Half as long, twice as bright.

[synulia]

With GSC Game World's closure and the end of the STALKER. series coming out these last days, it got me thinking about lifespan vs legacy. Stalker was one of my favorite games, with a harsh, unforgiving, and completely believable world, actually one with a SOUL (ahem, SKYRIM). I loved the original Shadow of Chernobyl with a passion, yet I'm strangely happy to see GSC Game World closing. I'm no PC gaming fanboy, but after hearing that STALKER 2 was coming to consoles, I couldn't imagine the same feeling recreated on consoles. I would imagine the cutting of resource management, and the introduction of regenerating health, and checkpoints. Or perhaps it would've turned into some horrible Fallout 3 clone, (has my distaste for Bethesda Games become clear enough?). Point was, my hopes weren't high for the sequel, for fear of it "ruining the series", as vain and rash as that sounds. Now, the series is over, and with the exception with being hugely buggy in its unmodded state, has a great legacy and will hopefully be remembered as a rare and unique foreign title in a genre getting increasingly bereft of creativity.

My question to you, is it better to go out on top, or to go on for as long as necessary? I think about studios such as Ion Storm (the Dallas branch, known for Deus Ex, not the Austin branch, known for Daikatana), and Team Bondi (L.A Noire), which were closed in their prime. This doesn't neccessary apply to games only. Arrested Development, the funniest show ever (don't question it), lasted 3 seasons, and will be remembered more fondly for it. Clone High, Twin Peaks, unique, funny, batshit insane, and all too short. But maybe it's a good thing. What do you think?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

You got your Ion Storms the wrong way around. And to prevent me from being suspended for a low-content post (again), I'd say that if you tell a joke enough times, and find enough new people to tell the joke to, it'll become funny enough again for you to make a living. Hell, that's the (working) business strategy of about 90% of all the publishers in the industry.

 

[TilMorrow]

With GSC Game World's closure and the end of the STALKER. series coming out these last days...

So you have actual confirmation that they are closing with some evidence that is not solely based off someone trying to stir rumours? Link/source please.

In answer to your question, I have to say that it all really depends. If that studio is having a great run and producing something fantastic which is keeping people entertained and plan to make more stuff that is just as great then they should keep on chugging. However, if they have that one obviously great hit that unfortunately will be the only great thing they do unless they change the way the studio works then it would be much better for them to stop there and bask in their praise as they leave their legacy(that will evidently be short lived) behind. That is until their legacy comes back 13 years later and- well you know the story.

 

[skywolfblue]

My question to you, is it better to go out on top, or to go on for as long as necessary?

Well, going out on top means a missed chance for a possibly great or even "not amazing but ok" sequel (even if unlikely). I'd lean towards I'd rather they took that chance, unless they knew 100% for sure they couldn't do it.

For example Half Life 2 is pretty much nigh impossible to top. But I still want valve to make a Half Life 3, even if it doesn't end up living up to expectations.

But then there is Halo Reach, where Bungie made one last great game and then bowed out. I have respect for that as well.

So I guess it not a black-and-white, and it depend on the individual company and why they're choosing to not continue.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I'd say that the analogy can refer to more than just development cycles and company lifespans.

I'd take a lightning fast round of Portal 2 over a trudging hour long mission in another game any time.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Killed in their prime, eh? I'd think that may apply to Westwood, but I'm far too tired to elaborate.
And to slip away from games for a moment, well, Firefly. (need I say more?)

As for Ion Storm: they made *two* games I liked.
-Deus Ex (which needs no introduction)
-And Anachronox, which I guarantee, is one of the weirdest damn things you will ever play on PC.

But to say that Ion Storm was closed in their prime? Eh...depends. I disagree because they were the product of their own failures; rather than the greed/idiocy of some parent company.
And similar to Valve, they ran on their own time. However, unlike Valve, Ion Storm didn't have a massive side-business to keep afford them the luxury of huge development cycles.

They were closed because they had absolutely no real sense of time management. Vision, yes, but they choked themselves out by overemphasizing their vision, and under-emphasizing the importance of actually delivering the goods (anyone who played Duke Nukem Forever this past year had a taste of what such colossal mismanagement is capable of producing. Future game developers, take note of this tale of caution; do NOT fuck around if you intend to actually intend to do game development as a career).

Ion Storm had the opposite problem that the rest of the industry has today.
They were too caught up in the "artistic/design" aspect of game development to ever actually produce something; compared to today where the mainstream industry tries ever harder to retread more of the same ground with each passing year. Production?

ReCaptcha: Greek Policti
Cute.

 

[Mafoobula]

It depends on which series we're looking at. Let's face it, there are just some game franchises that we WANT to see new games for, and indeed, have come to expect. We want the Nintendo stars, Mario, et al. We want the shooters, Call of Duty, et al. We want sports games, Madden, et al.
On the other hand, I would've been 100% happy with just the one Okami game. The DS sequel was alright, but... I would've been 100% happy with just the one. Such is the same with, say, Shadow of the Colossus. If they tried to shoehorn in some kind of sequel, it would be a good game, but it's far from necessary.

And that, I think, is the important thing. Sometimes, it's easy to tell when a sequel is made for the sake of having a sequel, and NOT because it's necessary. All the Metal Gear Solid games told a grand, sweeping story that was more or less wrapped up in MGS4. Now we have a new one. Why? Well, knowing Konami, it'll be an excellent game, but is it really needed?
I loved the Golden Sun games on the Game Boy Advance. MAN, those were awesome, and it's such a breath of fresh air to see a series that didn't suffer from trilogy-itis. Oh wait, they made a third one on the DS. Annnnd it was pretty good. I'd say it was just shy of great. Playing it, it just smelled, oh so faintly, of milking a pair of great games, and giving in to trilogy-itis.

 

[LookingGlass]

Looking Glass Studios' legacy, with me at least, will always be greater because of the fact they closed immediately after making 3 of the greatest games I've ever played (Thief, System Shock 2, Thief 2), and there's always that sense of "imagine what they could have done next". But that just makes it sadder, really.

On the other hand, they didn't live long enough to get bought out by EA/Activision and coerced into churning out shitty cross-platform FPSes devoid of any innovation on a yearly basis. Always a possibility these days.

So I guess there are some good sides to going out on top. They did it better than Ion Storm. Ion Storm made Deus Ex, but stuck around long enough to make Deus Ex: Invisible War and Thief: Deadly Shadows. Not bad games, but certainly a far cry from Deus Ex.

 

[Dandark]

Im going to agree for the most part. If a studio makes a great series of games and knows that any follow up they make will be a crappy cash in just to make a little extra money off of preorders, then yeah they should just leave it so the series stays fond in fans memories.

I also agree with you on STALKER. Loved CS and COP(Downloading SOC now) but I wasn't looking forward to the sequel, when they released it PC only it was buggy and unstable, it made Skyrim look completely bug free. It also required a lot of modding before it came into it's prime.

If they had to devote time to consoles as well, meh I can't see it ending well, especially since STALKER is unknown on consoles so the biggest chance of people buying it would be pretty box art or hearing about it from friends I suppose.

And the Always online DRM since you have to download parts of the game as you play.........If you played STALKER before then you can imagine why this would fail horribly. So probably good that they closed now, although I am still dissapointed the the series won't go on, maybe someone else will eventully pick up the series at some point and do a good job of it, we can only hope.