Ultratwinkie said:
Warachia said:
Ultratwinkie said:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/
I mean really, is it that hard to remember what came out of 2K? Its on this site. In fact, it started a giant flame war. This isn't the only view he has either.
"didn't work on the game?" That is irrelevant because of who he is.
He is the president of 2K. The rest of the board isn't much better. Firaxis can't do shit without 2K because Firaxis is owned by 2K. A game without a publisher is nothing but vaporware. The publisher decides what games are made and what is not. 2K holds all the cards.
"But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing ? strategy games are just not contemporary."
Except he's right, they aren't the best selling games (this was before Civ 5 came out so he was right at the time) and they aren't contemporary, he never said that they wouldn't sell, or that they wouldn't make them, he just made an (accurate) observation that they don't sell as well as other games. I fail to see why you'd get upset over this, it's as much of an observation as "most RPG's aren't contemporary."
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216
Except he used that as a justification to turn a strategy game into a shooter. He didn't say it out of the blue or for an observation. He thought that turning a strategy game into another shooter was a good idea because it would sell more.
It would be like him saying Halo should be more like Call of Duty.
He chases after whats "hot." The same mentality that makes EA try to force its IPs into shooters to challenge Call of Duty. Hell, firaxis has extensively said that they had to make MANY compromises so they wouldn't can the project like forcing multiplayer onto it.
Why? Because "multiplayer is where its at."
That and Civ V came out in 2010. He said that in 2011. A year after Civ V was released and 2K got all of its money.
My mistake, I misread the release date, but it isn't an inherently bad thing to give people what they want, that's why they made a turn based shooter (and from what I've heard the FPS is still being worked on). How he phrases it in the interview was he wanted to turn X-COM into a shooter because he thought more people would enjoy it that way.
Sorry to tell you the but everybody in the business world chases after what is "hot", it would be great if everyone could just work on whatever they wanted and polish it into a shiny gem, but they can't, they are limited by time and budget constraints, when you start making a game, you have to ask yourself if it will be popular years from now, adding multiplayer extends the life of your game, and if it is popular, it's obvious why they'd include it.
Incidentally, while he does have a high position, he wouldn't be in charge of the development of these games, that would be left to the team they chose to work on the project, pretty much everything he says can reflect on the company, but not the individual teams like Fireaxis.
Now to get back to the original point of all of this, even if the head of the company wanted to make a game easier, it would be up to the developers to find a way to do it, and because they are in smaller teams this wouldn't carry over to any other game the company is making.