We got many different types of games ans genres, all of them are good. but someone will tell you that some games are more proper games than other.... this is what I am saying, and the streamlined AAA games has just as much value as retro classics or hipster Indies. Same features are copied because they work, but there are plenty of other games also. The good thing is that we do not al have to like the same games as Crosmode does, even though how much he would like us to do.
I get what you are saying and partially agree. It's good to have variety, but most "AAA" (fucking hate that title) companies stick to the same thing over and over. Even worse every iteration of the same game is even more simplified and streamlined ("button-awesome", "less confusing" you've heard that before) than the previous in order to appeal to more people. This is bound to give an underwhelming experience to the ones already familiar with gaming.
A note here, I'm not saying everything old is good. Dune 2 controls are atrocious by todays standards and the inventory management in many older RPGs is very often a chore. At the same time this not very clearly quantifiable charm that makes these games played and sold even today is, many times, lost as well in the process. We get some, we lose some... The problem is, more often than not, we lose more than we gain. And I think that's Crosmando's point. Not that all should conform to his preferences.
that's how it has been with all mainstream since the dawn of time. There is more at stake there so there is less room for experimentation. Most experimentations and innovations will happen at the fringes, and the most successful ones will be absorbed into the mainstream. Nothing new there, and as long as the amount of money are involved as it is, there is also really no problem. If the mainstream tried to experiment all the time, the companies would be folding constantly and the centre would be very unstable. Say what you will about the big companies, but the stability of them helps maintain the gaming industry. I think it works nicely like this.
Revolutions will happen at the fringes, in the mainstream there will be evolutions.
and speaking about the value of what we have lost and what we have gained, that is entirely in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, (speaking as a gamer from the late 70's) we have gained a lot more then we have lost.... I can not really think about one single thing we have "lost" which I am missing.
Edit - A bit related article, focus on PS4 now
, relevant extract to the above:
"A first-person shooter is a first-person shooter. A driving sim is a driving sim. FIFA is FIFA. There's nothing revolutionary about them, no more than there's anything revolutionary about a wacky family sitcom or an apocalyptic action flick. Sure, some new digital filmmaking technique or digital distribution mechanism might slightly alter our experience of such media, but the moment we focus on that purported innovation, we tend to become annoyed and distracted. Just think of Hollywood's recent experiments in technical innovations like 3D and 48 fps -- they leave audiences cold. All we really want are decent films that don't run so damned long.
David Cage's dreams of interactive cinema notwithstanding, big budget, high-gloss commercial videogames aren't appealing because there's some new zenith to reach, one only made possible by a controller with a "Share" button or a touch-pad or a streaming delivery system. They're appealing because they have reached their zenith, and their zenith is also their nadir. In some sense, we love big budget, high-gloss videogames because they are terrible, because they have to compromise to a lowest common denominator to justify their absurd budgets, and because we secretly know that our highest aspirations for them are actually quite low. We don't really want Cold War Berlin; we want big motherfucking guns.
This is an unpopular claim to make out in the open. Few will own up to the fact that they mostly want to shoot aliens and play Madden NFL on PlayStation, just like they mostly want to see explosions and watch football on TV. That's not to say that's all videogames can do, of course. Just as Downton Abbey or Storage Wars or Mad Men make different uses of the plasma TV, so some games disrupt videogames' crass pornography of playable action: Cage's quasi-interactive drama Heavy Rain or That Game Company's stylized environmental dreamscape Journey, or Jonathan Blow's dense world-puzzler The Witness, a game whose PS4 launch was even revealed at the Sony announcement. But to become figures, these works have to arise from the wide, stable base of videogames' ground. We need the tripe to make the Kobe sensical. After all, 50" TVs and surround sound home theaters weren't invented to make Lord Crawley appear more visually captivating or more aurally directional.
Such pragmatism may seem vulgar, but it's also weirdly bewitching. There's something earnest about embracing the dumb ugliness of stupid games, of wanting to play the latest, shiniest versions of Killzone and Gran Turismo not because they contain anything new or different, but just because we recognize our own propensity to produce endless desire for them."