Are gamers experiencing industry-wide franchise fatigue?

Yeah, I fail to see the string of logic behind those conclusions.

Technically, we're living in the most creative time period for games. The Nostalgia Goggles are working in full force for those who say differently.

There is, however, a somewhat genuine grievance with the variety of the modern AAA market. I believe the PS2 era AAA games were legitimately the most varied in content. Of course, even this is somewhat overblown, since it's not like every other modern major title is a CoD rip-off.

It's safe to say that fans in general are a fickle bunch; give em what they want, they'll find something to complain about. Give more of what they want, they'll cry that it's oversaturated.

I wasn't particularly fond of say, Adventure games or Rogue Likes, but I don't recall those being a thing on Nintendo systems till the GBA and DS. Don't recall much in the way of peripherals or simulators either, because those couldn't even be done on the 64, in spite of what Nintendo had to say about "arcade perfect" ports. But riddle me this, how am I blinded by nostalgia goggles when I'm talking about what is essentially the root of the problem?

Now you can argue the gaming industry might just have died altogether, but there was a wider entry into video games that has gradually shrunk since the NES came out. Distinction used to be the only way to be any kind of long term success. Then we got to the point we saw as many as three consoles who were functionally identical-PS 2, X-Box, Game Cube, really four. The only thing Dreamcast lacked was graphical capability but it was the fact the PS 2 was a cheaper DVD player than most actual DVD players and that Sega was financially mismanaged that it went under. The only thing the graphically superior X Box and Game Cube could really had on the PS 2 was four controller ports and that wasn't enough for them to take off. They got a few party titles and sort of stayed a float.

It was also easier to innovate when it took less time and money to make things. Nintendo used to put out a lot more games than it does now. They've always milked Mario but they used to be bizarrely unpredictable, Eggerland, Ice Hockey, Gumshoe, Warlocked, Hamtaro...something they've become progressively less as time went on (Wii ware and such might turn it around a little but they've got a long way to go). Nowadays most "innovation" comes from hobbyists and flash, which is to say people who aren't really making money in the industry and driving its trends. Even if that wasn't the case, there are not as many avenues to do something new. The arcade is dead, the PC is dying and as far as I can tell, at least two of the home consoles might as well be twins unless you're trying to do a frame by frame port of something specifically made for one.

I'm not saying all the old games were better, just that there used to be more of them and they used to play less like each other. Looking same has always been a problem with video games but even when Capcom had degenerated into making basically the same Mega Man every year and had resorted to just releasing Street Fighter II with some new color schemes it was still doing a million other things. Since Street Fighter IV, they haven't had much time for much else in the way of fighting games unless it also involves Street Fighter and there are less competing fighters. Even in more saturated genres, "different" shooters such as Bullet Storm disappointed because there used to be a lot more noticeable difference in shooters that advertised themselves as such. No one would have even cared about Duke Nukem Forever's gun limit if it wasn't basically industry standard, or he was quickly put out in another game that changed things up but we are in an age where it can take twelve years to get on a shelf. There have always been clone games, but there used to be more, so more differences shown through. There used to be more series on going. "Franchise" isn't even the right word because a lot of repeating series people complain are not really franchises, what they are is too samey.

But there are other reasons beyond game play to want new "franchises". Sometimes it is just nice to see new characters, new settings, new aesthetics, new stories. The reason new series often stumble even in those areas is that those things haven't evolved too much. Still with the blonde swordsman and grizzly space marines, still with the Super Mario Bros levels, still with clueless manipulated pinball protagonists. I'll mention aesthetics are one area where I think things are getting better. I'm not particularly fond of the fact people are abandoning sprites just because they can make models now but there are a lot of different ways to make models look...now if only we could expand the subject matter a little. There is still a lot more to humanity and nature than video games care to represent.

I'll give you that AAA on the PC might be getting samey and boring, but the PC itself isn't dying. There's plenty of Indie developers getting support from Steam (I don't know about GOG, I only use Steam) and keeping the market flowing.

And Sprites aren't being abandoned by everyone. Off the top of my head there's Gnomoria, Starbound, Terraria, Dont Starve, and FTL Faster Than Light. That's just in my collection. There's plenty of others out there. AAA might garner the most attention but it isn't the entire market by far.

What I get from your posts that aledge that Famicom was the starting point of the industry's Creative Sterility is that you long for The Golden Age of Video Games. But, really, how "Golden" was it?

I can pin the problems with that in one word: memory. As in Small ROM, Low RAM, No Save States. And gameplay types? You couldn't really have a long-adventure or derivatives therefrom.

There may have been more series and franchises, but that was because you could only do the same few genres with the early console limitations. And that, in part, led to The Crash.

Personally, I thought that the 3rd-5th Gens were the pinnacle of creativity. The improvements in technology were such that you could have genres that didn't rely on The Same But More Difficult each "level".

Now the AAA sterility nowadays is likely linked to two of the big three names being multi-purpose conglomerates and, therefore, not "gaming companies" per se. Their Boards would be the type of Boards at any MegaCorp. I'm not saying that Nintendo's isn't, they may well be that way too. But back in the 3rd & 4th generations, Nintendo was a "gaming company" as was Sega. This, plus Electronic Arts also being a "Gaming Company" as opposed to the overpowering and all-consuming MegaCorp it is today, and thus the existence of smaller firms such as Origin,^note That EA later bought-out and killed, what, me bitter? is why I feel that there was an outpouring of creativity in the '80s and '90s that is lacking in the past 10 or so years.

Now you may interpret this as me blaming Sony for the fall of video games, just as I think that blames Nintendo. I'm not trying to do that here. It's not Sony as a specific company, it's just that Gaming has become part of Media, whether the rest of Media wants to accept that or not. EDIT: So I'm putting the blame on the Sterility of the Corporate Media Culture in general.

edited 7th Jul '14 7:15:39 AM by DonaldthePotholer

I would just blame the people who buy the big sellers as they're the reason the companies put more time and effort into say Call of Duty/Mario/Zelda/Halo/Sonic/Pokemon instead of like Star Fox/Kid Ni GHTS/ Banjo Kazooie/F-Zero/ Uncharted (though Uncharted is still popular, but it's not as well known as say Mario)/ No More Heroes.

I think the issue as to why video games won't receive as much recognition as film, sports, books, and TV is because of that trope. That, and the fact that with video games, you'd need to have good reflexes and the patience to beat whatever game you're playing.

Or to know someone who has the reflexes, and to have the patience to watch/help them puzzle through what to do next.

Personally, I think all of this is seriously overblown. It's an INDUSTRY. And not a small one at that, truth be told. There might be a handful of big-time developers, but there's a myriad of smaller ones putting out games for consoles and P Cs.

You're talking about a bunch of Vocal Minorities.

you know. im not going to fucking blame people for buying games they fucking like. why not actually put the blame on the people in these companies that make the boneheaded decisions we dont like? it seems a whole lot less myopic. (and of course uncharted isnt as popular as mario. mario's been going for 20+ years and has fans in multiple generations while uncharted has 3 games from...what, the last two video game generations and is not a company mascot? (...and is a franchise that is still being made so i seriously fail to understand why you even brought it up)

i mean as far as i can even tell, uncharted had a helluva lot of time and effort put into it. so did no more heroes and banjo kazooie. banjo kazooie came back too, so it wasnt unpopular either.

edited 7th Jul '14 9:18:53 AM by Tarsen

That'd be better to blame, actually.

Because it's obviously easier attacking "sheep" that keep buying the stuff than blaming the people who produce the stuff.

And we need to blame anyone at all why? Eventually people will ACTUALLY tire of these shoveled out pieces of dreck we get as sequels, they won't buy them, and the AAA companies will learn to make something else. Well, more likely acquire something else from some popular indie developer.

I like Legend of Zelda. If you go to the Zelda thread you actually don't see people complaining that we get the same old shit every time. Because outside of the basic formula, Nintendo keeps changing up the gameplay for the fans.

"And we need to blame anyone at all why?"

Because it's easier to complain and point fingers than actually doing something about the problem. Hence why we are in this situation now.

Thank you captain obvious.

There's neither a problem nor a situation to start with. The AAA scene isn't even the majority of the gaming industry, especially with the big three doing Developers' Kits so smaller groups can get their games out too.

AAA isn't the majority? Please elaborate, I'm curious to know.

And I've not heard of the big three doing Dev Kits at all. This is news to me.

(And I do apologize for blaming the fans)

I'm not sure about Sony and Microsoft, honestly, but all that Shovelware on the Wii happened because casual developers were able to work with the system. You don't get that without company support.

Hell, Casual games are outpacing the hardcore AAA market as far as sheer number of games, just because you can make them more easily and they can be played in the lulls of the day. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it's a thing.

It's also inevitable. An industry can't survive when every project is a painstakingly made intended artistic triumph with 50+ hours of gameplay, voice over work, cutting edge graphics, and a compelling story, while also innovating in its genre in terms of gameplay. It should not be surprising when these projects end up needing to sell over a million to earn a profit. This is why artists are poor. Art isn't good business.

Also, I'd like to point out that originality and quality are often mutuality exclusive in new IP. If you're dealing with a new property, you're going to see rough edges everywhere. Gamers savage games for their flaws; is it any wonder companies stick with the franchises that are successful?

edited 7th Jul '14 10:22:59 AM by CrimsonZephyr

I only need the story and gameplay. The graphics don't need to be cutting edge, just decent.

oops

edited 7th Jul '14 4:25:31 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

My theory is that E3, and marketing in general, is at fault for this. We all know there are a wide variety of great games coming out on all the consoles and the PC, but it doesn't feel like it. It's not just shooters either, though they may be the source of the problem. There are just so many dudebro games getting the majority of the marketing, from Assassin's Creed to Batman to The Witcher to Uncharted to racing games to all the shooters and more. Even though they're all different games, they're all targeting that 18-35 year-old male with disposable income audience. For better or worse, that's the primary audience of the western AAA game studios.

It didn't help that non-Nintendo Japanese developers were practically absent at E3 this year, or had very little to show. Square had a few things, but FF 15 and KH 3 were both absent. What did Capcom show besides Dead Rising DLC? How much did Sega present? Platinum showing up for Bayonetta and Scalebound was good, but they're not that big. Otherwise this E3 was very light on Japan, which only further emphasizes the focus dudebro games got.

Nintendo has a similar fatigue, but that's more about being very reliant on their assortment of franchises than targeted demographics or anything else. They do a variety of things, but the big ones are always Mario/Pokemon/Zelda/Smash/etc. That's part of why Splatoon was such a shock and well received. Aside from Smash, this new IP was probably the game they were promoting the most at E3.

And you don't believe that has anything to do with the shrinking relevance of Japanese development? They likely stand more to gain from showing up at TGS than E3.

And in what degree are The Witcher or Uncharted "dudebro" games? I don't think the dudebro net is that wide. I'd even be willing to take Assassin's Creed out of the category if not for its massive sales.

edited 7th Jul '14 5:59:24 PM by Alucard

The shrinking Japanese development is probably is part of the perception of the homogenizing of the major games. A lot of them have switched to mobile, which isn't something you present at those kind of events. Can't really speak about when the best time to speak about them is.

Calling Witcher and Uncharted dudebro is inaccurate, but my point about target demographic stands. The 18-35 category is the primary target for Activision, EA, and Ubisoft's big games, and they have a lot of the big game releases. Though to be fair, when Ubisoft showed off Just Dance and that fitness game everyone hated them, so I'm not really sure what we're supposed to want them to do.

Nothing. We're not supposed to want anything but what we individually want.

The Crowd just hates those companies, so no matter what they do they're going to get guff.

I'm thinking that the oversimplification is that there are four types of genres: Hardcore, Dudebro, Casual, and Not-"Profitable".

The key to mitigating this supposed crisis is to invest in the various genres that comprise the 4th category. Sure the Hardcore crowd say they want more Hardcore, but is that really what they want? Do they know that they don't want Not-Profitable? Likewise, how would Dudebros and casual react to the different types of Not-Profitables?

Then again, I don't keep up much with the indie scene; I'm mostly one of those die-hard old-timers longing for the Glory Days who sometimes fires up a Fan Remake or two.

They would most likely not care about not-profitables.

Dudebro gamers usually care about FPS games, while the casuals largely stick to tablets.