Why are video games so stagnant?
In the late 80s through the early 00s there was all sorts of innovation, and new video game genres were made fairly often, now these days all we get is rehashes. What the fuck happened!?
They were always stagnant, they were always stupid; and the always disappointed you.
We have no place to judge this, ART. There, I said it.
Ebert can die in his bed knowing it. Patience is all it took.
Everything is focus tested and made to sell, instead of being made more to challenge yourself/your team, or challenge some other game or games because all you need is a huge advertizing budget and hype to sell garbage.
>>330970978
because you can't innovate forever
plus you're older so more jaded by default
>>330970978
Oh, and two of my dogs are partials and they do this shit constantly. Making them hate each other is how it works you vegan shitbeard.
>>330971382
For reference-
Once is very fast and runs very young and smart. The other is very experience, pretty old and doesn't want to chase him around. The old one gets tons of fat from fishes now (because I love the guy) and gets to sit around doing whatever he wants.
Young dude "Kuma" is a dick and he gets the run of the place and is the leader of the reign pack.
He gets to be the pack leader of the sleigh team and has a drop to get on my bed.
>>330970978
I imagine it has to do with a little bit of everything mentioned. I'd argue that it's because it's become more of a business so trends are more likely to sell than taking risks on innovative works that have passion.
Then again, try it yourself. Make up a new genre without it sounding retarded. it isn't easy anon.
Be the video game idea guy we all need.
They're not. You only think they are because you forgot how much braindead, cash-in garbage was released in the early 00s.
>>330971382
>>330971839
What?
>>330972254
That doesn't invalidate the point that there is objectively less innovation happening. This is not a "why are there more bad games now everything used to be good" post.
>>330972632
objectively less
[citation needed]
>>330972709
Look at the number of new genres made in the last decade, then look at the number in each of the previous two decades. If that's not good enough evidence I don't know what would satisfy you.
>Late 80's
Even earlier than late 80's because there wasn't even standardization for a control method. Dials, track balls, stick and buttons, dual sticks, they could do what they wanted.
>>330970978
Because publicly listed companies.
>>330972797
>comparing one decade with two
>wow guys it's like no one's innovating any more!
>>330972797
not him but there is a finite number of genres. It does not take a genius to figure that out nor is that inheritly bad at all. It does not mean that all new games have to be the same brain-dead shit.
>>330973002
I said "in each of the previous two decades"
As in compare them separately
Is this really this hard for you to understand?
>>330973029
There is not a finite number of genres as genres are symbolic groupings of ideas. Saying there is a hard limit on genres so small it could be reached in a few decades is like saying that everything that can be thought of must have already been thought of, and that clearly cannot be the case.
Making a game is a much more expensive process now
You can go full AAA and spend millions of dollars on everything, go to kickstarter and hope people are willing to give you money, or make a game with you and a friend in your mom's basement and maybe get 12 sales on steam because people don't want to buy indie games now that there's no QC for what gets on the marketplace
>>330973154
You are retarded. Go make up 100 new genres right now. I think you are confusing genres with sub-genres and this whole thread was made by a total idiot.
>>330973321
>Genre
>a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content
There is no fucking limit on that regardless of whether or not I can pull 100 of them out of my ass.
>>330972557
>>330971839
>>330970978
you're an idiot.
>>330973169
>people don't want to buy indie games now that there's no QC for what gets on the marketplace
To be fair, do you really trust a bunch of Valve jews to pick what ends up on Steam?
Because now studies owned by big companies can't innovate, since their publishers are too afraid it will flop and lose money on their $1m+ development costs. The higher the budget, the safer they want their investment to be. That's why every AAA game is just a shitty rehash of a previous game
>>330973575
They did a better job at picking than greenlight ever has
Generally speaking anyway, some shit got through that really shouldn't have like revelations 2012
>>330973575
I trust them more than I trust steam users at least.
