Awaiting the 4 Horsemen of the Videogame Apocalypse

New DLC in the form of one very Fat Princess was released this week, which means that another iteration of capture the flag has been unleashed on the gaming public.  And forgive us for picking on Fat Princess, but exactly how many versions of Capture the Flag do we need before we cry uncle?

This sort of hollow gaming made us wonder if there will be a day when the gaming public calls it quits and becomes disenchanted with the industry. We present to you The 4 Horsemen of the Videogame Apocalypse - the 4 factors we believe could potentially lead to the downfall of gaming as we know it.

Originality is dead. Long live originality!
The almighty dollar has staked its claim - and its claim is that there will be a sequel of every decently selling game each and every year, until the sequels themselves cease to sell well.  This mentality has effectively forced a stake through the heart of creative integrity, leading us to sequel-itis in the form of Guitar Hero: Sorry But We're All Outta Music, Devil May Cry 15, Final Fantasy 200, Super Duper Mario 128, and Call of Duty 17: The Mars Offensive.

The question then becomes: at what point do publishers no longer get away with the blatant exploitation of a handful of titles?  The answer would seem to be obvious: whenever the gaming public decides they've had enough of the same tired rat maze and stop spending their money.  But when will that happen, if ever?

With the industry still in its growth stages, publishers can still make boatloads by taking advantage of the new gamers looking to buy into the latest and greatest iteration of a given franchise. However, that growth will eventually stall, at which time we'll find out how amped up gamers are going to be to shell out $60USD on their 5th time through the Final Fantasy universe. Titles like Okami, Mad World, Beyond Good and Evil, and Flower have shown that there are glimmers of originality amongst the shadows of sequels - but many are left to die anonymous deaths due to poor sales (usually from a lack of any marketing vehicle), never to be heard from again. 

At some point the industry needs to take a look at itself and spend the money to put forth true, groundbreaking endeavors before its core audience becomes disinterested.  

Until that time comes, we can only expect to be inundated with prettier versions of the same old, tired genres.

DLC giveth, DLC taketh away
Oh sweet, glorious DLC - how you tempt us.  It is sold to gamers as a more convenient alternative to heading out to your local retail shop and picking up a hard-copy version.  Hell, most current DLC doesn't even come in a hardcopy format, leaving the gamer no other option than to get an internet connection and download away.

As a gaming collector, I've often wondered - what happens when the content is no longer distributed by the content provider?  What do I do if, 10 years down the line, I take out my XB360 and find that my hard drive has been corrupted, taking my copy of Castle Crashers and Geometry Wars with it?  I've technically purchased the game, so I own it, however I'll be damned if Microsoft would keep servers up a decade from now for the sole purpose of redistributing content for an outdated console... at which point I'm probably left with scouring the web in search of a working hard drive that has a copy of these games installed.

So far DLC has been limited to retail expansions, indie projects, and small big-box releases.  The time will come in the not-too-distant future where full retail games will be available at our fingertips, and it is then we must be wary of what we're signing up for. 

While it will be a long while before DLC becomes the de facto form of distribution, it should be seen as the Trojan horse of gaming, and should be viewed skeptically as such. 

Douchebags amongst us
With games leaning on online play more and more these days, the dependence on a good online audience to enhance the gameplay experience is greater than ever ... which, if the current console online population is any indication, is definitely not a good thing.

For those who do not have an extensive friend list of people who share the same exact game tastes the exact moment you feel like playing them, you're left with matchmaking against the general populace.  Avoiding explicative, racist-laden tirades from folks of all ages is an art form in the console gaming universe - fortunately, the mute button comes in quite handy in such situations and can limit the damage... that is, until the rest of the game lobby and/or your team chime in.  What fun is there in playing a team game when you have to mute your own team?  Unfortunately, experiences such as these are not uncommon.

Another issue with general matchmaking is that most matchmaking algorithms do not take skill into consideration, as mentioned in our previous article about ways to improve the Call of Duty online experience.  This lack of segregation leaves noobies and less-skilled folks to play with the more experienced gamers, resulting in matches that are often times uncompetitive and fun for no one.

Online gaming has become a huge part of the overall gaming experience, but unfortunately it's also one of the weakest links.  Without some effective measures to improve the situation, a portion of the online gaming population may leave altogether.

The technology that blinds
Technological improvements are supposed to be what makes the videogame industry stand out from its media brethren.  For the longest time most improvements focused on the hardware: GPUs, CPUs, memory bandwidth, media inputs, and all the other technical jargon that made games bigger, faster, flashier, and shinier.

Why is it, then, that when actual user-interface improvements are made, causing a particular console's sales go through the roof, publishers are unable to capture the essence of the new technology?  (Hint: see horseman #1)

Technology is a huge bugaboo in the videogame industry.  The path to the current generation of consoles is littered with the thrashed corpses of technologies that didn't catch on for one reason or another: Sega's 3D glasses, Sega's 32X, Nintendo's Virtual Boy, Philips CD-i, and Nintendo's PowerGlove, just to name a few.  Most failed due to the complete lack of creativity in using the actual technologies in a fun, worthwhile application (though, in the Virtual Boy's case, player migraines may have had something to do with it).

If we take a look at Sony, their "next big thing" is motion-sensing with depth sensitivity that will be similar to the Wii's motion senor plus in a number of ways.  Microsoft is trying a different approach and going controller-less with Natal.  All of these technologies have their own pros and cons when it comes to improving (or evolving) the gaming experience, but what it will come down to is adoption by the third-party publishers, lest we be left playing tech demos (we're looking at you, Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort), or limitless collections of chintzy mini-games.

So what does this mean for the industry's future?  Well, if the Wii is any sort of benchmark, we're in trouble.  While Nintendo's positive press has focused on their ridiculous console sales, their software sales are nowhere near where they would like them to be, especially when taking into consideration the install base.  Whether or not Sony/Microsoft fall into the same pitfalls remains to be seen, but if history is any indication they have their work cut out for them.

---

So how long until the Horsemen arrive, bringing with them another industrywide ET-inspired apocalypse?  

Only time will tell, but in the meantime pop some popcorn and hop onto PSN/XBL to listen to those angry, racists folks as they play their DLC version of Battlefield 3001.