.jayderyu said:
Well said. I agree with this very much. @Metallicube The reason was back then these third parties were interested in the games and the money. This has changed. Sony did a masterful job starting with the PS1 era or possibly it was moving in this direction anyways, but the companies were more focused on the prestige of making games. I've noticed this generation that many developers and publishers are constantly hyping comments along the lines of "pushing the system to the max" The Wii is not a prestige machine. It's the cheapest, it's the weakest and has the worst bad rap around. Putting DMC4/5 on the Wii would essentially be the effect of being ridiculed by peers. Put on top of that, that marketers can make assumptions that making game X will bring in X sales. They feel safe in throwing X budget at the game(though this can fail as in the case of Bayonette). So you have companies that want prestige and the assumption of known sales. Nintendo isn't Nintendo's worst enemy. That's just hyperbole to justify the continued reasoning to make games for the purpose of prestige. Though no one in the industry want's to admit they make games for prestige than the fun of making good games. At least there will always be exception. Thank goodness of companies like Square Enix(you read it) at least they have been honest about their company goals since the N64 days. I really suggest readers to read the Comic Speculator Market. |
I am so going to use that in my revised article about the mentality of the gaming industry. They are also convinced that the prestige aspects are what sells games, which is why they jump on any game with those elements that sell, and try to dismiss any game without those elements that sell.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








