Bad Games..Who's Really to Blame? |
Ó
Have you ever splurged on a video game title only to realize you would have been better off if you bought a three-legged hamster with pink ribbon tied around its neck instead? Why do they bother to make bad games at all?The truth is no one sets out to make bad games. "Hey, I have an idea for a video game that's so bad, we could lose millions of dollars on it!" is not something you will often hear within the walls of a game developer's think tank room. People who make the games are in it for the passion. But they're in it for the money, too. They know bad games are bad for business.
We think it's fair to assume all games start out as great ideas. What happens from that point on determines the outcome. Will the product be another Pac-Man (most successful arcade game ever) or a bust like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (voted worst game for 2005).
David Rodriguez, who had been involved in game development such as 50 Cent: Bulletproof-G-Unit Edition (PSP), says bad games are not produced by people who know nothing or don't care about what they are doing. (No, that's what politicians are for.) Developers want to make great games "but sometimes no matter how hard you work, someone more powerful than you is going to come in and stick their [expletive] in your peanut butter." We know how that feels.
The people in the game development business are creative by nature. When men (or women) who live, breathe and eat bottomlines enter the picture and start directing and dictating how a game should be - that's when the good idea starts to crumble.
"Some developers feel that in a fair world, the best idea should win out and what is obviously good should naturally go into the game. IÂ’ve sat through meeting after meeting with people screaming themselves hoarse trying to hammer their perfectly reasonable idea through the head of the suit sitting across from them and being deflected with practiced ease." But even the men and women in suits are not evil. They are, like the developers, attempting to guess what will make the next blockbuster game. It's just that enforcing their will on the developers is in their job description.
"So next time youÂ’re playing a game that makes you wish the developer would go to hell," says Rodriguez. "Remember itÂ’s not always their fault..." And if you're lucky maybe you can trade that game for the three-legged hamster.
Via Buzzscope
26 Jumps Buy two, get one free at Best Buy
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
Its because crappy developers are quick to sell out on big names for a quick cash getaway, that the mainstream gamers who know nothing about good games will buy into because they are idiots.
It is as uncommon as developers wanting to do a bad game as it is uncommon that every studio is out for a blockbuster. Like #1 said a lot of games pick up a well known theme/name/whatever and build a game around that. Truth is, most of those game really suck. There are different points of view. First of all there is the pressure of producing a game to at least make the cash to earn what you spent on the licences. That may be the reason why bad games get released, because you have to make some money; a little bit is still better than nothing, sometimes you just have to live with the bad reputation. But I do believe that some companies really do not care and produce something in a way that it can still be called a game - no matter what - hoping the brand will sell the game. I guess moviebased games show that sometimes.
i remeber x play gave splinter cell choas theory a generous 1 0ut of 5 that was so funny. 1 out 0f 5 thatas a rwally good example. i mean if u get a 5 a generous five than u spent like a week making that game.
i reckon it's because there are so many games out now, and because a lot of developers have managed to make GOOD games.
in my opinion we only had mediocre games in the past, have you sat down and played some of the old 'classics'... if you try to look past the whole nostalgia thing you'll see that these games have almost no substance and normally don't play all that well. i remember loving spy hunter, i got it on a compendium thing for ps2, and i still enjoy it; but it has aged in a most heinous manner...
the problem now is that it's harder to get away with making crap games, and because they cost so much to make a game has to try to sell itself regardless of being rubbish or not... if it was one guy coding in his bedroom and the game was trash he'd just throw it out and start again, nowadays they can't do that. they have to release it and get something back.
and, as the article states, the problem ultimately lies in the fact that the final say is made by the people with the cash not the developers... meaning they want awful tacked on car chases or stupid celebrities. hopefully the trend for things like xbox arcade can shake things up a little.
The stupid product managers decide in the ending if the game should have what it has
They make stupid choices and always want a gTA clone/spin-off
This article does not explain or defend the abomination of the "Big Rigs" game.