| RolStoppable said: Acting like a topic is deserving of elaborate discussion when there's actually not much to say about it is the definition of making a mountain out of a molehill. There isn't much to say here. A game got cancelled, some developers resigned, the studio went on to deliver solid work again. Everything got resolved years ago. I didn't say that the game reached 75% completion status before the problems started. Neither did I say that the management wasn't paying attention to what was going on until the last minute. What I did say is that the basis that led to the problems was made by the developers, they conceived the core gameplay. Coming up with the basic gameplay doesn't bring a game to 75% completion status. What's left is the question why are you standing up for these developers when they couldn't be bothered to tell Unseen64 about their ideas that got rejected. For all we know, all of their ideas sucked and wouldn't have saved the project either. There's simply not enough information to say that the developers are deserving of sympathy, especially because they had their chance to tell their side of the story, but didn't specify their ideas; why is that when their ideas were supposedly good? As it stands, this game got cancelled because of developers and management alike, and the gaming world didn't lose out on anything worth of value. |
Simply because you don't want to talk about it doesn't mean it isn't an interesting topic. Personally, I think the clash of ideas about how to improve the game and about how difficult development can be when you have management holding different design principles than those working below them are important factors to understand. I really don't get why some people are bent out of shape over this. Well, I guess I kind of know but that doesn't mean it makes sense to me.
I also never said the ideas the developers had would have made HAMMER into a good game--though the suggestion that they concentrate on improving the combat does seem better than working on more environmental interaction instead. What I have been saying, since the very beginning, is that you aren't likely to end up with a good game in that kind of environment. It was almost set up to fail. The game itself is secondary to that discussion.
With many people on these forums saying that Nintendo needs more western studios, I would have thought this would have been met with more open-minded and practical interest. I guess it's easier to just assume that the problem was the people who left and move on.
Which is what I'm going to do now, acutally. The rest of this thread has turned into a cesspool.
