Games can be anything in life and it's a billion dollar industry, so yeah, it's not going anywhere.

You're just bored, that's all.

Sounds like you're getting bored. I'm having a blast.

I think it will survive, Western gaming is completely stagnant due to political and cultural issues within the industry but that hasn’t stopped the rest of the world from releasing some of the best games we have seen in recent years. Even the Western rot seems to be on the way out as the culture is shifting back to sanity, unfortunately the development cycle on games is long though so it will still be a couple of years of slop before Western gaming returns to form.

Gaming will survive, there's no doubt about it. Unless we collapse as a society.

It'll survive, but it will be like the music business and what happened there. The 80's were really the "pinnacle" with MTV and the rest, for only the internet some years later to make it a fraction of what it was.

In innovation and many other matters.

The same is happening here. The PS2 and 360 eras were the "MTV" eras of gaming, and now we're in the 90's so to speak where it all started to go downhill.

Today, music is still alive obviously, but it will never be what it was. Same with the gaming industry.

I like the optimistic comments. Personally, I have this dreaded feeling that it's going to go downhill, because the world will change as we know it (not in a collapse-of-society kind of way).

Does anyone have an idea of how games might change for the better?
Will it be some VR or AI innovations, or will it be some undiscovered genre?

Originally posted by TennyBlue:

Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm noticing a lack of innovation and a sense of stagnation. I don't see any titles doing anything truly new or exciting.

What are your thoughts? Is the future of gaming bright, or is it headed downhill?

Plenty of titles are doing new innovative things. Those titles however don't get alot of attention from the media, or from gamers, hence why developers that want to actually make money know better than to bank on innovation.

It's more about iteration, forward, retrograde, and lateral..


People simply don't buy innovative and truly new stuff.

Originally posted by TennyBlue:

I like the optimistic comments. Personally, I have this dreaded feeling that it's going to go downhill, because the world will change as we know it (not in a collapse-of-society kind of way).

Does anyone have an idea of how games might change for the better?
Will it be some VR or AI innovations, or will it be some undiscovered genre?

No idea at the moment. VR is nice but most of it is still basic games or tech demos to my knowledge. Plus, it's not the most cost effective system to buy just yet, not including the space needed to use it.

One thing I'd recommend people do is stay away from majority of the AAA market. There's a few gems here and there, but most of it is the same slop, recycled. CoD, BF, AC, etc are all perfect examples.

Focus on the Indie scene, as that's where most of the innovation is being seen, because Indie devs have a greater need to innovate and the passion to back it up.

Not sure why gaming necessarily needs new/exciting/innovative to survive. People have been happily buying and enjoying the latest versions of The Same Old Games for decades now. They're a big part of the market, really. (the yearly edition of Whichever Sports Game; CoD vol 15; Yet Another AssCreed or FarCry; Mario Kart part 8; etc)

Just like not every popular TV show or movie is New And Different, games don't *have* to be New And Different in order to keep bringing in the players & cash.

Originally posted by TennyBlue:

Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm noticing a lack of innovation and a sense of stagnation. I don't see any titles doing anything truly new or exciting.

What are your thoughts? Is the future of gaming bright, or is it headed downhill?

My thoughts? Gaming has never been in a better spot than it is now. Still plenty of innovations around if you really care to look. The same as 20 or 30 years ago? Of course not, since that was gaming's infancy.

I've been in and around gaming and the industry since before the first 5.25" floppy hit store shelves. There have been ups and downs all throughout its history. That's not going to change, nor is all the doomsaying which is nothing new, either. At the end of the day, the problem isn't with gaming (that's not to say that the industry doesn't have problems - it always has and always will), but the problem distinctly lies within "you" as the saying goes.

"Gaming" will absolutely survive. But the current business model may... and probably SHOULD... not.

The heyday of PC Gaming was, approximately, 1998-2004. This was when the most innovation occurred, the fastest improvements occurred, and the best quality was being produced.

Since that period, we've actually seen a DECLINE in overall quality. Yes, the visuals have, in MOST cases, improved somewhat. But honestly, is playing "Quake" with RTX really all THAT much better of an experience?

The first time I really noticed this was when the third "Soldier of Fortune" game came out. "Soldier of Fortune II - Double Helix" was an AWESOME game. But "Soldier of Fortune - Payback" was a perfect encapsulation of everything going wrong with gaming at the time.

Yes, it was "prettier" but the gameplay was orders of magnitude worse. In every single category. It was the first game where I ever experienced "hide behind a barrier and auto-heal," too. Which sucked, but was necessary with the horrendous "hit-scan" shooting of the enemies - they literally could not ever miss.

There were no options for alternative paths or approaches. No thinking required. Just run, shoot, get shot, hide-and-regenerate, lather-rinse-repeat.

it was not the last example of that, but it was the first time it ever struck home that "games are getting worse."

Then there was the 2014 "Thief" game, which ruined EVERY good aspect of "Thief - The Dark Project" and "Thief II - The Metal Age" and even, for that matter, the still-inferior-to-the-first-two, but far superior to the later release, "Thief - Deadly Shadows." The first two Thief games, for all their blocky character models, give incredible gameplay experiences.

The newer Doom games are... interesting... but honestly, neither one captures my attention or keeps me immersed like the originals, OR the (somewhat maligned) Doom3 family. It's no longer about "immersion" as much as it is "kewl special moves." I DESPISE that. It's a gimmick, and it is no substitute for tension and "mood." There's no FEAR involved in the modern pair of Doom games. And that means, to me at least, they suck... no matter how pretty they may be.

But the price structure... or rather, the twin price structures... the industry currently uses are the worse issues. It's either "buy this, then keep buying more over time" (a variation of "microtransactions" but piled on top of a full purchase!) or OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive initial purchase prices. Honestly, when video games can cost over $100, they've essentially prices themselves out of the market.

Then, there's the "Sweet Baby Inc" effect. I HOPE we're finally getting past that, but time will tell. When developers are TRYING to create a good game that player will enjoy playing, and instead are forced (against their will, more often than not) to remove "fun" elements and insert "politically charged" elements. When ENTERTAINMENT gets overridden by "propaganda," the industry is pretty well doomed. No PC game should ever tell over 50% of the potential market that "this is not for you unless you change and become who we want you to become."

"Kill the Justice League" was, we can hope, the final nail in the coffin of people believing that this can actually produce successful games. But we still keep seeing it, and producers seem not to care that they're not making enough sales to recoup the initial investment.

We get "fat and flat Lara Croft." That was another of those "nails in the coffin." The same happened in the last Star Wars game... instead of focusing on creating a good game, they delivered a bug-ridden mess, with a "lead character" who looked more like Matt Damon than like the actress upon whom the character was based (and who was voicing the character). She was a very nice looking woman... so they had to turn her into a mannish, ugly character. Why? "Noooo! Male gaze! AAAAAHHH!!!"

So... gaming isn't "dead." But it's terribly wounded. And the wound COULD be a fatal one, if developers and retailers don't abandon the self-destructive practices they've been engaged in for the past few years and start focusing on GIVING THE BUYERS WHAT THEY WANT... and for a reasonable price.

The current business model is fatal. And yes, Valve is absolutely an example of that.

But Valve wasn't always like that, and it COULD turn things around. If those who work there and who run it decide to do so.

This means putting pressure on them, and ensuring that they understand what their paying customers disapprove of in their business model. But, there are plenty of... well, let's just call it how it is... SIMPS... who will attack anyone critical of any aspect of Steam's business model or practices, in the hopes of silencing any and all "dissent." This is a typical fascistic tactic, and it's unsurprising to see it engaged in by those who are most likely to accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. I'm not 100% sure how many are "connected" to Valve or Steam in some fashion, and how many are just pure "simps"... but these forums are chock-full of them. And their sole purpose here is to obfuscate legitimate critiques of Steam and Valve.

The issue will not be resolved until the market collapses. And when that happens... and that's probably about four years away, still... and these "online stores" start shutting down left and right, with people losing (permanently) everything they have paid for... and yes, that's what would happen if Steam shutters itself, too... then, and only then, will the "shock" to the market be enough to force things to change.

So... as much as I hate the idea of losing my nearly a thousand items from here... if it means "resetting" the industry to a model which is actually sustainable, I'm all in favor of it.

The gaming industry is like a roller coaster; you are basically stuck on a rail, up and downs, and when you feel sick, it is time to take a break.

I think we are mostly through the 'messaging' era of games. Also graphics have gotten super awesome. One hopes games will become more artful rather than computationally intense as story writing and game mechanics get better.

Gaming will companies won't.

Theater has exist for thousands of years and people still go to plays.

Originally posted by ✨Saint✨:

The gaming industry is like a roller coaster; you are basically stuck on a rail, up and downs, and when you feel sick, it is time to take a break.

:saint:

Or just go back to playing "the classics." Older games are, generally speaking, far more ENJOYABLE than the majority of modern releases.

Even ones which get "remastered" can be worse. Look at the "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." recent re-releases, for example. They don't actually LOOK any better than the originals, they don't PLAY better... but they've had a ton of material sliced out and replace, for purely political reasons. Yes, I get it... "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." is made by a Ukranian developer, and they "sliced out" any and all references to Russia, with whom the Ukraine is currently in a defensive war. EMOTIONALLY, this sort of makes sense. But they sliced out material which was both meaningful to the gameplay AND a matter of historical accuracy - at the time of the Chernobyl incident, this area was still part of the Soviet Union, and culturally, Soviet influences (read - "Russian" influences) filled the society, top to bottom.

On the other hand, the recent re-release of "System Shock II" is a PERFECT example of how to "remaster" a game while not altering the core of the game. This is the very last purchase I've made (and NOT on Steam, for the record, but rather on GOG, which allows me to download the game and run it without any service running, and without anyone ever being able to take it away!)

Stick with older games... either ones in their original forms, or ones FAITHFULLY "remastered." Ignore recent releases, for the vast majority of cases.

No need to "take a break." Just get off the roller coaster and let it go off the rails without you goig with it.