I can agree and relate on some subjects, but I totally disagree on others.

One, I like a good story. Classic RPGs interest me. I''ve just rediscovered titles such as Final Fantasy 5 and 6, and I want to take a look at the Phantasy Star series. But, let''s face it, no RPG ever showed any technological breakthrough. Which is good, because they don''t have to. But, like it or not, it''s (mostly) the fast-paced, mindless, shooters and such that actually drive the industry in any way technologically. Think about it: if all we were using were business apps and RPGs, I don''t think the computer indeustry would really advance. I mean, who really needs a Thunderbird 1GHz for a home office machine? But, its the gamers that drove this. While I like a good RPG, there is also the stress relief that one gets from mindles, simulated destruction. After a hard day at school with my teachers breathing down my neck, hopping on my computer and playing a little UT deathmatch is fun. It takes that stress you had and let''s you do something with it. A lot of the flashy games out there do lack something else, but there are some very good ones. Neocron (an MMORPG in the works) is looking promising. Plus, the various military combat simulators make for an interesting first-person strategic game (Infiltration, Counterstrike, etc.)

People are going to buy what they want. Personally, I prefer a more laidback game in general (aside from the occasional frag or two ). Look at The Sims. One of the greatest selling games for the PC. And what do you do? You put your own life on hold to play someone else''s boring life. If you ask me, it''s silly. But it works. And, most people will agree it is fun. There has to be a variety in the industry. Companies have to survive. I mean, I love RPGs, but I sure as hell wouldn''t want to have the choice to pick up an RTS, or an FPS if I wanted to.

You really can''t "blame" companies. That part is a bit opinionated. You could say the companies are trashing the gaming industry, or you could say they are the back bone. Fact of the matter is, you really can''t group. One of the biggest gaming companies ever, Squaresoft, is all about RPGs. Capcom has a huge variety of games. Look at the Resident Evil series of games. Immensely successful, with wonderful storylines, and fun gameplay.

Really, this whole discussion is really all based on opinions, so anybody is really right in this one.

One thing to consider is WHY people play video games. Ya I like a good story line, deep plot and cool characters. But honetly if I wanted to spend a few hours socializing I would hang out with my friends or go out to the clubs or whatever. I would much rather socialize with real people than a computer AI, no matter how cool, thought provoking, or complex. When I play video games I often don''t want a lot of dialog or storyline, I just wanna kill something and I like the excessive eye-candy. When I''m looking for something deeper I don''t turn to video games.

Just a thought.

I once had an argument with someone, where he was saying "All you care about is graphics in games, but it''s the gameplay that matters; I don''t care if it looks like crap" and I was responding "A game without gameplay is nothing, I agree; but graphics enhance the experience, and they ARE important."

Then I popped in an Outcast demo.

For those of you that have never played Outcast, it''s an amazing piece of programming. It uses a voxel engine, has realistic water with distorted reflections, a highly advanced AI system, and an immense world. In this game, you slowly uncover a story as you journey through many worlds. But although the graphics are impressive to someone who does graphics programming, the average gamer will dislike them, primarily because they''re used to polygons at high resolution, and they think 640 x 480 voxels are ugly (I STRONGLY disagree, but that''s an entirely different topic.). In short, they think its ugly.

As soon as the demo loaded, he said "this game sucks," just from seeing the initial frame.

He wouldn''t accept his own reaction as proof that graphics quality -or at least perceived graphics quality - matter a great deal.

Now I''m not saying a game with good looks is necessarily good, or that an ugly game is necessarily bad. I do agree that companies should stop putting every cent they have into a high-tech graohics engine, and instead work on the storyline.

But graphics doo matter.


What really are bothers me is not just that companies focus too much on graphics, but that they aren''t creative in general. How many Quake clones have appeared since its release? How many Command and Conquer clones since its? Too many. Now many of these games are quite good; Unreal Tournament is a good Quake clone, and WarCraft II and StarCraft were good Command and Conquer clones. They were fun, and that''s good. But the fact is that they were exceptions. There are just too many almost identical games flooding the market, and that bothers me, because, no matter how good as a game is, if its based on a worn-out concept, it will get boring too quickly as well.

The lack of creativity extends to the graphics department too. That''s part of the reason I like Outcast. How many voxel-based games have you seen lately? If you can name more than Outcast and Delta Force, I''ll be surprised. Outcast used creative graphics programming. That''s more than can be said of the 100+ "Direct3D or OpenGL accelerated polygonal engines using BSP trees" engines you find on the shelves. Hardware is partly to blame. I like having the ability to get thousands of triangles each second onto my screen as much as anyone else, but I don''t like that fact that that''s the ONLY thing on my monitor!

This type of "let''s copy off of everyone else untill we beat that idea dead" isn''t confined solely to the game companies; you see it in the media and just about every other industry. But since this is game dev.net, I''ll stop my rant here.

Obviously I can''t speak for the nameless many who purchase and play games. However, I think I can shed a little light on what they collectively are saying with their purchases (along with my own personal opinions).

First, most game players are male. Your average male player is looking to escape reality for a while. To immerse themselves in an environment where they can allow their more primative brain to operate, giving their overworked higher thought processes a well deserved break. This is why many games available today are focused on violence and sex. These are simple, basic urges in the male psyche. They also have built in positive reenforcers (adrenaline feels good, ya know).

For female players, I would have to guess that they would have similar reasons for picking a game. However, in their case, females are more typically social creatures and would prefer games that emphasized these innate predispositions.

Please note that these are generalizations, but they should IMHO apply to the general masses.

That''s not to say that some games could not be thought provoking. Many people prefer more complex forms of entertainment provided it is a context that allows them to relax into their natural selves, as apposed to the masks we put on in the public eye.

Another niche in this environment would be games that actually (gasp) taught the user something pratical. For instance, the Air Force is now supplimenting its normal pilot training with commercial off the shelf video games. I honestly haven''t seen much of this kind of application, but it could be an interesting niche.

[input flame now]