| Mr Khan said: And that's the root of the matter. The power balance must be carefully maintained, but (as i've said many times before) you need someone looking over your shoulder with the power to tell you "no," as a major artist working in a commercial medium. Publishers should not really have the power to add (because they tend to add things that benefit their interest or that they think will twist the game's appeal in a way it isn't meant to go), but they should have the power to subtract. |
Yup there is definitely a balance to be struck. I still think it's a huge shame that the developers of Duke Nukem had as much freedom as they did. If you go back and watch the first trailers for that game (must be E3 2000/1 or something) they are VERY impressive for the time. You get the feeling that had the developer not had as much control that the publisher would have said ''Right look, polish it up a bit and get it out'' then maybe Duke Nukem would have stayed relevant. Likewise Brutal Legend needed some more intervening.
There are opposite examples of course. Devil May Cry 2 was a ridiculous example of a publisher simply ignoring a developer and quickly shipping a title to another dev.
I think the developer has 100% control style only works for smaller games. Where little quirks and odd things don't make too much of a difference. For bigger games I think you kind of need a publisher to be there making sure things stay to a rough schedule etc.
