Originally posted by skroo
I also grew up without 3D graphics, or, in the beginning, fancy things like 256 colors. I think there is an impression that younger players care only for graphics and discount gameplay, but I believe that impression to be true mostly of "professional" reviewers and trade magazines. At the end of the day, a boring game is a boring game. (To be honest, though, I prefer a fun game with newer graphics over the exact same game with older graphics.
)
Originally posted by skroo
As for guideposts, there are still many companies that ignore such things. There are a lot of games that utilize "game theory" to some extent or another (Sony hired psychologists to aid in the design of Everquest), but there is always someone willing to take a risk and try new angles that sound crazy at the time.
Originally posted by skroo
Note that most analysts tend to attribute the original collapse of the home console market to a lack of innovation in gameplay and a glutton of fly-by-night game producers.
Originally posted by skroo
Originally posted by skroo
Originally posted by skroo

Originally posted by skroo
Many companies "play it safe" by repackaging successful gameplay in a new product. Sometimes this tactic pays off (especially for story-driven games or those with an extremely low budget), but most companies have difficulty selling the same old crap. (If you are interested, an excellent example of the rise-and-fall (and rise again) of a product may be seen in the Mortal Kombat series.)Now that you have elaborated, I realize that I may have been a little too antagonistic (hey, it happens). While we may not see completely eye-to-eye, at least I know you aren't completely discounting the (entire) industry as a bunch of hacks.
Comment