Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:58 am
by ActiveAero
I'd love to be the head of some of these so called "top" game development studios just to try an experiment out on them.
I'd tell them to come up with their initial ideas and don't touch a single piece of development hardware until I said so. While they fumble around imagining all of the cool new graphical hardware tricks I'd replaced all of their next gen development kits with outdated computers along the graphical lines of the SNES /Genesis/etc. When it came time to get down to business I'd pull back the cover and say "Here ya go. Once you prove to me you can actually design an interesting game with a compelling story then I'll think about letting you transfer the idea over to something that can actually put out more than 50 polygons. Have fun."
I honestly believe a less extreme approach like this would actually benefit the gaming community greatly. Force developers to design the game from the ground up on a severely de-tuned version of the graphical engine they will eventually use and don't let them add textures, dynamics lighting or hight polygon count environments/characters until the game is actually fun.
I'd be willing to bet 50% of the "top" video game studios couldn't put out a single thing worth playing under such criteria.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:01 am
by Henry Spencer
87th wrote:And then making an awful new Final Fight game? (Final Fight: Streetwise)
At least they tried, which is not what can be said of other companies, I mean, SEGA are awful, they shit on their fans and don't care. Capcom know what they are doing most of the time.
And yes, Aero, I agree. Game's quality have certainly gone down in quality in recent years on the whole I have found.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:37 am
by 87th
Snatcher wrote:Yes Capcom is a mixed bag.. but I love them anyway. They have deep lows, and steep highs.
Oh yeah, they've done a lot of great stuff recently (Resident Evil 4 and killer7 are both in my all time top-five), but they've done a lot of terrible things, too (getting rid of Clover is the main one). I'd hardly use Capcom as an example of a company who are doing it right.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:38 am
by Marc
ActiveAero wrote:I'd love to be the head of some of these so called "top" game development studios just to try an experiment out on them.
I'd tell them to come up with their initial ideas and don't touch a single piece of development hardware until I said so. While they fumble around imagining all of the cool new graphical hardware tricks I'd replaced all of their next gen development kits with outdated computers along the graphical lines of the SNES /Genesis/etc. When it came time to get down to business I'd pull back the cover and say "Here ya go. Once you prove to me you can actually design an interesting game with a compelling story then I'll think about letting you transfer the idea over to something that can actually put out more than 50 polygons. Have fun."
I honestly believe a less extreme approach like this would actually benefit the gaming community greatly. Force developers to design the game from the ground up on a severely de-tuned version of the graphical engine they will eventually use and don't let them add textures, dynamics lighting or hight polygon count environments/characters until the game is actually fun.
I'd be willing to bet 50% of the "top" video game studios couldn't put out a single thing worth playing under such criteria.
Haha, I'd love to see their faces. Great idea. Today's developers do rely too heavily on simply making the best graphics possible.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:48 pm
by Artemio
Osiris wrote:ActiveAero wrote:I'd love to be the head of some of these so called "top" game development studios just to try an experiment out on them.
I'd tell them to come up with their initial ideas and don't touch a single piece of development hardware until I said so. While they fumble around imagining all of the cool new graphical hardware tricks I'd replaced all of their next gen development kits with outdated computers along the graphical lines of the SNES /Genesis/etc. When it came time to get down to business I'd pull back the cover and say "Here ya go. Once you prove to me you can actually design an interesting game with a compelling story then I'll think about letting you transfer the idea over to something that can actually put out more than 50 polygons. Have fun."
I honestly believe a less extreme approach like this would actually benefit the gaming community greatly. Force developers to design the game from the ground up on a severely de-tuned version of the graphical engine they will eventually use and don't let them add textures, dynamics lighting or hight polygon count environments/characters until the game is actually fun.
I'd be willing to bet 50% of the "top" video game studios couldn't put out a single thing worth playing under such criteria.
Haha, I'd love to see their faces. Great idea. Today's developers do rely too heavily on simply making the best graphics possible.
Indeed. But it is not the developer's fault. I have seen that developers and designers do want to make things this way. They'd rather make a great DS game with the ideas they've had since they were studying... but the company won't finance that.
You see, when you run a business, you need to make sure the product you are investing in is going to sell. you cannot invest in development, rents, salaries, dev kits, promotion, PR and marketing if you are not sure you'll see at least a break even. But of course, why go fro the break even if you can make a couple of bucks?
You can see what happens that way. Would you absorb all the responsibility of your aproach? I mean, would you pay from your pocket the company back their investment if you don't bring back earnings? I am willing to believe you would answer yes.
The thing is, if you are willing to answer yes to such a question, it is even a better scenario for you to start your own company. If you are running the risks, you at least need to have the possibility of having some of the earnings as well.
As you can see, that is what happens. Independent developers take the risks, big companies make big bucks out of tested formulas that mainstream buys. Once in a while you get a Clover studio inside of Capcom.. but it all ends up like it has. I hope it changes, but at some level I also hope it goes on like this. I want to see the games that small studios create, as downloadable content. I must say I like my games with a case and instruction manual, I am all about collecting. But so far only the DS has been grounds for the type of work I'd like to see, and not as much as I'd like. Eventually the PSP with G&G.
That's why I buy "experimental" games whenever I can, I sympathize with the small studio.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:07 pm
by Marc
But how do you make it sell? If all games look alike, you need to focus on the gameplay to make your game stand out (and therefore sell). I think that's what Aero means. As time goes on and graphics become more and more advanced, and similar, it's going to be back to gameplay like it was in the old days of gaming, like some weird cycle coming full circle.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:13 pm
by Henry Spencer
^ Exactly. killer7 is a great example of experimental games going well.
There are rare gems that manage to impress in both regards though as well, I think the Zelda games are a prime example; great storytelling, as it draws you into a really immersive world, whilst rhe graphics and gameplay is excellent.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:11 pm
by Artemio
Osiris wrote:But how do you make it sell? If all games look alike, you need to focus on the gameplay to make your game stand out (and therefore sell). I think that's what Aero means. As time goes on and graphics become more and more advanced, and similar, it's going to be back to gameplay like it was in the old days of gaming, like some weird cycle coming full circle.
It all depends on who you want to sell it to. I don't hear newcomers to the hobby complaining, and they'll buy every FIFA each year. If you mean selling to us, a very small percentage of the market, you are right. They need to focus on gameplay. But in order to sell to an average gamer that just bought an Xbox 360 and wasn't in the hobby for years, they don't need to make an effort.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:40 pm
by Marc
Really? I think even casual gamers will get tired of games once graphics start to plateau in future console generations, that is, if the gameplay doesn't pull them in because developers don't focus on it.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:27 pm
by Artemio
For me a casual gamer just buys the console, a couple of games and that's it. he never even discusses about games, or has a history in the hobby.
I believe that, at least here, 80% of the market belongs in that segment. And I also see here that it is "renewable", the keep coming as the older casuals leave.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:11 pm
by 87th
Osiris wrote:Really? I think even casual gamers will get tired of games once graphics start to plateau in future console generations, that is, if the gameplay doesn't pull them in because developers don't focus on it.
That's when they stop being casual gamers.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:13 pm
by Henry Spencer
Supply and demand, I think that they will continue with graphics actually, but I can see what you mean Osiris, games would be better if they would turn full circle and go back to their original greatness (their roots) once more.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:03 pm
by Marc
87th wrote:Osiris wrote:Really? I think even casual gamers will get tired of games once graphics start to plateau in future console generations, that is, if the gameplay doesn't pull them in because developers don't focus on it.
That's when they stop being casual gamers.
I was meaning that's when they stop playing games. I know many ex-casual gamer friends who have had this exact thing happen to them and now they no longer play games.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:03 am
by 87th
Osiris wrote:
I was meaning that's when they stop playing games. I know many ex-casual gamer friends who have had this exact thing happen to them and now they no longer play games.
I meant it could go either way. They either look for less mainstream games, or they stop playing them altogether.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:05 am
by Squallidus
I really don't think much of the game. I think those people from EA were right, which would be a first, the game isn't really innovative. I don't think it is that great in other places, too.