Technology advances, so should your games

Videogames: their growth has a positive correlation with the expansion of technology. Obvious. As computer hardware becomes more advanced, games software becomes more advanced, harnessing the technology to deliver an entertaining experience. It works the other way too - as games become more complex, the hardware has to be advanced to run the game effectively.
An example of this was when Nintendo created the N64 and produced Super Mario 64 for it - this game could never have been done on the 64's predecessor (which was the SNES, but you already knew that didn't you?), it was created utilising the power of the N64. But it could be said that it was only until hardware of the N64's nature was created that Miyamoto's vision of Mario could be created in full 3D. It could be said that the N64's controller was designed with Super Mario 64 as its primary counterpart. On a similar note, Miyamoto said that it wasn't until the Gamecube that they (Nintendo) could actually express "wind" in a game environment (regarding Zelda: Wind Waker).

So what goes around comes around. As technology advances, the games move forward, as the games move forward the technology needs to move forward.
The point I'm getting to is why can only a few games developers and producers actually make good use of game console's technical abilities?
The problem is not down to a lack of skill and competence when coding, but usually it's the lack of good design of the game. A good design can be recognised even if the implementation is a bit shoddy. An example of this in my opinion is Body Harvest on the N64, iffy graphics and controls still don't bring the quality of this game down as a lot of thought and effort went into its design.
The problem stems from the games producer/publisher - all they want is a product that is cheap to produce but makes a lot of money. Obvious, again. This money-grabbing philosophy is the root of a huge sprawling tree that is represents "bad" games. Each branch of the tree is a different reason or cause to why games can be bad, and the profit hungry-ness on the producer's behalf is the root that this tree thrives on. Branches include such things as Movie tie-ins, sequels and clones amongst others.
Of tie-ins, slapping the name of a popular film franchise on a game often means good sales of a quickly (and cheaply) botched together piece of tosh. People go see the film, want to relive it so buy the game. Rarely has a tie-in been of worth, the recent Lord of the Rings games (The Two Towers and soon-to-be released Return of the King) springs to mind as an example of a good one. Goldeneye would be but came out long after the movie so I don't regard it as a tie-in.
This tie-in idea usually involves so-called kid's films such as Disney flicks. Finding Nemo is an example, an average to look at, simple to play game released just as the kiddy winks a walking out of the cinema. For some reason, developers feel children are so inept at playing games and are stupid enough not to notice the crap graphics and game-play that they can release a dodgy game (usually a platformer) and the kids will like it. But the kids "liking" the game isn't what the developer/producer is after, once the sale has been made by the unsuspecting parent of said child then the developer and producer have got the cash the desire so much.
Enter the Matrix, another example of a woefully average game that has sold bucket loads of copies across all formats, solely on The Matrix license and the release being so close to the release of ReLoaded.
Sequels aren't so bad - if the original was any good then fans of it will want a sequel, look at Metal Gear Solid - great game, Sons of Liberty becomes most awaited game ever*, then sells well, Snake Eater then becomes most awaited game ever*. But it's the pumping out of "the same tired game but different" that bugs me, 'COUGH, Tomb Raider, COUGH'. The first one was good but for iffy controls, second a bit better, 3rd, 4th, 5th and now Angel of Darkness are all dull. EA's yearly updates can annoy but that's only as, for example a new footie season starts, last seasons game is out of date statistically, that people want to be up to date with sports games.
'Clones' are real cuss-buckets, even if the end product turns out to be great. Why? Well, because it's just copying someone else's idea and (usually) jumping on the bandwagon of success that another game has created. As an example, Metal Gear Solid sells well, every game after it involves a stealth element. Examples?, How about The Hulk (a movie tie-in as well), The Getaway, and Turok: Evolution, developers need to understand that stealth only works when done right, such as In the MGS games and Splinter Cell, even the Zelda games do it better than most.
Cel-shading is the new polygons - every game then uses it to create a "unique graphical style" but the game turns out to be crap and they all look the same anyway (except Wind Waker and Veiwtiful Joe, which both look great).
Rushed games are also a problem, a low quality game is quickly bolted together to jump on the bandwagon of another game's or a film's success.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said, "A delayed game will eventually be a good game, a rushed game will always be a bad one", or something like that.

Where was I? Oh, technology, games, correlation, yeah, I remember. Most of these cruddy games that are flooding the market make absolutely no use of the hardware that's running them. Its only with experimenting with new and original ideas on the hardware that the system can be pushed (Metroid Prime and Pikmin are standout examples on the GC). But original idea's in the games business is, well, risky business. For some reason everyone barks on about the lack of originality but original games seem to sell badly because everyone buys a game that that has a degree of familiarity to it. As a result companies just keep releasing tried and tested formula's that are exhausted as it will sell well.

If games are to move forward (and thus technology) then originality is needed, to inject new life in to the medium. God bless Capcom for this with their batch of games that are GC exclusives these are P.N.03 - a 3rd person action shooter with a REZ kind of rhythm element, Veiwtiful Joe - a 2.5 D scrolling beat-em up, Killer 7 - radically stylish graphics for an FPS, OK, so ones a Resident Evil sequel but one that aims to push the series along), investing money from top selling franchises into new one's that may become top selling franchises in the future.

Anyway, these are just a few grumbles with the games Industry, but come on developers and producers, stop making crap and actually use the hardware you're making games for to a decent extent, please. The technology's there and getting better, your games should follow suit.

Written by: Chris Fletcher
Date: 26th October 2003
Email:chris.fletch@btinternet.com