.

It really makes me wonder whether sports games are necessary, period.

[Vivi22]

What I most appreciated about his rant was when he attacked sports games and their horrible lack of depth and creativity. I've always wondered, should sports titles even be considered games? After all, aren't games supposed to give you a world where the impossible is possible? Fantastic worlds, original characters, and stuff like that? I can throw a football in real life. Why do I need to play a game where I can do the same thing? But can I shoot futuristic aliens in real life? No, and I never will be able to. Videogames let me do that.

It really makes me wonder whether sports games are necessary, period.

You may be able to throw a football in real life, but will you ever win the Super Bowl? The fact that sports games are the same thing every time with a new player roster is about the only thing I agree with in regards to his rant, and I don't like 99.9% of sports games for the specific reason that I'd usually rather play the actual sport, but they are legitimate games none the less. It's no different then being able to say something like Gran Turismo is a game. I may be able to go out and drive a real car, but will I ever get to drive an F1 on the Nurburgring in real life? Probably not (and even if I could, it wouldn't be on the full 24km track.)

[Shael Riley]

Oh man! Maximum verbosity!

I think he nailed it.

[Nekofrog]

Haven't read the thread, but one thing instantly jumped out at me regarding this video.

This douchebag is a giant fucking hypocrite. His entire rant was aimed at returning gaming to a previous point in time, when he insults designers who have done that very same thing ("A chain? Is this 1992?").

Didn't he WANT to go back to 1992?

Just another oversensitive, hyped up Nintendrone with too much time on his hands.

That said, I agree with him on the generation thing -- the Wii IS part of this generation. It's not its own market.

[zircon]

And how many times during the 8-bit and 16-bit days did we plod through colourful 2D platformer #397, or trippy shoot 'em up #153? Honestly, for all the creativity that was going on back then, there were just as many quick rehashes as there are now, and we were lucky if most of those did it as well as the best in their genres, let alone made incremental improvements. Back then, rehashes were quick and easy to make, now games are expensive to make and rehashes are almost guaranteed to sell (just look at Nintendo). Both situations lend themselves to a lot of lackluster copy cat games.

There is no way you'll convince me that there was less (or equal) variety in game design and presentation in the 8-bit and 16-bit era as there is now, all things considered. Assuming we are talking about the game market as a whole, not every single game that is being created, including student games made in Flash that only a handful of people will ever see. "Primary" market only, if you will.

The rest of your post... ugh.

Even games these days that are hailed as unique creative masterpieces are usually a proven concept with solid game design and a unique presentation.

That's like saying "Portal is just another FPS with one new mechanic." You don't need to reinvent the wheel and implement a million new features to have a unique game that stands apart from everything else.

Honestly, I could just as easily argue that half the reason you don't see as many creative and unique ideas these days is that a lot of them just don't work, and most things that do work have been done already

That's completely ridiculous. Video games as an art form and medium of expression are VERY young. Movies have been around for over a century and filmmakers still find ways to surprise us and break new ground. Don't give me that BS that we've already exhausted ALL creative possibilities with video games. That's beyond inane.

He wants the oddball games and scenarios to become the norm, not the exception.

"Oddball" and "odd" are two separate words. "Odd" means "unusual or out of the ordinary, not what is expected." An odd gem doesn't have to be some sort of goofy game with a million colors and anthropomorphic bears. "Oddball" carries a different meaning.

We DO want the games that are currently "odd gems" to become the norm, because "odd gems" encapsulates a WHOLE slew of games. No More Heroes is an odd gem. So is Portal, Audiosurf, Cave Story, etc etc. This is really exhausting to keep saying over and over. How could you possibly argue against this? It's mystifying to me.

You know the Dreamcast game Last Hope which was released last year? It was basically created by two people. Should I even bring up Cave Story, or the many homebrew games that have either a very small staff, or just one person behind their creation? They may not get worldwide physical releases that PC games of old did, but they're easily findable for demos, and electronic purchase for download off of various sites. Some even do get physical distribution (mostly in Japan or Europe, but still). The problem is, like the big staff titles (and PC stuff of old), not all of them are very good, and some of that comes from only having one or two people do everything from artistic and gameplay choices, to graphics and music. The small staff scene may have shifted, but it's still there.

Why don't you actually read why I'm saying?! Come on, man! I didn't say NO games were being created by just one guy. Yes, I know about Cave Story. I'm saying that before, especially in the PC market, POPULAR, mainstream games were being created by very small groups of people, or perhaps one person. These were the games that your average person played. Today, you can still find games created by indie teams, but these are in the extreme minority if you were to take a sampling of ALL game players. They are completely marginalized now. This was somewhat inevitable because with modern hardware capabilities, everyone expects a certain level of presentation and gameplay depth which is BY AND LARGE only possible with a larger team.

Perhaps that's why the PC homebrew scene is doing so well.

But... it isn't, comparatively speaking. Once again, you need only look at classic games like "Leisure Suit Larry" (which was basically done by one guy) and their massive popularity. The "homebrew" scene was far more influential and successful in earlier years of the computer gaming industry than it is now.

[cobaltstarfire]

It seemed more like he as taking a jab at a certain demographic of gamers to me. Sure there's the whole "the originality should be the rule not the exception" but that seemed to be an after thought.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

I'm probably gonna catch hell for this, but he sounds like nothing more than a rabid Nintendo fanboy.

He lost me when he said Smash Brothers Brawl was the best thing to ever happen, and then proceeded to rag on DOA because of "jiggly physics".

No.

[JCvgluvr]

I'm probably gonna catch hell for this, but he sounds like nothing more than a rabid Nintendo fanboy.

He lost me when he said Smash Brothers Brawl was the best thing to ever happen, and then proceeded to rag on DOA because of "jiggly physics".

No.

You know, he wasn't being completely series. He was exaggerating a point just to be funny. Part of his goal is to entertain his listeners, and that's how he does it.

Although I wouldn't be surprised to find out he is a Nintendo fanboy...He does show an exhausting amount of support for them.

[Vivi22]

That's like saying "Portal is just another FPS with one new mechanic." You don't need to reinvent the wheel and implement a million new features to have a unique game that stands apart from everything else.

Actually, that's exactly what I've been arguing the whole time. Many games that are considered creative masterpieces these days merely build off of a given formula in a way that hasn't been done. You claimed that you wanted the creativity of the 8 and 16-bit days back which I took to mean that you wanted the days of developers constantly creating new genres and gameplay elements back, not wanting more people to think outside the box with established gameplay ideas. Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you were saying initially. If anything though, Portal is a bad example of building off of a given formula since it is one of the few examples lately of a game that introduces a single gameplay element that completely alters the way people approach the genre from a game design and playing standpoint.

That's completely ridiculous. Video games as an art form and medium of expression are VERY young. Movies have been around for over a century and filmmakers still find ways to surprise us and break new ground. Don't give me that BS that we've already exhausted ALL creative possibilities with video games. That's beyond inane.

I never said we've eliminated all creative possibilities with games, I said we've determined a lot of what works. All the creativity going into games nowadays is basically building off of the established genres and ideas. Fine tuning, refining, and occasionally adding something truly new to the mix. That's not to say that isn't a legitimate form of innovation. I still rank games like Okami, Ico, SotC, and the Metal Gear series among the most creative an innovative of all time. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Kojima is a flat out genius when it comes to game design. As I said before, I assumed that by creativity you meant that you wanted developers creating a new genre every time they make a game.

But... it isn't, comparatively speaking. Once again, you need only look at classic games like "Leisure Suit Larry" (which was basically done by one guy) and their massive popularity. The "homebrew" scene was far more influential and successful in earlier years of the computer gaming industry than it is now.

Comparatively speaking, the game industry has increased by tens of millions of users, but that point aside, home brew games still have a place out there, and if anything have some better opportunities than ever to get their games out there. If you want to support small dev teams in trying new things, then get on Steam and Xbox Live Arcade and buy the Audiosurfs, Defcons, and Darwinias when they come out. Most games on these services have demos, and are shown to literally millions of users simply when they log on and see that they've been released. Homebrew may be a smaller chunk of the market then ever, but the opportunity for small dev teams to reach more people then ever is not only out there, but is being encouraged by Microsoft, Valve, and probably some other companies.

[Mr. Fox]

I love that monkey idea.

[Monobrow]

I think he's siding with Nintendo mostly because the competitive market is swollen with what seems to be the white-unshaven-anti-hero guys, and he's finally grasped that. It's very true atm, and I have to admit myself, that I get tired of it, not only in video games, but in the grand scope of entertainment as a whole.

That's not to say that Nintendo doesn't give its share of fluff from the other side of the spectrum, but the scales have been pretty tipped in the opposite direction, especially as far as the European and American markets are concerned.

I think he may be a bit over-assertive with his views, but it seems like most of the time, he doesn't take himself as seriously as he may come across... He just really seems to dislike the disgruntled anti-hero stereotype... And this isn't anything new. When it comes to storytelling and who we look up to, Hero vs. Anti-hero is an age-old struggle, especially within the last forty years or so in the entertainment business(Taxi Driver vs. Rocky) (Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump)...((attitude era vs. 80s toon wrestling)) (grunge vs. 80s rock/metal)... This has been evolving (or devolving) for a while...

I find myself that I enjoy games within this balance, that don't really adhere to either formula, and are what they are for a reason. If the means justifies the end, and vice versa, that's what matters to me.

An innovation "builds" off of something, and builds off it in a way that works well, and does so creatively. As far as characters go, I judge them for what their story is, and their background. Does the design fit with it? Is the story interesting enough to explain the design? As long as they don't RELY on their unshaven "I am a badass because I don't CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ESPECIALLY MY FACE" attitude, and actually have some content to back them, it makes it easier for me to accept. But on the other hand, you can have what you think is the "coolest" design ever, but if the concept surrounding this design sucks, it's not going to help anything. What a waste that would be (and has in so many games)

That said, CONTRAST can help anything... If you make a game with all browns, and your character is about as interesting looking as your nextdoor neighbor, and he happens to be wearing earthy shades... Well that's not going to draw my attention. It's like trying to find a polar bear in a snowstorm... What's the point? Actually I'd probably rather be playing a game with polar bears in snowstorms instead.

[Final_metroid]

At first, I totally agreed with everything he said and was ready to argue with anyone who disagreed, from actually having read some responses I now have some of my own thoughts. My agreement with the review was really more about my own prejudices against the "more than one primary color is gay crowd", than the actual proliferation of "self-employed yard workers" characters and "disembodied hand/ITS THE SAME FUCKING GAME BUT WITH NEW ROSTER" type games. Although this renders some points of the review as null, i think it does tell alot of about society today. Video games have been a form of expression, and like movies and TV shows, all have a target audience. This increase in the games he has been ranting about probably results from the spreading of the aforementioned mentality. Its not really that game makers are selling out (which is a key factor in the entertainment business), it's which demographic is in the majority. So, today I guess, douchebaggy tough-kids like the ones in my town are all over America

[Maruku]

I agree with everything he said except the Rage Against the Machine part. Putting my musical preference aside, I think he was spot on. I have played games since I was 3 years old and I got my SNES with Mariokart and 2 controllers when I was 5 for Christmas. I grew up playing NES, SNES, and Genesis and even Playstation, Saturn, and N64. I have yet to see a game within the last 5 years provide me with as much fun as I had when playing a game like Zombies Ate my Neighbors. The closest thing I got was Resident Evil 4. Anymore , it is sickening to see the amount of corporate bullshit that goes into games nowadays. Just like the movie or the music industry anymore, if it can't sell to a specific audience, the distributor wants nothing to do with it. Creative games are almost non-existent. I hardly even play video games anymore but if I do, they are online games like Gunbound or Ragnarok Online or Team Fortress 2. It makes me sad too because games were such a big part of my life growing up and now it just pains me to even walk into a game store that isn't BRE Software.