Admittedly, I have only worked (and am still working) on one commercial game but it seems to me that if the game seems overbalanced towards just being disk-padding-eye-candy then its perhaps just that the end result that didn't work out as well as was hoped, the project was mismanaged or the design was lame. If the game just doesn't work then maybe all you have left is the nice graphics and sound.arron wrote: I think that the important point that I was trying to focus on was that the content (art/music) is more important for commercial games now than the code. If you look at the ratio of code to artistic content from 'classic' or 'retro' games - the machine did not lend themselves to megabytes of graphics and sound. The physical mechanics of a game is relatively easy to implement - I think that most of the effort is now spend on making something look nice and filling up those shiny disks you buy with data.
As designs get more complex and graphic and sound standards increase, its not surprising to me that its so much harder come through with a quality commercial product and that the process of doing so costs a small fortune. While it seems like common sense to delay a game until it works, its doesn't seem realistic to actually do so - theres only so long you can delay a game and at some point you can't scrape together any more funds and you have to honour the obligations you made to get that f ar because you can't put them off any longer. If all the parties involved knew how long the development would take, what the end result would be like and how much it would cost when they set out I doubt any games would be made.
My point? Its to be expected that disk-padding-eye-candy is out there. Commerical game development isn't a straightforward process, rather its a gamble. I also don't think that disk-padding-eye-candy is necessarily a bad thing, look at all the people who liked American McGees Alice, a game I thought was the very definition of it. Nor do I think that this is the way the industry is going, there are lots of great games out there and lots more coming out. Maybe I have scales over my eyes, but I don't think there is an attitude to break or that games are becoming like hollywood movies.
Also, to me television is much better value than a movie - at least the series which don't pander to the casual viewer and have a continuing storyline.
I covered that above. There isn't some magic game fairy who you can go to who will shower you with free money, arrange for your obligations to become irrelevant and who will give you all the time in the world. Theres a limit to how long development can last, some developers get breaks, some don't - very few games that I have played are perfect. Some because the product is lacking or its just aimed at a different type of player. I doubt that except for the large EA type companies that there are shady looking suits who wantonly prod around the software projects under them. Its just the way it is because thats the way it works.arron wrote: It makes me wonder sometimes how the industry can look at a product and release it knowing that it isn't working as a game, or has bugs. As the industry has become more professional, the industry culture has moved from developer to 'suit' in control. And in a lot of cases, the 'suit' is not either a developer or even a games player. I don't think that a generic suit with no hands on experience can develop games. They certainly can't do the job of a doctor, or a soldier, or a scientist, so how do these people wind up in positions of power dictating the 'market'?
