DarkD said:
The point is that you don't need those hyper realistic graphics to make a game absurdly fun. Even if those games had higher development costs, I wouldn't say they were equal games. Skyrim was a time killer more than anything. It's become extremely formulaic and while its still interesting, it's stopped evolving almost completely compared to something like Zelda. I would call Skyrim a glorified patch rather than a new game. Sure it has a new map, but the gameplay is almost identical to the last games. It's more of a refinement than anything new. The comparison is Zelda, in Ocarina of Time you travel forwards and backwards in time battling Gannon, in Majora's mask you have 3 days which you can repeat as often as you like to stop the moon from falling. In Wind Waker the world has been turned into an ocean and you have to take up a ship and search for your missing sister, in twilight princess, Link is turned into a wolf and has to play the game from an animals perspective, in Skyward Sword you come from a race that lives in the sky who fly around on birds. The difference is that Nintendo hasn't forgotten what makes their games fun. You can see the difference especially clearly in the few times they tried making their games like you want them. Metroid: Other M was a great game, but nobody liked the voice acting. Was it bad voice acting or was it a bad game? No, they just preferred not giving Samus a voice. Look at Super Mario: Sunshine, I shouldn't even have to explain how wrong giving a voice to him was... Some series a voice might work on, others I think not. I think Halo for instance would have been better without giving master chief a voice. Is cheaper to develop a bad thing either? Look at how many studios are closing or going indie or moving to the iPhone market. It's not a joke you can laugh off. Those games aren't sustainable. |
You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
