I don't care what you think, Yahtzee, BioShock Infinite was a pretentious and mediocre game with no place in a 'top number best'!
People Make Games, Not Development Studios
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Even knowing who makes it is never an assurance of quality. Like film, actors and directors have plenty of terrible films in them in addition to their good stuff. I've NEVER followed a movie based on the actors or directors, but only based on the reception it gets apart from them.
Same with games. Hideo Kojima can be brilliant, or terrible, depending on circumstances, along with Suda51, Ninja Gaiden's Itagaki, Peter Molyneux, etc. I care not for who makes it; only whether what is made is good or not.
Same with games. Hideo Kojima can be brilliant, or terrible, depending on circumstances, along with Suda51, Ninja Gaiden's Itagaki, Peter Molyneux, etc. I care not for who makes it; only whether what is made is good or not.
Agreed on Cage, but just because a "name-brand" developer puts out 1 less-than-amazeballs game doesn't negate his whole body of work. I was at the Developers Choice awards at GDC, where Warren Spector received their Lifetime Achievement Award, while showing clips of the ALL the games he worked on or lead in his career. Of special note: Deus Ex.vonSanneck said:
I dunno, I was one of the people that actually ENJOYED 2... I understand what Yahtzee said about it being a cash grab in his review, but despite that, it arguably did everything Bioshock 1 did but improved it, except for perhaps the story, writing and the atmosphere, although they were still way above average. Although that may be down to them already being presented with an established world- Rapture- and gameplay style. I doubt they're gonna be using Columbia again, and unless they can find someone as creative as Ken Levine to come up with ideas for the next one, I think the series will have definitely hit its peak with Infinite.shtoops said:
I had my doubts about Arkham Origins when I found out it was going to be a prequel. Because heaven forbid they make a Batman game without The Joker in it. And, as I found out it was being made by a different developer, that pretty much explained everything.
I was confident that it was going to be at least pretty good, but, while I guess that kind of holds true, the game pretty much falls into The Dark Knight Rises category where they made it just because, and, with the more I think about it, the more...not good it becomes.
In fact, Arkham Origins might actually be pretty bad. And it was probably due by the different developer. Not that they were worst, but the intention of why the game was being made in the first place had less to do of anybody really wanting to make a good game.
I was confident that it was going to be at least pretty good, but, while I guess that kind of holds true, the game pretty much falls into The Dark Knight Rises category where they made it just because, and, with the more I think about it, the more...not good it becomes.
In fact, Arkham Origins might actually be pretty bad. And it was probably due by the different developer. Not that they were worst, but the intention of why the game was being made in the first place had less to do of anybody really wanting to make a good game.
This is doubly interesting because today Kotaku had a very extensive and insightful piece about Peter Molyneux, who is definitely one of the game designers exposed most to being in the spotlight and it seems to be quite demanding of him.
I don't know if treating game designers like film regisseurs are currently treated would be a good way to go either. Some may be very good at game design but not very good at marketing their game. Especially AAA titles have such large teams that I'm not sure if a single designer is actually responsible for the whole direction a game is heading.
On the other hand there surely are many others that are totally comfortable in the lamplight but it might also mean "less presentable" designers get fewer important roles (or their role may be masked/lampshaded by employing them under a "top designer").
However, studio names and publisher names don't really guarantee good quality either. Just because one studio made some good games (like Borderlands) it doesn't mean that they aren't capable of slapping their name on something bad (or "outsource" it) just to sell it (like Colonial Marines).
I don't know if treating game designers like film regisseurs are currently treated would be a good way to go either. Some may be very good at game design but not very good at marketing their game. Especially AAA titles have such large teams that I'm not sure if a single designer is actually responsible for the whole direction a game is heading.
On the other hand there surely are many others that are totally comfortable in the lamplight but it might also mean "less presentable" designers get fewer important roles (or their role may be masked/lampshaded by employing them under a "top designer").
However, studio names and publisher names don't really guarantee good quality either. Just because one studio made some good games (like Borderlands) it doesn't mean that they aren't capable of slapping their name on something bad (or "outsource" it) just to sell it (like Colonial Marines).
Bit late for that? I'd love to see a return to the first two. The gameplay was the main drive of those games but they completely watered it down so they could have their story in Infinite. That didn't matter much in the end anyway since it went completely off the rails story-wise.shtoops said:
I'm all for a good story, but when the main draw of a series is the sheer library of options you have, the last thing you should do is simplify it as much as possible in order to have flashy scenes or the mere semblence of a good story.
That's the thing though. Warren Spector hasn't done anything of note since Deus Ex which was............14 years ago. Epic Mickey showed us that either he's completely lost his touch since then, or maybe he got a bit too much credit for the other things in his career like Deus Ex and Thief 2....maybe he WASN'T the reason those games were so good. After all, lots of people helped make those games. Segway into something about George Lucas and Star Wars...Darth_Payn said:
How much one person did or didn't do is extremely nebulous, which is why I'm not so sure Yahztee's "We gotta have a name to the game" desire is really going to do anything to promote accountability or help people decide which games are worth playing.
I have no reason to believe Sid Meier himself is the reason to believe Civ 5 is a good game, any more than why Hideo Kojima is the only one to blame for how bad Metal Gear Solid 4 was.
Despite Yahtzee's claims there is already such a great amount of creator-worship in the West.
But I guess it's been strangely absent in the Game-world, where most people blindly follow corporations and not the people who've been developing the games.
But I guess it's been strangely absent in the Game-world, where most people blindly follow corporations and not the people who've been developing the games.
What you are proposing here was one of the reasons why Electronic Arts came into being back in the 80s. One famous ad was just a group shot of all of the programmers of various titles from those days, folks like Bill Budge and Dan(i) Bunten. http://static.wcnews.com/newestshots/full/ea_cry_ad.jpg
I guess what I'm saying is, this has been and is already being done for a long time now, perhaps since before most of you were born. But new ways to promote the same sorts of changes are always welcome so ultimately... YES!
I guess what I'm saying is, this has been and is already being done for a long time now, perhaps since before most of you were born. But new ways to promote the same sorts of changes are always welcome so ultimately... YES!
Do we need to restart March Madness with dev/director names instead of companies?
Personally I don't really care... Even if I saw a name on 2 games I don't know whether the bits I liked from the first game were actually attributed to that name!
Peter Molyneux - Made some good games and then made What's in the Box. Really? Would I play What's in the Box because I think it will have the same level of story telling and humour as Fable? No, of course I wouldn't!
It's swings and roundabouts really on this matter... Yes it will be nice to know a few more names, but then again I also read gaming magazines where they have a feature and interview with a designer every month so I do get to see what they have worked on and are working on now!
Personally I don't really care... Even if I saw a name on 2 games I don't know whether the bits I liked from the first game were actually attributed to that name!
Peter Molyneux - Made some good games and then made What's in the Box. Really? Would I play What's in the Box because I think it will have the same level of story telling and humour as Fable? No, of course I wouldn't!
It's swings and roundabouts really on this matter... Yes it will be nice to know a few more names, but then again I also read gaming magazines where they have a feature and interview with a designer every month so I do get to see what they have worked on and are working on now!
The second game was shit, and not even made by Irrational. That was 2K squeezing money from a prolific title. But I'm not going to argue if Infinite was good or not, as it was at least better than most things. All I'm saying is that Infinite moves forward and brought new ideas to the table, and that was Irrational's doing. Leaving it with 2K means that its just going to soak in its own excrement to try to make money off the people that don't realise the series is dead. That is unless they get another creative genius line Ken Levine. How about David Cage (that was a joke)!Flammablezeus said:
Insert Witty Comment Here:
Shtoops
It's more to do with how the industry works these days, studios cannot keep people on unless they have the work. People will be hired for single projects and then move on so it is difficult to put the same team together each time.
There are very specialised skills involved in making games these days so the teams have to be very large. I know one person from my degree who actually went into the games industry as I studied a course that was meant for people working at banks and blue chip companies but never got through the recruitment process.
There are very specialised skills involved in making games these days so the teams have to be very large. I know one person from my degree who actually went into the games industry as I studied a course that was meant for people working at banks and blue chip companies but never got through the recruitment process.
There are many examples of this, even in the old days. Phantasy Star 3, although made by SEGA just like the previous two games in the series, was done by a completely different team, and it shows. PS3 is considered the black sheep of the series (it's really not that bad). Phantasy Star 4 was back with the team from 1 & 2, and the fans rejoiced.
I do follow some companies and some people, if Suda51 is involved i have to check it out, whether it sucks or not same goes for Shinji Mikami. I also follow companies like From Software and Tecmo, their games always have a very distinct feel to them.
I wish the creative people were more visible, i follow a lot of musicians and directors because it's a good way o find a lot of interesting new stuff and i love to see how they evolve and change over time, you get to peek into their minds in some way. It's harder with games because everything is franchise driven and he companies tend to ve pretty anonymous. Heck, people rarely care if a franchise changes hands.
I wish the creative people were more visible, i follow a lot of musicians and directors because it's a good way o find a lot of interesting new stuff and i love to see how they evolve and change over time, you get to peek into their minds in some way. It's harder with games because everything is franchise driven and he companies tend to ve pretty anonymous. Heck, people rarely care if a franchise changes hands.
It was a story book in a FPS shooter wrapper much like the Metro series. I don't even think the thought of playing the game again ever crossed my mind because the underlying game systems are too simple and childish to bother with and it's nothing but static set pieces.theyellowmeteor said: