Interview Exclusive Interview at Obsidian - Part 1 and 2

[Coyote]

 

[bhlaab]

They're all poorly mic'd so even tim cain and chris avellone sound super bashful

well imean umm there was wasteland andmmm uhhh ea and...uhh...we, mmm yeah

 

[St. Toxic]

They should make a TV-show based on these interviews, called "Two normal guys in an insane word". I mean, what the fuck. Who's the fat fuck and the skinny nerd who get the word in Pt. 1? What's with the guy asking questions in pt. 2? The whole thing seems really awkward.

 

[Davaris]

They've already made a movie.

 

[Ion Flux]

:D

 

[turul]

Thank you.

EDIT: Part 2 is better.

Agreed. It was more interesting on hearing how the publishers already have their demands on what a game should be when they approach Obsidian, and Obsidian fulfills their wish.

That is very troubling not interesting. Fucking publishers, they play nazi, that's why we got shitty games for the past decade.

 

[Jaesun]

Thank you.

EDIT: Part 2 is better.

Agreed. It was more interesting on hearing how the publishers already have their demands on what a game should be when they approach Obsidian, and Obsidian fulfills their wish.

That is very troubling not interesting. Fucking publishers, they play nazi, that's why we got shitty games for the past decade.

Well, the Publishers Marketing Department to be more precise...

 

[commie]

What's wrong? Why do you people hate capitalism?

 

[turul]

What's wrong? Why do you people hate capitalism?

Except it has nothing to do with capitalism. It's more like communism.
And it didn't start until the late 90s.

Thanks to a bunch of crybabies who wanted less games and over regulation of PC games , similar to console games.

I should point out that my argument only applies to games written for computers, not game consoles. The economics of the console market are very different, primarily because the console manufacturers maintain a strict editorial control over what games can be published. As a result, the distribution chain for console-based software is far more consistent in quality. On the other hand, there's far less opportunity for innovation in the console market, and this is only partly explained by the strong 'parental' influence of the console manufacturers. Because consoles don't have keyboards, console games are extremely limited in the kinds of social interaction that they can support, which means that console-based games tend to be focused around kicking, jumping, hitting, running, and other brute force physical activities. This in turn limits the console market to a fairly narrow demographic, one that isn't interested in complex social interaction. Similarly, because consoles don't have hard drives, they are limited to games which are mostly "stateless", meaning that the player can only affect a small number of selected variables in the game environment.

http://slashdot.org/story/99/08/20/1432 ... oper-sucks
Posted by Hemos on Friday August 20 1999, @10:05AM
from the but-it-sounds-so-fun dept.

 

[commie]

I beg to differ. While your article is interesting, it doesn't really address the real reason for maintaining control. I doubt the big publishers want less games, they certainly don't want this now as the more games they shovel out the door, the more potential $$$.

What they wanted from the mid 90's onwards was a return on their investments. Throughout the early to late 90's there was a massive buying up of PC game developers, often for silly money by speculators thinking they were going to easily cash in. Of course this didn't happen as quickly as they would have liked as games were still quite niche and took some effort to even start while at the same time these investors were seeing how the consoles with their ease of use were really moving forward. The developers themselves were often pretty amateurish in their organization and focused on a small core audience. While this worked well enough for the modest returns they were getting when the costs of development were still low, the exponential leap in PC capability throughout the 90's increased the demand for more complex titles that required many more staff and a lot more money.

Those 'benefactors' that bought out these developers almost immediately set about restructuring the developers and broadening their audience, with as we know, decidedly mixed results. All this is standard capitalist management theory and practice. Regulation and interference in the creative process is but the means to increase revenue. Nothing communist about that.

Actually I can't see how it could have gone any other way unless computers grew in capability at the same glacial pace as they did in the 80's. Of course there were a lot of innovations but even in 1990 386 computers weren't exactly common. This had allowed devs to keep costs of making games low and maintain their 'garage business' structure. After 1990 it became increasingly more difficult to survive for small developers on their own as gamers demanded more and more. Their only hope was EA and others like them. So in a way, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLINE.