to me at all. I think that the "gothing up" childhood favorites is just not
that interesting any longer. A goth Dorothy being held in sexual bondage by
leather-clad munchkins was interesting to see, but "original" - no, I just
don't think so.
I'm currently halfway through "Beyond Good and Evil" and am loving every
second. It's not "original" gameplay in and of itself, but uses many
disparate elements very, very well. I am truly getting sick of the fact
that EVERY SINGLE adventure game has a difficult "racing" section (I mean
really - Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando, Jak II, and many,
many others - I don't like racing)!
But the photography aspect, plus the integration of a partner (with the
slight strategic element of sharing health and powerups with them), and the
engaging characters and story all pull it together gloriously. (The camera
has more problems than I usually like, but can forgive that since the rest
of the game is so well-done).
I definitely don't think that originally is dead. but it definitely does
depend on which platform you're looking at. Nintendo, for example, has
never been big on truly original games (unless it comes from itself) -
they've had their gems of course (everybody has) but in general, no. Sega,
on the other hand was always traditionally very big on "concept" games like
"Knights" and "Seaman". They've pulled back drastically recently however
preferring to do knock-offs and updates.
Sony has generally fostered innovation on their console, although sadly more
in Japan. But even here in North America games like "Eyetoy" and "Lifeline"
which push both "how" and the "why" we play games are still being released
and supported.
Still, can you really blame publishers for not taking risks? When
incredibly polished, well-done games like "Ico", "Prince of Persia" and
"Beyond Good and Evil" fail sell or when incredible ideas like "LifeLine"
fall flat they have to suck up that money.
I've often thought that, like other industries, that there should exist a
business grant type-concept in gaming: large companies would invest in a
fund managed jointly that would financially support one or two "out of the
blue" games a year. When the games fail, okay - but when they hit it big
(like, say, Parappa) then everybody takes a piece of pie (and starts a
bidding war for the team that produced the game).
That may not be the right answer, but other industries have potential
solutions in place that could offset some of the stagnation (although most
of them are pulling back on them as well). But in the end we, as gamers,
have to promote innovation by actually buying these games.
Jim Davis
_____
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:03 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Sad state of the mainstream gaming industry.
This really sucks. Alice was one of my favorite games. I was looking forward
to Oz.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:28 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Sad state of the mainstream gaming industry.
>
>
> "American McGee: Oz was originally picked up as a game title
> by Infogrames before they became Atari. During the period
> where they were about to declare bankruptcy and be de-listed,
> they dropped Oz with five or six other Xbox exclusive titles.
> We intended to go out and find a new publisher for the title
> and we discovered that game publishers in that top tier just
> aren't picking up original titles any more. It got to the
> point where we could tell it was futile to continue trying.
> We eventually stopped and went and sold the film rights to
> Bruckheimer and Disney and at this point we've decided that,
> in general, it's not worth our time to go and float an
> original idea to top tier game publishers.
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
