Helios on 10 January 2010
| LordTheNightKnight said: "So how does that apply to Pixar again (more than any other studio)?" I meant just in how they handle their respective genre. Some other studios do that with their own genres, just Pixar is so notable about it. Another one would be the creators of Avatar The Last Airbender. "First, if film is such a poor comparsion, why did you bring up Pixar?" You just asked how what I wrote applies to filmmaking. It doesn't. Pixar was only brought up because they have this approach. A video game example would be Insomniac or Nintendo. "I only brought up Cameron because he directly contradicts your statement that modesty is key to sucess." It can't contradict when a) films and games are different media and b) I did not claim that modesty was the key to success. I wrote that if you want to make an expanded market game, your approach should be just to make a good expanded market game, not the most grand, awesome, loaded with features and stunning graphics, expanded market game. And the problem with many game developers is they think they are James Cameron, and want to be just like him, but with games, as in making games as though they were big budget films. It doesn't work that way. |
I still don't see how Pixar is a good example. What animation studio makes ostensibly "grander" films than them?
And, again, how is it that the movie comparsion works one way and not the other? What is it that makes it impossible for games to appeal to a mass audience with promises of grandeur when such a strategy so obviously can be sucessful in other media? I can understand it as a sort of practical guidline if that's what you're talking about, but still: Gaming might be different from film, but I think Cameron has shown people do not flee great production values. Other things are what is ailing ambitious games in an expanded audience context (such as, for example, creeping featurism and general inaccesability).
