CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
WereKitten said:
richardhutnik said:
It would be beneficial if those who create GAMES not be so full of themselves. I have had deeper and more rewarding experiences, with more replayability, playing some boardgames than I have had playing a number of videogames. The pretention that you think you creating a game needs to be thought of as some work of art is of higher form than even movies is absurd. Get over yourself designers. Stop trying to think you need to do movies. Your compete with movies experience will end up bankrupting the industry for one thing. And, when you have such pretention, you do something like, "Press X to Jason" ends up looking WAY out of place.
Now excuse me if my next game I play is Kirby's Epic Yarn. Sorry if this is too much of a toy and too boardgamish for you game designer.
|
Read what he said in french. He was not at all dismissive about, and he actually never mentioned, board games.
He said that he thinks that people can see the difference between "a toy or a pleasant society game (experience) using the Wii" ("un jouet, ou à un jeu de société très sympa avec la Wii") and something that is more of "an multimedia center really strong on videogames" ("un vrai centre multimédia avec vraiment un jeu vidéo extrêmement fort").
Sounds more about "you can do much more than playing games on the PS3", not "playing on the Wii is bad" to me.
Plus, since he went on in the past about how he considers his own work more an interactive drama than a classic videogame, I doubt very much that there's any derogatory sense in the distinction, or that he thinks any worse of games, either video-based or not. He's simply interested in different things and he's going along Sony's and MS's idea of pushing their machines as all-round entertainment centers.
|
You can take what I said, and NOT apply it the designer of Heavy Rain then. Take what I said and apply it to anyone who begins to trumpet movies as games, and ignore "Press X to Jason" from this, although X for Jason can fit into any place where gameplay matters, and not excessive dependence on stories. I would go with the original French, but I don't read it. Apparently the original poster had an agenda or the writer of the article did, if that isn't right. In this, I will stand by, if the game industry keeps thinking it wants to make movies, it will end up bankrupting itself.
|
You really need to cut out this bullshit about bankruptcy. Had the game been a disaster on sales, you may have validity. But since you have a known history of trashing this game, and the game is FAR ahead of it's original projection, that's just not making sense.
|
What I do know is the videogame industry has this resentment or envy of the movie industry, and there is a push to try to create a movie-like experience in games. This is a major reason for production costs going up regarding games, combine with the industry whining about how used games are harming them, and Kotick going off how he can repackage cut scenes as a movie for people to watch. The industry is operating on razor thin profits, because it keeps driving production costs up. How many games do you think will be profitable if the average budget is $100 million to make a game? What I do know is BOARDGAMES are a lot less money to develop, and generally have greater replayability than the wannabe movie.
Please go and argue how the videogame industry is in fine shape from a profitability standpoint. I would like to hear your argument regarding this. I said profitability, not REVENUES.
