| MaxwellGT2000 said: Very good read, all 10 points are very sound, Monti does have a point with 10 since games like OoT and MGS were just the 2D series going 3D and doing it well. But I also agree 1998 was probably the best year for games. Generally when there's a big leap in how games work, major game innovation soon follow, and 1998 was just that year. It can be taken as nostalgia glasses but I'm thinking he means he'd love to have game innovation every year with something new that will help produce more awesome games, like OoT did to inspire so many action games. Other then getting a little huffy-puffy over the minor details of 10 the whole article makes so much sense. Why whine about GS selling a million used copies of your game? You sold 1.5 million, oh you barely broke even? Tough shit 1.5 million for an average game every other generation would have been a resounding success at a lower price point. If you don't like how much it cost to develop a game and how hard it is to break even it's not the consumers or the store selling your games fault, period. |
agreed.
also, the high cost of development might scare some devs away from innovation, and make them focus on following the "old faithful" genres.
Obviously some buck the trend (i.e. Braid, Flower etc) but the financial risk is becoming high. running the risk of making and investing in something new and untested vs. something tried, trusted and familiar is a tough nut indeed

Proud Sony Rear Admiral







