Sky Render said:
You realize that "only Solitaire and minigames sell well lol" is just as bad a mentality as "we can make whatever we want and it will sell lol", right? Instead of just assuming that things are black-and-white surface-level simple like that, it's best to actually look at the common traits of that which has succeeded.
Let's look at the top 25 games of all time. How many of them wouldn't be out of place in an arcade? At least 14 of them would be very easy indeed to put into an arcade situation. So what about the other 11? What do Pokemon, GTA, Nintendogs, Brain Training and The Sims all have in common? They're all shining examples of games which give an exceptional level of control to the player, while not compromising the player's ability to enjoy the game in the process of doing so.
So, what does that give us? Two ways to success: highly refined arcade-style gameplay, or games which mesh immense levels of player control with extremely high gameplay fluidity. And even that is a very simplistic analysis; there's far greater depth of understanding you can garner by looking at what those games all have in common, what sets them apart, what makes them stand out from other games, and so forth.
|
i thought you said the opposite in your first post, my bad if thats not what you meant.
I thought you were trying to say that they should stick to making games that trend and not games that at least some people would enjoy.
I thought that quote was what you were saying. sry :P
