Skidonti said:
....
Okay, in the hypothetical land where we can spend infinite money on our work and still live comfortably maybe AAA games would rule, but I still think there are other flaws in this completely impossible scenario.
I like playing Tetris. I like playing Tetris a lot. What value is added to my game of Tetris when the development budget rises from a few thousand dollars to 50 million dollars? Now my games of Tetris can be interrupted by Hollywood cutscenes and be officially scored by John WIlliams with narration by Morgan Freeman? That money adds no value to my game. For a more indie example, replace "Tetris" with "Super Hexagon".
Spending more money on something doesn't make it better. Bloated budgets often create bloated games. Some types of games are inherently low budget and cannot be improved by massive budgets.
Additionally, a game can have an intentionally low budget by artistic intent. For an example from another medium, do you think people that really enjoy creating chiptune music would, if suddenly provided with infinite money, take their chiptune melodies and get the London Symphony Orchestra to record them instead?
If I like playing the cheap and simple to produce game of chess, is my game improved if I spend millions coating the board in jewels and ivory?
EDIT: I'm not trying to attack you or your idea. I just want to make the point that money does not a better game make. Leaving things out of your experience by design is often a better decision than including as many things as you can.
|
