| kylohk said: Choosing games to make isn't based on relative popularity, but whether a "pass mark" has been reached. Just because those games have "won" doesn't mean the losers should not exist. Just like WAW, yes, it sold much less than Wii Music but it exceeded the expectations of the developer. Hence the continued release of more COD titles is justified. The only thing the games should compete against is themselves. Set a sales target and see if it is met. If it is met, it is a success and probably made enough money. Who cares how much more Wii Music sold? It's not like your ego is hurt because it sold less than that casual game. |
I beg to differ. The games industry works on the "Hollywood" model. You just can't always hit your target income with a game, so you need to rely upon the blockbusters to carry the burden of all the losers it took to unveil the products that became blockbusters.
If you take mediocre performing products, and use them as targets... aren't you rolling the dice in a worse game than you are by targetting the most popular genres? Is that wise, particularly in the industry's current state?
Portal wasn't made -- Portal happened. The designers of great games rarely know they are going to make millions in profits from them -- the ones that do, have at least some idea that their product will profit by "guarantee" of success, via branding, licensing, advertising investment, etc. -- or as much guarantee as such things can provide.
Since you can't aim directly at greatness in games, you have to golf. Golf with more expensive clubs, pay a lot of money to practice... you're going to do better. And some days you're going to suck. If you go out to play only on days when there's fog, lots of rain, etc... you're going to play worse in general, even if you scored well on a couple of rainy days in the past.
