View Single Post

Default 

July 29th, 2013, 09:43
Originally Posted by greywolf00 View Post
Definitely truth to that. For every great indie game out there, there's several bad ones. I'm really looking forward to AoD, the group at least appears to have a ton of passion for what they're doing and that always shows up in the final product. Interviews with BioWare indicate they have far more freedom to try new things under EA, I'm really just not a fan of most of what they've tried.
AoD seems to be doing some cool things in terms of mechanics - but the setting and atmosphere both seem quite dreary to me. I'm big into those things - so I might not even play it.

Bioware appear to have lost all their passion long ago, or they're passionate about things that I don't understand.

For me, evolution is kind of a toss up. I'm a big fan of "If it's not broke don't fix it" but there does have to be some small degree of forward progress/polishing. BG 2 is great, but I would expect a bit more in a remake (BG EE's additions weren't enough to justify the price to me for example). A lot of RPGs seem to be moving more towards adding Action elements (Kingdoms of Amalur, DA 2, Witcher) over the iso RTwP/TB RPGs of old and it's not an evolution I personally enjoy. I think this is publisher influence, more people interested in action, which makes it easier to recoup the investment & make profit. IMO, as the Mass Effect series went on you could see a heavier influence of action/shooting and it sometimes felt like the RPG side took a back seat. Most of the systems I enjoy are on KS instead of coming from publishers these days.
I agree that many KS projects seem really interesting, and I'm definitely going to check out the big RPGs - but if I can have the choice between evolution in game design or re-doing the same thing once more, I'll take evolution.

Note that I use the word "evolution" and not innovation. I have no interest in innovation by itself - as doing new things for the sake of new things is a bad way to evolve game design.

Evolution implies "better" - as in a better or more interesting way of doing something, and to me - that's always interesting.

Star Citizen is also a prime example of a project with a ton of financial backing compared to the normal KS game. When coupled with their obvious passion for the project, I think feature creep will be far less of an issue for them than other projects. With so much more money to work with than something like SR:R, I'd expect scope/evolution to be bigger/more ambitious.
It's true that they got a ton of cash - and for the kind of game they're going for, that's probably much needed.

But if you're going to make an RPG, for instance, you don't really need that kind of cash. I'm just not seeing a lot of evolution in the big KS projects - or maybe I haven't followed them closely enough.

Mostly, I worry about the short development cycles. I know that's about money - but a few people can pull off something great if they understand how to limit themselves. Basically, beyond paychecks and a place to work - you don't actually need much more than that.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258