Gaming’s stuck in its comfort zone, but how do we make a difference?
Much like other forms of media, the gaming industry has stagnated. Every year Call of Duty or FIFA is the best-selling game of the year, and games become increasingly conflated with first-person shooters. Of course, it wasn’t always like this, and to some extent, it still isn’t. New creative games are still being made, but for every Cult of the Lamb, Tunic or Citizen Sleeper, there are a hundred open-world adventures looking over their shoulders.
These creative exploits get some recognition, but there is no incentive for Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft, or EA Games to pump out anything outside of the tried and tested formula until they do as well financially. Similarly to how superheroes seem to have saturated the cinema, gaming seems unable to escape from the grasps of the amorphous 3D action-adventure genre, or even worse, 3D action-adventure live-service games.
Gaming seems stuck in the 3D action-advanture genre.
Sony Santa Monica
In film there is at least critical acclaim. We saw movies outside of the standard, such as Everything Everywhere All at Once and The Whale clean up at The Golden Globes, but when it comes to gaming, it’s hard to say the same. The Game Awards gave out most of its prizes to Stray, a 3D action-adventure game, God of War Ragnarök, a 3D action-adventure game and sequel, and Elden Ring, a 3D action-adventure game from a company with a habit of developing around the same core game structure.
While these three games took home the vast majority of awards, more innovative games, such as Neon White or Sifu, may have been nominated, but were then swiftly overlooked. People won’t vote for Immortality’s Manon Gage to win best performance, even if she gave four very different and intriguing performances, if she’s placed next to Christopher Judge, beloved for his reprisal of Kratos.
That’s not to say these games aren’t worthy of awards, but like how you can tell a film is Oscar-bait, the same seems to have happened to games. The most innovative games come from indie developers where not as much revenue is needed to make their games profitable. Big studios with hundreds of employees crunching for their lives, and paying millions in marketing have much higher stakes. The image of what a game should be seems to have solidified in many people’s minds, but it’s not a box we should feel confined to.
A game is 3D, it has high-end graphics, it runs in 4K and at 60fps, and has an open world. The main character is a white man or a custom creation, and engages in combat with some sword, or more popularly, a gun. If your game has all these things, then you’re usually on to a winner. It’s something the market will get excited about, even if it later flops. Bonus points if your game is a sequel, or a remake, or a reboot, or a remaster, or from a popular series, or even just a modern port. People will buy it again if it has a name they recognize.
Money talks. And big names on big games make big money. But what if it didn’t have to be that way. What if a company with the manpower of Ubisoft, made another Rayman. Not like Rayman Origins or Legends, of course, but a game as innovative as Rayman was at the time it was released. A game with an interesting mechanic I can’t think of, because I’m a critic, not an artist, but I’m sure they’re all brimming with great ideas. I’m also sure they all want to make their interesting games, but are confined by corporate red tape and what is profitable.
That leads things back to us. Next time you have $70 to spend on the new open-world FPS, instead buy four or five new innovative and interesting games – maybe one of the six I’ve already mentioned – and give them a try. Not only will you have four new games you’ll probably love, but you still have your shelves full of the other open-world FPS’ you’ve bought to fall back on. And let’s face it, they’re basically the same anyway.
