Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
I wholeheartedly agree. While there certainly were developers back in 96 who were probably in the business purely for money (and conversely, while there certainly are developers today who are in it purely for the enjoyment of videogames), the general trend seems to have shifted from "videogames are meant to be a fun past time" to "videogames are a multi-billion dollar market that we can make $$$ from.
|
more like the shift went from making games to making 'digital experiences'. it was already a multi-billion dollar industry by the late 90s. Half Life gave everyone in the industry a boner for trying to force grand cinematic / theatrical aspects into their games to 'legitimize' the art form (by leeching off others???).
either way, at this point the industry is a mess. too many people have convinced themselves that a 'game' production has to be on par with a Hollywood production and that's really about as stupid as it sounds. the rise of development conglomerates like EA and Ubisoft have had the exact opposite effect of revitalizing the industry. rather than encouraging talent to shine and releasing fun and innovative NEW games they burn out their people to release the next iteration of a proven franchise before a target sale date established by some suit from the publisher who's likely never actually stepped foot in a development house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seltzer
I've been playing Shadow of Chernobyl lately... it's not bad and it's pleasantly reminiscent of Fallout. Gotta love the Russian speech  |
nice. this is another game that i've started up a handful of times but never made it all the way through. i can definitely see the Fallout angle too, in fact, from what i played, i think STALKER does a better job of creating the 'on your own in a post-nuclear area' than the recent Fallout games did. it just lacks the openness of a sandbox game.