Planescape, Arcanum, you know what i mean

[Wombat]

I don't know about the nature of the industry but the proliferation of the internet seem to have made quite a change to the distribution system. New distributors such as Apple/Android stores and Steam could give chances to works which probably wouldn't see lights otherwise. There may be enough room for works to satisfy our niche needs.

 

I'm relatively happy with the existence of some relatively mainstream works such as the Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Portal series but they couldn't but show some limitations on the mainstream products, at the same time. In fact, I bought quite a lot of games on Steam. It's nice that they didn't cost me much but I haven't played most of them. This is partly because I don't have time but mainly because I can find better things to do. However, if some of the works on Steam can get that much attention, I think there is quite a good chance for the works by something which Iron Tower Studio and other groups are working at (I wonder what the designers there are thinking about it, though). I haven't tried any of Android/Apple stores, but I think the same thing can be said to them, too.

 

Probably, a minor problem is that, while I think I'll end up with buying a tablet, I'm inclined to go for Android while Obsidian developers seem to look to Apple. However, this is a minor and probably luxury runt compared with the runt we have repeated about the void of the creativity.

[Sogg]

I have read all that and you know what...

Let's see. Now developing of BIG game in time - it's nearly 4-5 years. OK, and it is from the start of project, before starting thereare a lot of discussions, planning and all that stuff. So, you know human life is not such a big to just wait the game of our dream. I'm shure, that future concept is *social calls*. Just for example, a lot of gamres want to happen arcanum 2 game (JUST FOR EXAMPLE!). Ok, they made a site, where everyone can donate a couple of dollars on that purpose. If idea is good, there will be a lot of money, and that money comes to a developer (what developer it will be is also question of open votes between donators). If idea is bad, and there will be not enoudh money to make a project, all money comes backl to donators automatically). Of course it is very abstract model, but what do you think?

 

As for me, i'll donate a couple of thousand dollars to new steampunk RPG project made by Obsidian

[Nonek]

Always wondered in Torment, when you get to the practical incarnation and he states that he is so disgusted by your constant questioning. Is that Chris Avellone stating that he'd like some other form of gaining information in games other than through dialogue, so much of the game expresses disgust at the tired old forms used by the fantasy genre and then flips them on their heads with amusing and fresh approaches that invigorate the genre and i've always wondered if this was one of those situations.

[Wombat]

O.K. Indeed, you appear to be drunk, fair and square. If you'd like to write about Torment, then, probably better do it alone rather than mixing it with your view about the current state of the game industry. For PS: T may have some anti-fantasy factors but the core of it is still fantasy and has no answer to practical situations in our lives. At least, I think the current situation needs more than "navel-gazing," which some people describe the work in a derogatory way. In any case, even if we may indulge ourselves with such luxury, Obsidian need both creative spirit and practical mind.

 

Although I haven't bought anything from app stores, checking out some of the games there makes me think that it would be quite possible for Obsidian to get into the market. I wonder if they already have something solid for that direction or not, though. If they are on a right track, I don't like a speculation to get in their way and, if they are just planning by themselves, there would be nothing to speculate.

[Nonek]

That was a trifle off topic wasn't it my marsupial friend, still least said soonest mended.

 

Personally i'll just keep buying, playing and recommending obsidians games no matter the platform as sterling examples of what the modern genre should be aspiring to. The sheer amount of innovation, depth and reactivity that they manage to cram into their products such as alpha protocol, new vegas etcetera is worthy of brand loyalty in my opinion.

[HoonDing]

I think I need a new sarcasm detector.

[Wombat]

Well, I reckon the internet boards are full of such pathetic attempts but it doesn't change me or my opinion even if he or someone else is trying to be sarcastic. If he likes to spend his time by feeling superior simply playing with his words, it's just his time, which is no concern of mine. I seriously think Obsidian is one of the groups who are still trying to keep the content more original/innovative. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here or writing this since, that would be just a waste of my time.

 

That said, indeed, personally, I think quite many games are like junk foods. I'm not interested in spending my time on them. It's just my taste and I have no desperate need to feel superior. I simply cannot make myself spend any time of mine on them. Of course, I can spend my time on other hobbies but I think I'm still interested in how technology can do with humane content.

 

With AP and NV, Obsidian needed to spend much resources to graphics and modern behemoth engines but, if there is a format which doesn't require such things, then, what would happen?

[Nonek]

I was just trying to be friendly as a relative newcomer to the boards, for some reason my attempts at affability are always misinterpreted as sarcasm for some reason (probably because of my verbosity.) No offense intended Wombat, which is why I was admitting that I had rambled somewhat off-topic in my previous post.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Nonek

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...pity as it may be, heavy story-driven games, like me ol' luv Torment, be a thing o' the past in the eye-candy first, half a freakin' pulse o' storyline market o' today...welcome ta the ADHD age...Shiny...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Wombat]

I was just trying to be friendly as a relative newcomer to the boards, for some reason my attempts at affability are always misinterpreted as sarcasm for some reason (probably because of my verbosity.) No offense intended Wombat, which is why I was admitting that I had rambled somewhat off-topic in my previous post.

Oh, don't worry. In fact, that's the whole point of my using "if" in every sentence refereed to you in my previous post. Since I wasn't totally sure about your opinion, I wrote my opinion in a direct manner, first, which, I thought, would keep things simple for me.

[Giantevilhead]

I would say that one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry is how the developers are kept in the background. With the film industry, there is a strong association between the movies and their directors and sometimes writers. People like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc., are as well known as the movies they've made. That gives them a lot of power and influence. That's not the way it is with games. Most casual gamers have never heard of people like Amy Hennig, Tim Cain, Jon Van Caneghem, Brett Sperry, Linda Currie, etc. That makes it significantly harder for developers to make decisions about the games they've created and push their own agenda. These great developers are still around but they just don't have the influence to really make the games they want.

[Walsingham]

I would say that one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry is how the developers are kept in the background. With the film industry, there is a strong association between the movies and their directors and sometimes writers. People like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc., are as well known as the movies they've made. That gives them a lot of power and influence. That's not the way it is with games. Most casual gamers have never heard of people like Amy Hennig, Tim Cain, Jon Van Caneghem, Brett Sperry, Linda Currie, etc. That makes it significantly harder for developers to make decisions about the games they've created and push their own agenda. These great developers are still around but they just don't have the influence to really make the games they want.

 

I think that's an extremely insightful point, if I can say so without sounding too full of myself.

 

In fairness is this because the roles aren't as clearly delineated in game production? I honestly don't know.

[Giantevilhead]

I would say that one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry is how the developers are kept in the background. With the film industry, there is a strong association between the movies and their directors and sometimes writers. People like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc., are as well known as the movies they've made. That gives them a lot of power and influence. That's not the way it is with games. Most casual gamers have never heard of people like Amy Hennig, Tim Cain, Jon Van Caneghem, Brett Sperry, Linda Currie, etc. That makes it significantly harder for developers to make decisions about the games they've created and push their own agenda. These great developers are still around but they just don't have the influence to really make the games they want.

 

I think that's an extremely insightful point, if I can say so without sounding too full of myself.

 

In fairness is this because the roles aren't as clearly delineated in game production? I honestly don't know.

 

That's not really important. There are plenty of directors/producers/writers who get a lot more credit than they deserve. George Lucas is an obvious example. What is important is that people on the creative end of games need to have more power and influence over the direction of a franchise so that more decisions about the future of a game series can be made by people who actually make the game rather than the people who sell the game. It's entirely possible for there to be a George Lucas of video games. In fact, I would argue that John Romero is the Lucas of video games. However, for every Lucas, there's a Ridley Scott or Alfred Hitch**** or Stanley Kubrick. In the end, I would say that the risks far outweigh the benefits.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Giantevilhead

[Walsingham]

Sorry, you've lost me. What risks?

[Giantevilhead]

Sorry, you've lost me. What risks?

 

The risk of a developer getting credit for other people's work, and ending up with much more power than they deserve, like a George Lucas of video games.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Giantevilhead

[The Yeti of 66]

I would say that one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry is how the developers are kept in the background. With the film industry, there is a strong association between the movies and their directors and sometimes writers. People like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc., are as well known as the movies they've made. That gives them a lot of power and influence. That's not the way it is with games. Most casual gamers have never heard of people like Amy Hennig, Tim Cain, Jon Van Caneghem, Brett Sperry, Linda Currie, etc. That makes it significantly harder for developers to make decisions about the games they've created and push their own agenda. These great developers are still around but they just don't have the influence to really make the games they want.

 

We haven't really gotten to a point where you can have the "superstar" developers like we had for a while before gaming had picked up some legitimacy. Game development is incredibly large and jumps between so many different writers and teams that it's very difficult to say without a doubt that one person's vision was the reason it was all wrapped together. In film, the director as a grand facilitator truly does make his or her film with the combined experience of the team. However, can you really say the same for games at the moment? Gaming is at a point where it's too large to be anything other than a massive collaborative effort than a grand tribute to the master strokes of one person. Maybe as the technology gets better and teams get smaller, but definitely not now.

 

Regarding bringing back Planescape and Arcanum... please don't. Part of the beauty of these two games was the huge scale and finality of their narratives. Even going in the same setting with a different story wouldn't hold up, because how the hell would you match their experiences? In Planescape you play someone who at their apex was basically a god, and came to the conclusion that it was time to stand and face all the things that got you to the position. In Arcanum you stop a quasi-dead creature whose goal is to end life as we know it. If the following acts are less substantial than the ones that preceded them, it'll just feel like they've stooped to mining their past for credibility. They're better than that. They just need the right IP to make lightning strike again.

[Walsingham]

Sorry, you've lost me. What risks?

 

The risk of a developer getting credit for other people's work, and ending up with much more power than they deserve, like a George Lucas of video games.

 

Ah. I see. But they don't have to be a George Lucas. I mean, frankly, I regard Lucas as a one off freak. What about Scorsese or Cameron?

[Giantevilhead]

I would say that one of the biggest problems with the gaming industry is how the developers are kept in the background. With the film industry, there is a strong association between the movies and their directors and sometimes writers. People like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc., are as well known as the movies they've made. That gives them a lot of power and influence. That's not the way it is with games. Most casual gamers have never heard of people like Amy Hennig, Tim Cain, Jon Van Caneghem, Brett Sperry, Linda Currie, etc. That makes it significantly harder for developers to make decisions about the games they've created and push their own agenda. These great developers are still around but they just don't have the influence to really make the games they want.

 

We haven't really gotten to a point where you can have the "superstar" developers like we had for a while before gaming had picked up some legitimacy. Game development is incredibly large and jumps between so many different writers and teams that it's very difficult to say without a doubt that one person's vision was the reason it was all wrapped together. In film, the director as a grand facilitator truly does make his or her film with the combined experience of the team. However, can you really say the same for games at the moment? Gaming is at a point where it's too large to be anything other than a massive collaborative effort than a grand tribute to the master strokes of one person. Maybe as the technology gets better and teams get smaller, but definitely not now.

 

The important thing here is that developers need more control over their projects. That's just not likely to happen unless the developers become more well known to the public so that their names can be used to increase the marketability of games or it causes people start pressuring the publishers to give more creative control to the developers.

 

Sorry, you've lost me. What risks?

 

The risk of a developer getting credit for other people's work, and ending up with much more power than they deserve, like a George Lucas of video games.

 

Ah. I see. But they don't have to be a George Lucas. I mean, frankly, I regard Lucas as a one off freak. What about Scorsese or Cameron?

 

As I mentioned before, we already had someone like Lucas with John Romero so the risk is definitely there.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Giantevilhead