Oluseyi - I realize that Game Production is a business, but not all Game Developers are out there primarilly to make money, I know several game developers who develop merely because they like makeing games. So for many developers the objective is not merely profit but the enjoyment of makeing a good game aswell. Independant Developers do this especially.

King Molson, while that is definitely true, while not all game developers are out there to make tons of money, the publishers who make these game projects possible are out there to make tons of money, and not necessarily out of ''greed'' but rather to survive. So, developing a game without considering the business part of things will most likely result in an unviable project, unless the people developing also really understand the business angle (marketing, promotion, publisher relations, business development, distribution, etc.) very well.

The part that gets difficult to reconcile is the fact that what hardcore gamers think makes a really cool game might not be financially viable. The trick is being able to find some kind of middle ground where you''re able to innovate but still put food on the table, and unless you''re so successful that you can call the shots to the publisher, or independently wealthy and can fund your project out of your own pocket, you''re going to have to keep the realities of this business in mind.

A big example of "wow" selling a game with no "hmm..." or sustainable gameplay would be Myst, which sold like 140 million dollars worth of copies?

It is more or less all wow and no hmmm

I think its pretty clear that combining good gameplay with flashyness sells games better htan just flashyness, in general, but its easy for certain types of "good gameplay", especially for a hard core gamer, to make the game less easy to learn to casual gamers. And of course, throw enough marketting and graphics at anything and it will sell. Just look at hollywood, or a certain final fantasy game which wont be specified by #.

Zileas

I agree.
People like the top of the bell curve.
Generally the very highest games are both good buisness and good design. See Starcraft and its offshoots, Quake and its offshoots.
So the very most played games are good.
This is a business incentive to make more of that type.
Ad nauseum.
But indie games represent the best method of continual innovation, I think.

a href="http://members.tripod.com/thefivelions/bugle4d"

Which final fantasy Game, They are all increadibly fun

ff8 in particular wasnt very good, though its sales werent bad (but it damaged the franchise somewhat, which they seem to have recovered from in 10).

They tried to go for pure candy/pure mass market and really went shallow on gameplay with the whole draining monsters thing. Very tedious, not innately fun. Big problem, which I imagine did impact peer recommendations somewhat Thats an example of "flash" not working because it got swallowed by poor core gameplay

Zileas


Edited by - Zileas on January 24, 2002 12:30:07 AM

quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
...are there exceptions to this rule, games that not only sold well but were innovative, fun, and not lacking in good gameplay?

I cite Blizzard as an apparent example: their games have been by all accounts clever, well-designed, fun, and immensely profitable. They''re not perfect, granted, but they''ve set a pretty high standard of quality and met it consistently.

Any other examples/counterexamples?

Yup. Zelda.

quote: Original post by KingMolson
Oluseyi - I realize that Game Production is a business, but not all Game Developers are out there primarilly to make money, I know several game developers who develop merely because they like makeing games.

How many of them are commercial entities whose sole form of income is game sales/technology licenses?







Nuff said.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!