Why have game developers lost their imagination?

[Jarhead0331]

I was watching space game junkie play an old classic called Star Fleet II, and although it looks like Armored Commander II, in space, the depth of the game play caught my attention...command of capital ships, large strategic map, detailed planetary invasions involving different levels of inhabitant technology, detailed ship boarding actions, capture and use of slaves, torture and interrogation for intelligence, supply and logistics,  etc. I then downloaded the manual from an abandonware site and was awestruck by some of the detail and complexity built into the title. There are other games like this out there from the early 90s and before...Rules of Engagement and it's companion game Breach, for instance.

I guess my question is why are games like this not made anymore? Where have these imaginative developers who could create so much with so little when the industry was in its infancy gone? I understand that profit is limited in titles like this these days, but certainly the profit was limited back then too. Something else must have changed. What is it? My greatest wish is for these types of games to be made again...the kind of games that take our dreams to stand on the bridge of a space battlecruiser, or to command legions of space infantry  and let us play them out on the screen in supreme detail.

[SirAndrewD]

I remember playing Star Fleet and Star Fleet II.

I, honestly, have no idea.   

I imagine the audience still is there.  Things have changed with modern computers but still.

[Bardolph]

They were sacrificed on the altar of ever more realistic graphics. Which took all the dev money that used to be used to build interesting games. Just my opinion of course.

[Anguille]

Because these games were made by people driven by passion while games are made today by people driven mostly by money?

I should check Star Fleet....where can you find it?

[Jarhead0331]

I'm hard pressed to believe it has to do with money and the overriding importance of flash and graphics. Once again, these games weren't necessarily money makers in their day. In the early 90s when these games were made, most homes didn't have a pc in them. So these catered to an elite or niche crowd. They were made in some cases by guys with PhDs who had a real interest, passion and a lot of knowledge about the subject matter and the hobby. There must be something else that has driven these guys underground.

[HoodedHorseJoe]

From my experience the truly imaginative games get created in the first place because there is a gap, or a niche, that's not really been covered before then. Or at least, not been covered to the extent that the creator is satisfied with.

As time goes on, those niches and gaps become less and less. Like, why do Star Fleet II or something like it when Star Fleet II already exists? There could also be a perception that the barrier to entry in just 'doing it yourself' is a lot higher than it used to be. I can't actually speak for what it was like in the early days because I wasn't there (maaan), but perhaps it wasn't as difficult to try and self-teach the skills to make these low-tech games? I could be wrong on that.

Coming back to the Star Fleet 2 example, the only logical step from that is to make Star Fleet but with better graphics because what can you possibly do to make it better than it already is? (I've not played it myself, just holding it up as an example of a Damn Good Game(TM))

There is also the thing about passion projects that mean you rarely make a career out of it. Your PHD expert may have found the time to create that one game that's super cool, but that doesn't mean he/she wants to then make more games and there's no guarantee more people like them will even come along. Perhaps the 90's created a perfect storm of influences that inspired a select group of people, and such times are unlikely to come back.

[jamus34]

The flash and graphics play into it I believe.

Money I believe is also a factor, not in the cost of the game per se but that game develops want to make money and to do that reliably you need to hit in the mainstream, not niche markets.

I mean what are the most popular games today. Shooters in all their shapes and forms.

I think your question could be placed in a broader basis. There is a major dearth of creativity in society nowadays. Look at movies. You might get 1 interesting nee concept movie out a year, mainstream is all sequels and comic book movies currently.

Look at music, it is all manufactured at the mainstream level.

Both industries have their niche and underground talent that truly creates new things but overall it's not going to be visible to the average person.

[totemgam]

I am a computer game developer and I have an answer to your question. The price of error has become too high. If they don't pay for my work, then my first experience will be my last experience. Nobody needs new ugly buggy games. Even if these games have great new ideas.

Games from entertainment for the minority turned into a serious business with huge budgets. People with big money do not like to risk them and have not played games for a long time.

Most players need roughly the same games, mostly related to actions, not thoughts. Developers are also people, we have families, we need money.

Therefore, we are afraid to take risks.

[Jarhead0331]

I am a computer game developer and I have an answer to your question. The price of error has become too high. If they don't pay for my work, then my first experience will be my last experience. Nobody needs new ugly buggy games. Even if these games have great new ideas.

Games from entertainment for the minority turned into a serious business with huge budgets. People with big money do not like to risk them and have not played games for a long time.

Most players need roughly the same games, mostly related to actions, not thoughts. Developers are also people, we have families, we need money.

Therefore, we are afraid to take risks.

I'm sure that is some of it, but again, I highly doubt that is all of it.

Take Dr. Trevor Sorensen as an example, since we are talking about Star Fleet. Google him and look at his resume. The guy has several advanced degrees and was an aeronautical engineer for nasa. He created a few game development companies as side projects. It clearly wasn't his only source of income, nor his primary endeavor, but even with his full time career, with the help of a programmer and a designer, he created these fantastic games.

Everybody has a different situation or motivation. I just think several decades ago, the motivation was much less geared toward financial reward. 

I think Jamus makes some good points about a lack of imagination across many industries. I hadn't thought of that. But I also think wargamer Joe makes a good point, which is closer to what I think I am getting at. Maybe it harder to self teach the necessary skills due to the nature of the technology, so on some level, perhaps, one almost needs to have programming as a career in order to get into it in the first place...

[SteveW]

Many of my favourite PC games are from the 1990s. They were usually detailed, complex games with large manuals and you need to learn the game rules in order to play effectively. The home PC user base at the time was mainly comprised of early adopters who were technically aware.

These days, to achieve mass market success a game has to appeal to the widest possible audience, which includes making the game look as good as possible and making it easy to understand and play without the need to read a manual first. If your goal is to make money, then adding complexity or a steep learning curve is not a good idea. It would be more profitable to invest in better graphics.

I suspect that in the early days, a small group of developers could create and distribute a game. Now that games are a multi-billion dollar industry, the developers are no longer the primary decision makers. Marketing people and investors make different decisions regarding the production of a game. If money was no object and you let developers make the decisions, I suspect you would be more likely to see 1990s style games.

[Jarhead0331]

^you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You fit into the mold of that late 80s early 90s developer. You've created a massively complex game that, just happens to have a very strong following.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it is free, you did not create it for profit. Game development is not your primary vocation.

I guess I'm just surprised that there aren't more Steve's and Trevor's our there in the world these days. Highly imaginative, resourceful individuals with a passion and love for the rich and deep complexity of the world's they have or can create.

There is no shortage of indie crap out there. Just scroll through the steam catalog. What is lacking is the imagination and drive that seemed to be somewhat more common in past decades. The decline of this kind of developer is gaming's greatest tragedy.

[SteveW]

^you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You fit into the mold of that late 80s early 90s developer. You've created a massively complex game that, just happens to have a very strong following.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it is free, you did not create it for profit. Game development is not your primary vocation.

Profit was not the motive and I do have a full time job. Developing is a hobby and I am very keen for that to remain the case, which is why I don't charge for the game.

Given the lack of deep, complex games I decided to create my own and ended up sharing it with others. Creating a game I want to play is still the primary motivation.

[totemgam]

In our games there is no and never has been profit. We are all amateurs and self-taught. We all (in Totem Games) have work: I am a historian, there is an accountant, and so on.

That is why I say that making a beautiful, high-quality game is expensive. The audience of our games is from 5 to 10 thousand people. It is very small to be a reliable financial base for large-scale creative experiments.

We can't give away our games for free because we don't know how to make beautiful ship 3d models. In the gaming industry, high wages and therefore the work of a professional 3d artist is expensive for us. In addition, not everyone, even for good money, can make a ship 3d model well.

There is another important point. The number of successful interesting gameplay elements is limited. In some genres, they are already almost all used.

You can't put creativity on the assembly line, especially if the creator is constantly hungry.

Let me remind you that over time, our brain gets used to pleasures and in order to maintain a level of satisfaction we need to throw more and more new emotions into the brain. Like with drugs.

Some genres of computer games have already become extinct as dinosaurs, but some have yet to.

[WYBaugh]

My lifelong goal has been to bring Star Fleet I/II to a modern platform.  I'm a programmer, but in no way a game designer.  Still, I love those games.  The very best 'Star Trek' games and one I would love to play again.

[ArizonaTank]

.....There could also be a perception that the barrier to entry in just 'doing it yourself' is a lot higher than it used to be. I can't actually speak for what it was like in the early days because I wasn't there (maaan), but perhaps it wasn't as difficult to try and self-teach the skills to make these low-tech games? I could be wrong on that.
...

I was a software developer at the time. However, I was not a game developer, but I did dabble. All in all, IMHO the job of game developer was probably harder in those days. This is because there was no concept of a "game engine" at the time. You had to pretty much program everything from scratch. If you wanted to support a mouse, you had to often build your own routines for mouse behavior. UI had to be hand crafted. Need a database function? build it yourself. Then their was the nightmare of lack of standardization on the PC side. Sound cards and video cards often needed custom tailored interfaces. If you needed to optimize your game, you had to dabble in assembly language, or even machine code..not for the faint of heart. You also did not have good ways to get patches to your customers, so none of this "Early Access" stuff. The game had to substantially work by the time you put it in a box.   

I think because of the proliferation of very good, inexpensive and easy to learn game engines. things are much easier now.