Diablo1099 said:
Also, with an Open World, you need to put a lot more thought into your world.
At the very least, It'll prompt SOME change in the norm and stop the over saturation a bit.
You are right, but it is easier to make a seemingly exciting linear shooter, than an open world one, just because it takes that extra effort to make your open world interesting and not something that bores you to death and dis-encourages you to even complete the main campaign. It's just all this muddy mess of features that meant something once, now it's just in everything and it doesn't mean anything.
I would rather have a few meaningful games that are single player only.
I would personally rather have a game with a meaningful coop than competitive multiplayer. (this is just actually me, I have a friend whom we like to experience games together with, while talking about stuff on skype)
I would rather have a few of the niché titles doing competitive multiplayer but doing it good.
I prefer linear games done right as opposed to forced open world.
I would rather have a few niché games doing open world.
A good story negates average gameplay for me.
I would like to see an MMO made for a niché audience with care and conscious effort, since TOR killed that market segment off. Just one, or two.
I would also prefer if game projects would be organized better, with more oversight on these from people who actually can intervene if somebody is doing something idiotic with it.
I prefer brave experiments on smaller budgets as opposed to bloated common gray everyday crap.
I'm guessing the lack of all these variances on the triple A market can be attributed in major part to the fact that most publishers are traded on the stock market, because when you put a software company up there, you have to put profits up above everything else, while praying not to let the stock prices fall. I'm guessing as long as it stays like this, we won't really see any major changes.
I don't have anything against bloated game budgets as long as they make the money back and it doesn't compromise the creative vision. However, if you spend 2-300 milli on a game and make 201-301 back and your publisher deems you and your franchise as wasted time and assigns you to do other, more profitable stuff, instead of what you want as a dev company, then you have a problem. Don't give a game a huge budget and justify it afterwards by saying that they need to sell X million (which is almost never going to happen by the way), but calculate eventual sales and adjust the budget to that. If it limits the artistic vision to a degree that is unbearable, then just can it until you can afford it, but doing stuff on borrowed money and killing good potential games is bullcrap as a practice.
At least, this is what I think of the games industry as an outsider, I might be wrong tho.
