ClaudeLv250 said:
WereKitten said:
dhummel said:
NinjaKido said:
Squilliam said:
Sales?
Development cost?
Oh wait, that would paint Sony in a bad light. |
I think this is focusing on the art of development as opposed to the more commericial aspect . You of all people should realise that sales and cost's aren't everything unless you are a shareholder and not a gamer.
|
Most GAMERS would love it if their first party IPs SOLD well and thus they could receive multiple iterations of the IP, sped up by reduced DEVELOPMENT COSTS. See what I did there?
|
On the other hand a GAMER could care less if a stale franchise SELLS or reduces DEVELOPMENT COSTS by reusing old assets.
Case in point for me: Zelda:TP was way too close to being a tetreading of the Z:OOT path. Next iteration they either innovate or it won't cut for me. Why should I hope if it sells tons? Only in the hope that it will turn for the better further down the road? Why should they innovate if we don't vote with our wallets?
Company and shareholders point of view: money is the goal, good games are the means
Gamer point of view: good games are the goal, money is the means
I know where I stand.
|
The problem with your argument is that Zelda is hardly "stale." People moaning because Link acquires the Master Sword and goes to fight Ganon don't actually know what "stale" means. TP is completely different game from any of its predecessors and is a masterpiece. So you just completely invalidated your own argument. Next time, don't use a game that's really really awesome.
|
First of all, I bolded in my post a few words that make all the difference. We were talking about an individual gamer dealing with the quality vs the commercial success of franchises.
For _this_ individual gamer Zelda:TP felt stale. It was a good game, very good, but not a masterpiece. Too similar to OOT, not enough identity like, say, Okami that - again for this individual gamer - was a far better game, whatever glaring downsides it had.
Plus, do you really think that my argument was invalidated because I used an example you did not agree with? Logical fallacy there.
