In Exile wrote...
Apologies for the delayed response - the forum ate my post yesterday and I didn't have the heart to come back at this for a bit.
My point is just this: that Obsidian is in a unique position as a development studio (with their own AAA hits and with respect to the regard that "hardcore" isometric RPG fans have for them from their Black Isle Days) that it would be hard for studios - even backed by an AAA publisher - to really generate the same level of hype/intrigue for a product.
Another studio would have been in a much riskier position to get the game off the ground.
True. However, that could easily change with different distribution models. By never putting a game on retail shelves and aiming for a niche market, a game developer can generate steady revenue by avoiding the publisher/retailer relationship entirely and not need to draw in huge backers or subsequent buyers to turn a reasonable profit. They likely won't be on the cover of Forbes anytime soon, either... but I find it surprising that more developers (and publishers) aren't looking at more micro-dev cycles and products that could help flesh out the larger "boom or bust" AAA games in their portfolios.
But it's the reality of what a number of gamers want. In a sense, it's absolutely the expected reaction, because Obsidian is catering to a dedicated market. Whatever you might say for the ills of this current generation of AAA development, the plain reality of it is that the actual number of units moved is far greater than the olden days.
"Want" is a very relative term. Maybe "conditioned to expect" may be a better one. It's like watching a movie in black and white or with subtitles... oftentimes, really great movies become so you don't even notice such things anymore, despite that being the "expected norm" in today's entertainment.
Sure, in order to pull in someone who is a passive consumer, things like flashy graphics and intense action are easy to hook and engage with. But an active consumer, that knows what they want and are engaged already in looking for it? That's the market for games like this. Someone who says "I am looking for a game that does X, Y and Z and my needs aren't being met." You won't ever hear someone say "man, they aren't making really polished looking FPS with lots of explosions to meet my tastes." You will hear someone say that choices and options were much more accomodating and had more story, dialouge and content in some of the great classics. Those classics didn't break over a million in the vast majority of examples - so one would (or, perhaps, SHOULD) not expect remakes made in their image to sell much more than that, either.
It ultimately comes down to "are sales the sole determiner in the quality of a game?" I'd say no, not at all. A game today might not sell as well because it doesn't follow norms in the gaming industry to try and capture the largest audience... but that doesn't mean its not a better game. I'd say with a large degree of certainty that a game like Planescape Torment will still be talked about ten years from now, while a game like Call of Duty: Ghosts won't even be on people's lips again come 2014. Yet Ghosts sold exponentially more and had better graphics quality, higher produciton values, voiced characters, realistic physics... yet Planescape Torment will still be heralded as a masterpiece twenty years after it was made, despite it being an isometric, low pixel count game with questionable combat.
And there's something to be said about that.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:20 .
Retour en haut
