Interesting bit on the next Xbox

The games you listed certainly look nice, but I'm still not sure that I'd classify most of those as AAA titles, graphically.

Anyway, we'll just have to disagree on this one, Panzer.

No worries, im happy to agree to disagree, nothing unreasonable about that. I wouldn't label them "AAA" I thought I had already made the distinction between graphically complex and big budget media intense games.

Okay, but what do the low budget games give up in order to get on there?  Presentation.

My point, which I stand by, is that the games that I listed did not sacrifice anything on presentation.

I challenge you to cite a specific example of a part of one of the games I listed that sacrificed presentation because they had a lower budget.

Look at braid. There are hundreds of games like that.

The 360 and PS3 are more indie friendly than any system in decades

True, there are plenty of (mostly mediocre) indie games on those systems.  They exist however in a fringe market, only accessible via internet download.  Well, so what?  Average Joe Bob is going to buy his games at Game Stop or Walmart.  He won't know about Braid.  And if he did, he wouldn't care about Braid, because in his eyes the game looks like antiquated crap.  He's going to buy whatever he can find on disc, in a sealed box, off a shelf.  So you know what that means?  A truly popular indie game may sell a couple hundred thousand downloads.  But a truly popular AAA title will sell millions.  That means Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don't make their bread and butter off indie license royalties.  Indie games are more like salty fries on the side for them.  The big juicy hamburgers are the games like Call Of Duty and Zelda.  Pretty games we've already played dozens of times before.  And because there's a whole lot more Joe Bobs than Dank Panties, we won't have much of a choice but to play them once again.  That is, if we want the sexy pixels on our plates.  If we don't care about graphics, then why purchase indie games at all?  I've yet to play a buyware indie game that was funner than many of the freeware ones I've enjoyed.
Actually, the last indie game I  bought was Trine 2, but not for the graphics.  I bought it because it has three player co-op and it's a platformer.  Its insane graphics are just a pleasant addition, not the point of sale.

If I could get a Hotel Dusk kind of experience, but with Crysis level graphics, I'd be all for that  But I know in reality, that's not the future of high tech gaming.  No, it's more Halo, God Of War, Grand Theft Auto V, and the like.  Sequels and sequels and homogenization and homogenization.  I mean, The 3rd Birthday was fun, but it was turned into a cover shooter!  The new Syndicate is an FPS.  The new Silent Hill is going to be a beat 'em up.  There's a freaking Final Fantasy rhythm game on the horizon.  Gaming is devolving and homogenizing, that's what I feel like!  I mean, looking back at the DOS days and all the amazing variety of ideas and one-off game experiences, it boggles the mind compared to today.  I worry mainstream gaming is devolving back into a primordial state, albeit a multimillion polygon amoeba with third generation tessellation coated with shader model 27 whizbang woopty doo.

Well, we'll see how it goes.  I'd love to be wrong about the future.  And if not, there's enough gems in the past to last me the rest of my life.

A couple of things. First, I think we are more on the same page now. Regardless of what you or I wants, the majority of the game industry is going to continue on with business as usual.

True, there are plenty of (mostly mediocre) indie games on those systems.

I'm a bit confused though, first you said that big budget games were crap, but not you are saying low budget games are mostly crap too? All games are crap?

They exist however in a fringe market, only accessible via internet download.  Well, so what?  Average Joe Bob is going to buy his games at Game Stop or Walmart.  He won't know about Braid.  And if he did, he wouldn't care about Braid, because in his eyes the game looks like antiquated crap.  He's going to buy whatever he can find on disc, in a sealed box, off a shelf.  So you know what that means?  A truly popular indie game may sell a couple hundred thousand downloads.  But a truly popular AAA title will sell millions.

If there wasn't any Xbox Live, PlayStation Network, etc, they would come out on disk. It makes no sense to release disk though when you can get much higher profit margins by selling exclusively digital. There are a few reasons big publishers still sell brick and mortal retail.

1. lots of the market still is on slow internet
2. impulse buying when shopping for groceries etc.
3. they can afford lots of advertising all over the city, and having the games in stores means more points of sale

I don't think that retail is going away, but I don't think that anyone would disagree with me that digital distribution is a more cost effective way to distribute games. As I said, if these venues didn't exist the games would hit disk, but it just makes sense to sell them online, especially if you don't have a big advertising campain, you're bound to make more money selling online.

When I brought up Braid it was specifically in response to the statement that there were never smaller, simpler games on more powerful hardware (I think you infered that since the 3DS can achieve gamecube graphics that it wouldn't have any zany games like the DS) I never said that it was more popular than Modern Warfare. I'd have to be certifiably insane.

I brought it up to point out that there are plenty of basic games on modern platforms like the 360 already, today. Having a more powerful Nextbox doesn't threaten simple games, I wouldn't be suprised if Megaman 11 came out on Nextbox. You seemed to be convinced that since it is more powerful, than you'll never get any more games like hotel dusk. I beg to differ. You may very well see the next Hotel Dusk game on XBLA, PSN, etc. or very likely on the 3DS

It's clear now that we agree on at least a few things, lower budget games don't have as much advertising, and are generally not as appealing to an average non-gamer, and game manufacturers are going to continue to push the mainstream games, and push for more powerful hardware. That doesn't mean that more powerful hardware is anti low budget games. both low budget and high budget games can utilize more powerful hardware.

if I could make Sonic Generations at 1280x720p at 30fps this generation, next generation I could make it 1920x1080p at 60fps in 3D.

A truly popular indie game may sell a couple hundred thousand downloads.  But a truly popular AAA title will sell millions.  That means Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don't make their bread and butter off indie license royalties.  Indie games are more like salty fries on the side for them.  The big juicy hamburgers are the games like Call Of Duty and Zelda.  Pretty games we've already played dozens of times before.  And because there's a whole lot more Joe Bobs than Dank Panties, we won't have much of a choice but to play them once again.  That is, if we want the sexy pixels on our plates.  If we don't care about graphics, then why purchase indie games at all?  I've yet to play a buyware indie game that was funner than many of the freeware ones I've enjoyed.
Actually, the last indie game I  bought was Trine 2, but not for the graphics.  I bought it because it has three player co-op and it's a platformer.  Its insane graphics are just a pleasant addition, not the point of sale.

I'm assuming this is directed at me. I never said that indie games drive hardware sales. All I said is that there are plenty of low budget games on modern consoles, that they are successful enough for the people that make them to continue to make more and co-habitate the platform with other titles.

To me this seems like a win win. Everyone else can have their games, and you can have your hotel dusks, and I can have my Geometry Wars, Bomberman Live, Shadow Complex, Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown, etc.

Isn't that what you wanted? a game doesn't have to be the BEST selling to be successful enough to make more of them. Just look at Nippon Ichi Software and the never ending Disgaea series. Even if you hate it, you know they can't make much on them, but enough to keep making more.

Why get low budget games that cost money vs free ones? becuase in my experience the ones that cost money are usually better? I'm sure you like Hotel Dusk a lot more than you like Farmville, am I right?

If I could get a Hotel Dusk kind of experience, but with Crysis level graphics, I'd be all for that  But I know in reality, that's not the future of high tech gaming.

It wouldn't be that hard, just open up CryEngine 3 and start modeling. At this point it really wouldn't cost that much now that the groundwork is already laid out. Just need some artists. Hotel Dusk isn't that big right? That is a bit of a lame point on my part though. That certainly isn't the direction things are going you're right, but I think the direction Hotel Dusk has gone is just fine, and I know you agree. And yes, if you really wanted to expand on the world and add more media rather than just recreating what is already there in CryEngine 3, they yes, it would take more work, but it's not impossible.

Gaming is devolving and homogenizing, that's what I feel like!  I mean, looking back at the DOS days and all the amazing variety of ideas and one-off game experiences, it boggles the mind compared to today.  I worry mainstream gaming is devolving back into a primordial state, albeit a multimillion polygon amoeba with third generation tessellation coated with shader model 27 whizbang woopty doo.

Well, we'll see how it goes.  I'd love to be wrong about the future.  And if not, there's enough gems in the past to last me the rest of my life.

I definately understand where you are coming from, and all your examples are very relevant. It is a huge problem in gaming. I have a less bleak outlook though. The industry will always be based around the lowest common denominator, and will always have flaws, but just like music games eventually crashed and burned, so will other tired ideas.

It seems to me you think that there is nothing good on the horizon, but how can you say that with projects like The Last Gaurdian on the horizon. That game looks amazing, especially after playing Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. There may be a lot of shit out there.

The way I see it, there always will be, and always was. Sure there were a lot more open ideas back in the DOS days, less restricted by set in stone genres. That said there were SO so so so SO many shit DOS games. MOUNTAINS of crapy DOS games.

As much as it seems like things are changing, most things are actually the same. First there was Wolfenstein 3D, then Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, Goldeneye, Medel of Honor, Halo, Call of Duty. They all rise and fall, and sure enought there will be another shooter series to rise to popularity. That never stopped other great games to exist all throughout gaming history though.

Just like there are always mountains of bad games, I think there will always continue to be tons of great games. Even in the SNES and Genesis days there were shitty games like Madden, and Mortal Kombat, and they were the big sellers. There were good games back then, and there will continue to be good games in the future.

I'm a bit confused though, first you said that big budget games were crap

I never said all big budget games are crap.  I said big budget games have a tendency to lean towards more banal and redundant meta-genres.  Since I do not place value in regurgitating the same ideas over and over, I find the majority of AAA titles fall into a valley of mediocrity.  There are exceptions to the rule of course.  There always are.  But exceptions do not override the rule.

but not you are saying low budget games are mostly crap too?

Low budget games tend to lean towards meta-genres as well.  Puzzle games, unimaginative platformers, and twitchy overhead shooters mostly.  Hardly any truly new ideas have I seen on Live Arcade for example.  There are great games there like Shadow Complex, Escape Goat, and Limbo.  But none of those are in the current top selling games list:

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxArcadeGames

I mean drivel like Fruit Ninja Kinect, NFL Blitz, and Quarrel are selling like hotcakes at the top.  Yet a game with tangible merit like Trine 2 is about to slip off the bottom already.  So while there are good games to be found in the service, the signal to noise ratio is badly skewed towards the blase.

All games are crap?

Again, I never said this.  You're trying to belittle my initial point by relishing my opinion to a level of absurdity I never inferred.

I think you infered that since the 3DS can achieve gamecube graphics that it wouldn't have any zany games like the DS

I never said that.  (You are making a habit of misunderstanding me.)  I was insinuating that since Resident Evil: Revelations has just set a new bar for graphical badassery on the 3DS, other games hoping to compete now have a new standard to dichotomize against.  That is not to say there won't be cutesy 2D titles on the 3DS.  But publishers are looking to make money.  So what sells, sells, and eye candy sells.  And eye candy is expensive, and expensive means risk aversion.  Risk aversion means taking less chances on "zany".  The same problem on a smaller scale begins to grow on handhelds just as it has festered on consoles.

You may very well see the next Hotel Dusk game on XBLA, PSN, etc. or very likely on the 3DS

XBLA, PSN, and Wiiware have been around for years now.  We haven't seen a Hotel Dusk on any one of those three services yet.  If the time passed is to be an indicator, it indicates the future for that prospect is bleak.  The 3DS has only been out about a year thus far, so it's too early to tell for that platform.

Why get low budget games that cost money vs free ones?

Because freeware games typically have more imagination, as they are labors of love.  I'll take Hero Core over Geometry Wars any day of the week.

I'm sure you like Hotel Dusk a lot more than you like Farmville, am I right?

Hotel Dusk was not an indie game, it was developed by a first party subsidiary of Nintendo, it had a real budget and a real team of developers in a real studio.  Farmville is not even the same type of genre, there's no real analog for comparison there.  Farmville may be free to play, but it makes oodles of cash off advertisement exposure and user data mining.  It is in no way a labor of love like a true freeware indie game is.  Rather, it's a social media leech made for oblivious idiots casuals less exposed gamers to grind away on.

It wouldn't be that hard, just open up CryEngine 3 and start modeling. At this point it really wouldn't cost that much now that the groundwork is already laid out. Just need some artists. Hotel Dusk isn't that big right?

What made Hotel Dusk great was not its graphics, although they were pleasant in their unique approach.  Rather, it was the amazing writing and plot.  And that is something that CryEngine 3 can simply not give you.  If I've said it before, I'll say it a thousand more times; what this industry needs is more excellent writers and game designers.  We've got well more than enough talented artists already.  Graphics are the absolute least problem.

but how can you say that with projects like The Last Guardian on the horizon

The Last Guardian looks to be the rarest gem, a AAA quality title that relishes its gameplay in an innovative approach.  It is also an extremely rare exception to the rule.  You cannot prove a rule by pointing to an exception.  Name a dozen other AAA titles on the horizon with as unique a premise as The Last Guardian, and your point will be made.

There were good games back then, and there will continue to be good games in the future.

I agree with you fundamentally.  It's just the ratio I worry about.

Looking back at all our discussion though, I think I am wrong.

I am wrong for blaming the cost of technology.  I should blame the lackluster tastes of the bourgeois gamers in total.  The largest sum of gaming dollar is what evolves the industry.  It's not the publisher or technology's fault.  It's the fault of the Mountain Dew sucking frat boys in their droves of millions who buy Halo and God Of War and GTA by the truckloads.  They couldn't give half a shit about something like Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom, or Another Code R.  If games like those sold more, then the future would be full of unbelievably pretty Hotel Dusks.

So I retract my initial view.  It's not the cost of technology's fault.  It's the blithering dipshit "gamer's" fault.  That's why we won't have as many nice things in the future.