AC ZP Review & Indie Games aka "Tonguing an...&quot

[dux]

According to Yahtzee, anyway.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... r-Hero-III

[Buddy]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... Travelogue

[FrieChamp]

Dux you win the prize for most disturbing thread title of 2007 in Game Industry discussion.

Your prize is one week in the cellar with a rabid pitbull.

Concerning the review: He doesn't have a lot of points on what he bashes the game for, but I guess Activision milking the franchise is reason enough not to buy it.

[st0lve]

I don't care if his reviews are legit or not, they are fun to watch compared to other classic pages. If I want a "proper" review, I'd just go to gametrailers but they aren't that fun to watch.

[FrieChamp]

Ok I should have been clearer:

I don't think he laid out his points as well as in previous reviews of his.

It was still funny

[Izuno]

...but I guess Activision milking the franchise is reason enough not to buy it.

Would you say that about all games/franchises that have great sales? If you worked at Bungie would you tell people "don't buy Halo 3 because our franchise has already been successful enough" ? Or is there something about Guitar Hero you just don't like? ...or don't like anymore?

I don't mean to single you out, because a lot of us have had these thoughts about publishers "milking it." Would you feel the same way about a publisher milking what you've developed? What if you work at Infinity Ward? Would you complain about strong CoD4 sales?

I'm serious, btw. We're all here because we work in the industry or with the industry or are modders etc... In general, don't we want gaming to be successful and growing? Maybe we don't?

Just some thoughts.

Meanwhile, another funny review from Yhatzee

[Sentura]

i have often had the same thoughts as you put forth, izuno. my view is that computer games are art, and should be treated like art. i am not puritan in any way, but it still puts a nail through my heart every time i see another sequel in a franchise.

for what it's worth, they could at least have called the game something different (particularly in the case of call of duty series and medal of honor) to lessen the negative impact. i think that franchises as they are now are a bad thing for the industry, and while they do make money for the publishers, they do so in an extremely cynic and capitalistic way. i also think that franchising in general spoils the amount of mystique that surrounds a game; commercializing a character removes part of his or her character (no pun intended), making the next game less enjoyable than the previous one(s).

i guess one of the reasons why some people dislike franchises in the industry is because you get the feeling of disappointment once you see a sequel for a game that already ended; that's how i've felt with a majority of games (with very few exceptions). in the end it's more of a individual issue/niche; we can all whine about how bad a game or a sequel is, but as long as money drives the world, things aren't really subject to change.

[Felix]

My thoughts exactly Sentura !

[FrieChamp]

...but I guess Activision milking the franchise is reason enough not to buy it.

Would you say that about all games/franchises that have great sales? If you worked at Bungie would you tell people "don't buy Halo 3 because our franchise has already been successful enough" ? Or is there something about Guitar Hero you just don't like? ...or don't like anymore?

I don't mean to single you out, because a lot of us have had these thoughts about publishers "milking it." Would you feel the same way about a publisher milking what you've developed? What if you work at Infinity Ward? Would you complain about strong CoD4 sales?

I'm serious, btw. We're all here because we work in the industry or with the industry or are modders etc... In general, don't we want gaming to be successful and growing? Maybe we don't?

Just some thoughts.

Meanwhile, another funny review from Yhatzee

I would just like developers and publishers to innovate more. Why have 10% innovation each title if you can have 10 times the innovation? Afraid of failure I guess - "too risky".

In context, I think Harmonix did exactly the right thing. They came up with something really new, fresh, fun - Guitar Hero. Did a sequel - Guitar Hero II (and Guitar Hero - Rock the 80's, which was already "milking" I guess, but I'm willing to oversee this for now ) and then they moved on to Rock Band. Rock Band has so many new features, you can safely call it a completely new game. They took their chance, made money, but knew when to move on.

Part of this was the sale of the Guitar Hero franchise to Activision, which was unfortunate on the other hand, because in my eyes Activsion is the industry's captain of no risk, business investments so to speak.

Their entire portfolio seems to be built upon bought licenses and sequels: Call of Duty (4 titles so far), Tony Hawk (I think they reached the 10th game in the series by now), the ancient ID franchises like Quake (4 games) and Wolfenstein (3rd one currently in development) and now Guitar Hero (title numero 3).

From a business point of view it makes perfect sense, they bought a strong name and a proven game concept. They stuff it out with new songs, "boss battles", a few new multiplayer modes, sign some deals with music equipment suppliers, get Slash on the game cover and run a lot of advertising. And I assume that's what they will do until the games don't sell anymore and they have driven the franchise into the ground, then they move onto the next franchise. I don't believe the merge with Vivendi Games is going to change anything about this.

Sure, one could argument, that big sales and industry growth is a good thing for everyone working in games. Sequels also finance new franchises after all, but if a sequel doesn't bring anything (significantly) new to the table, it annoys me, because these titles steal a lot of consumer attention and shelf space from innovative titles. I guess it's just a matter of knowing, when to stop, but if you are suit and just look at the numbers, you stop as soon as numbers hit a certain low. As a gamer it makes my heart bleed.

[zaphod]

thread did not deliver

On the front page of mapcore, the topics listing looks like this:

Topic: Tonguing another mans balls.

Topic: Any fix to this?

*edit* on the subject of "milking it"

From a business point of view it makes perfect sense

this is really all anybody needs to understand. These companies exist to make money for stockholders, and milking something is simply doing their job to the best of their ability. If you are looking for companies to approach making games with some other loftier ideals than stock value I would look somewhere else.

[dux]

[FrieChamp]

If you are looking for companies to approach making games with some other loftier ideals than stock value I would look somewhere else.

We're all ears

[Taylor]

Would you say that about all games/franchises that have great sales? If you worked at Bungie would you tell people "don't buy Halo 3 because our franchise has already been successful enough" ? Or is there something about Guitar Hero you just don't like? ...or don't like anymore?

I don't mean to single you out, because a lot of us have had these thoughts about publishers "milking it." Would you feel the same way about a publisher milking what you've developed? What if you work at Infinity Ward? Would you complain about strong CoD4 sales?

I'm serious, btw. We're all here because we work in the industry or with the industry or are modders etc... In general, don't we want gaming to be successful and growing? Maybe we don't?

True, but we’re also creative types who like to see the industry grow creatively instead of rehashing generic shooter #536 again because it appeals to the lowest common denominator with record breaking sales.

I think we all know that the games industry is not unique from the other various industries in the quest to make as much money as possible by expending the least. And though us “games are art” hippie types exist who muse and stroke our tiny, well groomed beards (sometimes these are metaphorical beards, a beard on the soul if you will), when inside the industry we’re are still very much at the beg and call of the publishers/studios.

It’s all very well saying this is making the industry grow, and saying “I don’t want it to grow!” sounds elitist and foolish, but it is growing in a kind of horrible direction. Longer production times and higher product budgets are eventually going to lock down anything that even attempts to put a hairline fracture in the cashcow mould if this keeps up.

[zaphod]

when inside the industry we’re are still very much at the beg and call of the publishers/studios.

when inside the industry we’re are still very much at the beg and call of the publishers/studios.

when inside the industry we’re are still very much at the beg and call of the publishers/studios.

you know you don't have to be inside the "industry" to make games. Don't let people in suits control your creative talent!!!

viva la revolucion!

[FrieChamp]

Yea I've been wondering for a while already why there is such a negligibly small number of independent studios in games development. It's usually just one or two guys in their basement, selling their game for a few bucks or even give it out for free. The only "famous" exception are the guys from Introversion who created Darwinia and Defcon (and publicly proclaimed "fuck publishers!").

Look at movies or the music business, there is a huge number of labels and production houses that create content (or art if you will) way outside of mainstream, but still create medium to good quality stuff, which often establishes a big enough fan/consumer base.