Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Do you support this?
pythi
Member UncommonPosts: 63
Just to get the threads flowing.
Do you support either developer A or B.
Developer A: Has a pure idea for a game, will never compromise said idea even if the game has a high chance of failure.
Developer B: Has a pure idea for a game, will make compromises to the idea to lower the risk of failure substantially.
Two very excellent post below mine, thank you for informing me of my mistake.
By failure I infer that the game will no longer exist within lets say 12 months. By success I would have to say anything that doesn't take a place on the ever growing podium of scams, and bankrupt comapnies, again lets say 12 months.
Exocide
Comments
What is failure, or success? A development project with a 50million dollar budget and a 5 year development cycle has a different definition of success from a game that has been developed off and on as a hobby by a couple of talented guys that game up with a backstory and world over many years of playing pen and paper RPG's.
I'm not sure what you mean by "failure" here. If it is a failure of gameplay, then the idea might not be very good as originally conceived and hence compromises would have to be made to make sure the gameplay was actually good. If you just mean financial failure, then taking risks is needed, but again, the things that cause financial failure are many and varied (gameplay failure would be one).
I don't really think I can give an honest vote.
Unless you are funding everything yourself, I believe every company goes with option "B".
B is my choice. A developer that is stuck in a certain way of thinking will only hurt the natural progression of the game,
All statements I make is from my point of view unless stated otherwise.
You must have read my mind good sir, that was going to be part of the topic of my next thread down the line.
Exocide
I don't know, there's to much black and white in your question and not enough gray if you catch my drift.
It really depends on the vision and circumstance. If you're referring to a game that for all intents and purposes works well, yet adheres to a strict rule set they do not want to be changed. Then I think it's better to cater to the niche they were planning on feeding. In this case I would support A.
Now if the game itself is horribly put together and only marginally works, due to constraints on their budget. Which could be fixed by signing on with a pubsliher, which would force changes yet also allow them to better the product.Yet they refuse to do so (dooming the product) Then I would not support A.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Personally I support A. I do so because I'm a firm believer of "stick to your guns" mainly because I've seen many a company go under because they started to cater to all the whines and diluted the original idea to the point that it no longer resembled the original product.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
The reason you see too much black and white is because it is all gray. I'm refering to anything and everything. I just asked would you support someone who is willing to change if it cost them something they want to benifit everyone, and a very slim risk of benifiting no one , or would you support someone who has the "my way or the highway" mentality, benifits a much smaller group of people with a great risk of benifiting no one.
To me this is win - win vs. lose - lose
This is all very subjective, thats why I posted and made a poll, only my opinion I voted B.
Exocide
You sir have given me a great topic for a thread. I would give you something as a reward, like possibly a posistion as an advisor who will give me ideas when my plans for world domination are realised. In all serious thanks.
Exocide
A will have a certain audience that it is aimed at. If a developer opts for B, he is no longer catering for his original audience. Even if it's a different idea, it's still 'pure'. There's no difference between an FPS developer that wanted to add multiplayer and a chat room/social game that decided to implement an FPS element into it. They'd go from ideas A and B to AB, but they're both at the same place.
Though, let's face it; if A was good, it would attract all the players it would ever need. The only reason it would ever fail is because the idea just wasn't good enough in the first place.
I think what people also have to realize is that a dev can have BAD design goals as part of their vision. It is good for bad design goals to change.
Good games succeed, bad games fail.
Why would anyone go with option A and try to make a bad game?
Only if I get the corner office with a hot redhead secretary, or one with black hair. Either way works...
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-