IGN's Take On What Obsidian's Up To

[Diogo Ribeiro]

So out of my admittedly lengthy post that's what you ask?

 

Thats what I felt like taking from your post and discuss. You can always bring up something else, or give guidelines for people so they know what you them to take from your posts and explore.

 

The vast majority of people who buy games aren't looking for a precise modelling of real life.

 

No, but they're looking for gameplay. If a game is more involved, that doesn't make it a more precise modelling of real life (then again, simulating real life is an exageration; more depth to gameplay doesn't mean the game will make you live your everyday life and all its elements, so that analogy is somewhat false); it makes the game more replayable by having extras. People already replay games with very little replayability; adding extra options that might only be seen if the game is replayed is grounds for more fun replays. Involved doesn't equal a lengthly, or, like you implied, tedious game. A game can be fairly linear but still present a form of open-endness to it. Deus Ex is an extremely linear game, however, the approach you can take to most problems, coupled with two somewhat distinct skill systems, makes it highly replayable. You can play a game as you want, neglecting other gameplay options if you find them tedious. However claiming more options or more depth = tedium seems not only farfetched, but also too self-centered.

[Slammy1]

Or more realistic I would say. I'm not looking for some argument on what you perceive as the intention of my post. Truth is, KOTOR was a mediocre game with limited replay, yet it was considered game of the year. I guess we can simply say we're better than the rest of the people who have lesser understanding of the realm of gaming, but in the end it's a business. If you design a game for the hardcore community, you won't have a financial success. No one's ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the average person, but I'd say a few have in overestimating it.

 

Actually, my point is as you argue against me. You have to keep it really simple, but put the elements in that would allow for more in depth options for the more hardcore fan base. But I think if they design a game based solely on the more vocal element here they'll just end up with a financial failure. It's why so many gaming companies are converting to console, as well as the whole pirating scene. I know on the spin off boards I've seen where people are actually proud of the fact that they never buy any software. You have to design games for the people without the knowledge of how to pirate, the unfortunate side effect of the whole p2p scene.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'm not looking for some argument on what you perceive as the intention of my post.

 

Neither am I, so I dont' see a point to stating it

 

If you design a game for the hardcore community, you won't have a financial success.

 

While i'm not defending the creation of a game which is strictly for the "hardcore community" (whoever they are, if they exist at all), I'd have to question what you consider to be a financial success, in regards to a title made, and sold for, so-called hardcore community. Titles like Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, Escape Velocity: Nova, and Geneforge 1 and 2, just to name a few, were successful enough on a commercial level as to warrant expansion packs for them - and expansions are usually based on amount of sales for the original games (meaning, its harder to finance a game which doesn't show enough interest for it to be invested on). No, they didn't make MILLIONS OF BLING BLING, but they had financial success, no doubt. Not forgetting associated critical acclaim.