Timur
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 286
BioWare/Pandemic have no soul.
I was just reading (or, for the most part, skimming) this article in which bioware/pandemic reply to an old article about how the games industry is “broken†both from an economic and creative point of view.
Some tid bits:
While this is really a no shit sherlock statement, at least he said it. More money obviously= less unorthodox games and more clones with less sophistication (as we can see with current RPGs)
However when bio was given a chance to reply they never really addressed this key issue. All the cooperate clowns really addressed are the economics of the issue (retail), and how to diversify the means in which one games (hand-helds, ect) if not the games themselves.
Is it just me or are they ignoring a major problem here; It doesn’t matter if the games are sold via retail or an online store, or if you play them on a handheld or PC, if they suck, they still suck.
What really infuriated me in this article however, is that bio and pan acted as if games were more commodities instead of pieces of art, as PS:T or FFVII (if it’s good art or bad art is up to you) has proven.
Given that I suck at forum script, I’ll just provide the link down here.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/featu ... 612&page=1
I was just reading (or, for the most part, skimming) this article in which bioware/pandemic reply to an old article about how the games industry is “broken†both from an economic and creative point of view.
Some tid bits:
3. Increased Risk Means Decreased Creativity - The next-gen systems require publishers to place very large bets with each title. This will mean decreased risk taking and just regurgitated sequels of big brand franchises. How many publishers will take risks with multiplatform original IP? This is clearly not good news for the consumer as innovation has driven our industry from the beginning. The irony is that the amazing tools, capabilities and quality of the new systems may very well doom what is most important, which is the game itself. Reconciling what a creative team wants and what the executive suite needs in terms of profits will be a growing challenge for many companies.
While this is really a no shit sherlock statement, at least he said it. More money obviously= less unorthodox games and more clones with less sophistication (as we can see with current RPGs)
However when bio was given a chance to reply they never really addressed this key issue. All the cooperate clowns really addressed are the economics of the issue (retail), and how to diversify the means in which one games (hand-helds, ect) if not the games themselves.
Is it just me or are they ignoring a major problem here; It doesn’t matter if the games are sold via retail or an online store, or if you play them on a handheld or PC, if they suck, they still suck.
What really infuriated me in this article however, is that bio and pan acted as if games were more commodities instead of pieces of art, as PS:T or FFVII (if it’s good art or bad art is up to you) has proven.
Given that I suck at forum script, I’ll just provide the link down here.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/featu ... 612&page=1