discussion of "$$$ is the current trend in game design"

[Sever]

Originally posted by ZFR: Well, Sever hasn't told us who should be at the top of the games company instead of the "fat corporate whore". I would appreciate an answer. A concrete answer. (On a side notice, why is the adjective "fat" used in a negative way? Would a thin corporate whore be better? or is it really the hidden belief that prosperity is evil behind such usage?)

Who should be at the top making all the important decisions? Me, of course! But since that'll never happen and since we're also aiming for a little seriousness here, i'd like to see the big kahuna be a person who actually plays (and preferrably loves) the game that they're producing.

Why fat? Whenever i picture the person responsible for a game's stunted development, that's the image i conjure. I don't like using stereotypes, but we all use them whether we like it or not. If i really think about it, this person is probably actually thin given that they obviously don't play too many computer games. But whatever they look like, it's their greed that i despise, and the universal stereotype for 'greed' is 'fat'.

Originally posted by ZFR: "Monetary success is more important to those companies right now that making a masterpiece." - the *only* way for those companies to create "monetary success" is by having people buy their product. If you create a mediocre product, you make mediocre monetary success, good product - "good monetary success". In order to create greate monetary succes, you have to create a masterpiece. It is not the corpoate whore who decides what games are to be made. It's the gamers who decide by voting with their wallets. "really doesn't give a shit about whether or not fans are happy once they've handed over their cash." - If he wants to make money he would give a shit. Would anyone buy another game from such a producer. Would you buy another game from such a producer?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. But even if everyone who was pissed off didn't buy from them again, there are plenty of tricks of the trade to ensure that kids and morons DO buy from them again. Shiny packaging, marketing hype, tits 'n ass. Boycotts aren't as effective as the marketing tools used to bypass them.

Originally posted by ZFR: So I hope $$$ is and remains the current trend in making games. No businessman whose trend is $$$ will ever realease a bad product into the market, even if he knows people will buy it. His greed and aim for money will prevent him from doing it.

In a perfect world, that'd be the case. Unfortunately it ain't perfect and, unfortunately for us all, the businessman with nothing more than $$$ in his eyes CAN and DOES get away with releasing crappy games (and not just games, this encompasses the entire range of consumer products). He might not get away with it forever, but he need only do it once to set an example for anyone who wants to make a buck without having to spend time and money developing a quality product. And then the $$$ trend is established...

Originally posted by ZFR: Only a person whose aim is not money doesn't care if his product is good or bad. I hope all game producers get filthy rich, because if they do, it means they have done so by realeasing games for which I was happy to give them my money.

[img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Erm. That's way off.

You've never payed money for a game that, in retrospect, was crap?

You've never spent more time than necessary making or doing something for yourself? (Not because money was involved?)

[Sever]

Just out of interest, does anyone know of a list of the most comercially successful games of all time?

[Kakero]

NWN2 isn't out yet, and yet people are already judging how good/bad the game will be and it's impact towards it's producer.

Originally posted by ZFR: It is not the corpoate whore who decides what games are to be made. It's the gamers who decide by voting with their wallets.

I beg to differ, it's the so called corporate whore that decides what games are to be made, gamers are the one that prolong their "life" by buying their products and giving them money so that these corporate whore can continue and decide what other games to be made.

[Dreamer128]

Unfortunately, the development costs of games has skyrocketed over the past few years. In 'the old days' ( ), every teen with an ounce of talent could make a great 2d game in their basement. That's how some of the great franchises of our time got started. Nowadays, in order to compete, you need to have top notch sound and graphics. The people that invest in the games prefer to play it safe and put their money in proven (read: unoriginal) concepts. And lets face it, some of the greatest games I've ever played (Planescape, Darwinia) sold really poorly. (which may also have something to do with marketing)
Personally, I'm putting my hopes on Online Distribution. (such as Steam) Because through direct distribtion, small developers don't need gazillions of dollars to storm the market, and can afford bypass the big companies.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Unfortunately, the development costs of games has skyrocketed over the past few years. In 'the old days' ( ), every teen with an ounce of talent could make a great 2d game in their basement. That's how some of the great franchises of our time got started. Nowadays, in order to compete, you need to have top notch sound and graphics. The people that invest in the games prefer to play it safe and put their money in proven (read: unoriginal) concepts. And lets face it, some of the greatest games I've ever played (Planescape, Darwinia) sold really poorly. (which may also have something to do with marketing) Personally, I'm putting my hopes on Online Distribution. (such as Steam) Because through direct distribtion, small developers don't need gazillions of dollars to storm the market, and can afford bypass the big companies.

Well maybe if they realised we don't need cutting edge pentium 4 3.5ghz 512 megs minimum graphics, then maybe they wouldn't be spending so much on production.

[Bungleau]

It's today's trade-off. Do you make sure there's good eye-candy, or make sure there's a good story? Most of us classic gamers, I believe, prefer the story to the eye candy. That doesn't mean you can release an 8-bit graphic package, but you at least have to be relatively current.

[robertthebard]

Well, I'm working within the constraints of the NWN's toolset, trying to make a single player module that will have the eye-candy that's possible, along with a decent story line. Still trying to flesh out the story line, but it's coming right along. Sometimes good scripting will make all the difference, and I'm going to use this as a learning the scripting tool. The thing is, I'm no programmer, and I can create these thing within the limitations, why can't game developers? Most do, to a point, but it's so much better to have decent graphics, with a plot driven story; BG for example.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Luvian: Edit: Who should be at the top of these companies? A somewhat fat corporate whore, with ethics.

I put the word "concrete" in my post in italics to emphasize it, and still this is the kind of answer I get. . Do you call the above a concrete answer? What you wrote is something that really has no meaning, and can be interpreted by any person any way he likes. Answer specifically. What do exactly do you mean by ethics? Define. And for goodness sake don't use the word 'somewhat'. It's probably the least concrete in English vocabulary.

I may not (in fact I don't) agree with Sever's answer, but at least he wrote something clear and specific.

My answer? At the top of a game company should be a greedy investor/businessman. And by 'greedy' I mean aiming to make maximum profit on the games produced.

[ 08-28-2006, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: ZFR ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by ZFR: My answer? At the top of a game company should be a greedy investor/businessman. And by 'greedy' I mean aiming to make maximum profit on the games produced.

And that's what Black island, Atari and Interplay had. Lots of good it did them.

Edit: Who I'd like to see at the top of a company is someone that care about his company and it's image, has a stake in the success of his company, and plan in the long term instead of the short term. It wouldn't hurt if he respected and cared his clients either.

[ 08-28-2006, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[SpiritWarrior]

All I know is Atari is the devil. It would do us all a favor if it went under and stopped going after the D&D licenses, allowing another more noble company to step up and make my games.