On the Subject of Money

Random TnA

Back in the day games tended to be developed by gamers, for gamers. It was a nerdy industry, consumed by nerds, and none of them (us) cared. There were good, imaginative, innovative games which we all enjoyed and everything was good. Then, like any sizeable subculture, it began to be groomed and exploited and commercialised by big business. I'd suggest that a great deal of the responsibility lies at Sony's door, because it was really the original Playstation which triggered the transformation of gaming into a fashion, or at least the attempt to expand gaming beyond nerds and into the hands of the regular yahoos.
As a result, games are no longer developed by gamers for gamers, they're produced by corporations for their shareholders. Game development is being driven by anonymous "investors" who quite likely have no interest or experience in gaming, and whose sole focus is to maximise dividends. You don't do that by innovating, or by producing a high quality product for a niche market like authentic flight sims. You do it by churning out derivative, lowest-common-denominator trash which can be mass-produced, in terms of the sheer number of titles that are published, especially when you include sequels. So-called games which require minimal R&D, little development outside of slapping some new levels on an old engine, and end up forced down the throats of mindless console zombies by a bulldozer of marketing.
Or you hitch your pony to whichever social networking or consumer gadget phenomenon is flavour of the week, like Zynga do, and knock out some worthless, bullshit flash games which make next-to-no money per player, but which get played by trillions of Facebook obsessives.

The sad thing is, there's an increasing trend within society to consider that to be the "correct" direction for the industry. To question games that dare to be different because they're "doing it wrong", and "you'll never sell 100 million copies unless you make it simpler" or "you mustn't use that complex, gorgeous engine which will only run maxed-out on a high-end enthusiast PC". Because everyone, apparently, should aspire to be Mark Zuckerberg, and become unfathomably rich by creating something dumb, but glossy and accessible. Ignoring the fact that Facebook's success owes a great deal more to being in the right place at the right time than it does to offering anything particularly clever, innovative or useful.

So what we end up with is a torrent of tedious shooters like Halo, latter-day Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or trivial rhythm action games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero. And then we get their sequels. More and more sequels. Games mostly played by people who don't give a shit about games, but who want to have a laugh with their mates before going out clubbing (or before their mum makes tea). People who would probably be equally impressed by a bit of coloured rag on a stick. Wooo, look at the flappy rag!
And the businesses behind them are unrepentant. Even if they try to excuse their selling out by blaming piracy, or the used games market, or whatever it is this week, the fact is someone waved big bucks in their faces and they sold their souls. I don't blame them, but it sickens me when they try to pretend that they're still working to produce interesting, intelligent games when they can barely speak for all the corporate cock they're busy gobbling, and when the games they actually produce prove otherwise.

Which isn't to say there aren't people out there who would love to be able to go back to the days of pushing boundaries and developing the sorts of games they themselves want to play, and to hell with what some dickhead slouched in front of an xbox with his dickhead mates, or some dickhead reviewing his investment portfolio thinks of it. The problem those people have is that despite the console builders' best efforts to hold it back, technology has advanced to the point where it's simply not logistically possible for a small group of people to build a substantial game from the ground up, at least not outside of more manageable genres like puzzle or stylised platform or strategy games. Occasionally something will punch through from the underground, perhaps from people modding established games, and might get picked up by a big developer as happened with Portal and Left 4 Dead. But there aren't any garage crews building games of the order of Call of Duty or GTA or WoW or any other big name you care to mention.

Of course there are still a handful of sizeable independents out there. Valve is the obvious one, and are to be commended for holding out against the whorish charms and promises of public sale. I don't believe going public can ever be a good move for a creative industry. Of course neither have Valve really come up with anything interesting of their own (as opposed to buying mod groups, tarting up their work and selling it) since Half-Life 2, so they need to get on that. And hire some decent writers while they're at it.

So the future's looking bleak, but the game's not over just yet.

The Field Marshal's New Year Honours List

Some Keeley Hazell (and friends) boobs to compensate for a disappointing year in video games

This year's awards have been the source of some serious head-scratching. Not only did I already know which game had taken the top slot back in February, but also there was very little else of any value released, or at the very least played, in the time since. This follows 2009 when I had already failed to award a full quota of medals due to lack of contenders. What the fuck is wrong with gaming at the moment? Of course, what's wrong with gaming is consoles. Console games are largely shit, and developers are so busy fellating Microsoft and Sony that PC gaming has taken a serious hit. Even established PC titles like Call of Duty (Modern Warfare was awarded the coveted Bennett Service Order in 2007, lest we forgot) have been run into the ground in the rush to make them as accessible and retard-friendly as possible.

Honourable Mentions
Despite awarding Dragon Age the Bennett Service order for 2009, 2010 was the year I actually got around to completing it. After a slightly shaky start it improves greatly although the combat is still too old-fashioned. Just Cause 2 was very impressive, but more in the tech-demo sense than as a coherent gaming experience. I could never really be bothered to spend much time with it, so while it's certainly an honourable mention it doesn't seem right to bestow upon it a more prestigious award.

Dishonourable Mentions
Mafia 2 could have been great and featured a great engine, but managed to be shit. Irrespective of whether it was due to the publishers fucking with the game in order to maximise the DLC potential, or just simple incompetence on the part of the developers, it was a very poor piece of work.
Red Dead Redemption might be a great game, but I wouldn't know because Rockstar haven't seen fit to release a PC version. Cunts.

So that was certainly an underwhelming conclusion to the year. Instead, let's have a brief look at some of the forthcoming releases due in 2011 (until they're pushed back).

Crysis 2

This should be the cause of much rejoicing, but contrary to claims made by idiots who believe this will be the long-overdue debut of a proper, next-gen game engine, experienced pundits are aware that it's not so much "Crysis 2" as "Crysis for Consoles". Don't expect CryEngine 3 to be nearly as revolutionary as its predecessor, unless you're a console gamer and never played the original on account of it being a PC exclusive. And lets not forget that the original Crysis wasn't exactly a masterpiece in the game play department, especially in the latter stages. Factor in the dumbed-down, dual-mode nanosuit and it's not looking good. This game is definitely on the "meh" list.

Test Drive Unlimited 2

Should have been released in 2010, and if it had been then maybe I would have had another title with which to pad out the awards. As it is I still know very little about the game, other than the fact that I enjoyed the original a great deal.

The Witcher 2

This is a big one, for me at least. The original Witcher was a fantastic piece of work and still puts the likes of Dragon Age to shame. The combat might have been somewhat basic, but the sheer atmosphere of the game is unmatched. I do have some concerns regarding the follow-up, in particular the dubious and in my opinion entirely unwarranted redesign of Geralt. Still, that aside it's looking good, and even if it's no better than the original, it will still be a great game and a potential Bennett Cross for 2011.

Mass Effect 3

Personally I doubt that this will see the light of day in 2011, and if it does then that raises doubts about the quality of the game. I suspect ME3 will be built on the same technology as ME2 and so will do little more than continue (and theoretically complete) the ME story. That would be a shame, considering the technological advances made for ME2. As much of a ME fan as I have become, I can't help feeling a certain trepidation with respect to the next chapter.

Dragon Age 2

I find it strangely hard to care about this game. There are reports that a lot will be different in part 2, mostly things which fans of the original are up in arms about, but things which seem entirely justified to me, like reducing the dialogue options so that your character can have proper voice acting like in Mass Effect. Or more streamlined, less wanky combat that isn't designed for people playing PnP games in the 80s. So it could be a vast improvement over an already serviceable game, or else it could be more console trash. Time will tell.

Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim

Very little is known about this game right now, thanks to an entirely worthless pre-rendered teaser being the only proof of the game's existence. With only 11 months until its supposed release, it's difficult to make any predictions although I guarantee old-school RPG players will find loads of shit to complain about. And if they don't seriously improve the levelling mechanics, voice acting and storyline after Oblivion, I will have complaints of my own.

Rage

All the id fans are working themselves into a masturbatory frenzy already, and I don't even know when this game's supposed to ship, but I predict that it will massively fail to live up to expectations. id have basically been releasing the same game over and over again since the original Doom, trading mostly on John Carmack's impressive engine technology with little thought or innovation evident in the game design. Not only will Rage be more of the same (albeit with vehicles), it'll also be a console release and therefore probably trash.

Diablo 3

Another game which I'm not sure we'll see in 2011. As someone who was never really into the original I'm not weighed down by historical baggage and so rather than bitching about the colourful graphics I'll at least be able to judge the game on its own merits.

Guild Wars 2

Who knows if we'll see anything from Arena Net in 2011. I would guess a beta or two would be likely, if not the final game. I do have high hopes for the game, on the basis that ANet have something of a history of doing things their own way rather than ploughing the same WoW-clone furrow as everyone else. On the other hand, GW went steadily downhill with the release of the later chapters, including an ever-increasing emphasis on grindy titles that doesn't bode well for the sequel.

I've just noticed that every single one of these games with the exception of Rage is a sequel. Although given that id have been remaking the same game over and over again since Doom 1, that's not saying much.