I liked the fact they got a shooter, though I was vainly hoping for an RPG.
At least it was a functional, fun game.
In the game industry, as well as any entertainment industry, there are two types of projects: “normal” projects and “vanity” projects. I think this will help shed the light on whether or not game companies are in it for the profit.
“Normal” projects are just that: your average game. Sometimes, developers have these “great” ideas that they think would sell a bunch of units and would allow the company to make money (thus keeping the company alive, keeping the developers’ families fed, etc.). Other times, developers are given a project by a publisher and they make the game to keep their company profitable. In the end, these games must make money, otherwise people start to lose jobs, stocks go down, and ultimately, the company may have to close its doors.
“Vanity” projects are the projects were certain development superstars have so much money that they possibly just don’t care what happens to the game, they just want to make it. Most of the time, they firmly believe that these projects will make oodles of money, and they don’t understand why some people don’t share their “vision.” Other times, the developer just wants their story to be told. Most publishers will stay away from these types of projects because, well, they tend to lose money. That’s why most vanity projects are self-funded. (The same thing happens in Hollywood. Please see “Battlefield: Earth” for a good example.)
So, in either case, for the most part, games start development because someone had “a vision.” However, at the end of the day, whether or not the game actually reaches fruition almost always depends on whether or not it will make money. I don’t get why so many gamers are obsessed with complaining that companies are only out for the money; that’s not true. It may be the biggest motivating factor, but is that so wrong? This is a capitalist society, and in a capitalist society, a company has to make money to continue doing whatever it does. Otherwise, you get layoffs, shoddy products, etc.
For example, Baldur’s Gate wasn’t a guaranteed sell, but the business people at Interplay believed that it was of high enough quality that it had a chance to do really well. NO game company is going to sit around and say, “Hahaha… Man, this game rocks, but it’s going to sell like crap and lose us millions of dollars! Let’s make it anyway!!!” (above “vanity project” clause excluded)
And I don’t get what the hatred for EA and Square is all about. I think Square hasn’t made a decent RPG since the SNES (I haven’t played Vagrant Story, though), but they have overall pretty decent quality (FF:T and FF:TA, Front Mission series, etc.). Enix’s DQ series has stagnated in terms of innovation lately, but DQ1-5 were fantastic, and DQ8 looks to be awesome.
EA has plenty of super high quality games, in addition to all the lackluster ones out there. Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, the Sims, Everything or Nothing, etc.
I akin hatred of those two companies to hatred for something like MS. I just don’t get it.
Interplay is now hated because it destroyed Black Isle Studios (creator of the Fallout series and Planescape: Torment). EIDOS is hated because it (and Ion Storm) killed Looking Glass Studios (famous for creating Thief: The Dark Project). EA is especially hated because it axed (well, more like assimilated) both Origin Systems (creator of the extremely popular Wing Commander series) and Bullfrog, and turned Westwood Studios (and the Command And Conquer series along with it) into a shadow of its former self.
How many great games will we never see just because a giant publisher wanted to control creativity? I don’t find such business practices acceptable in any sense of the word. It wasn’t as if Looking Glass Studios and Westwood Studios didn’t earn huge profits from the games they loved making, because they did. Now tell me why they essentially no longer exist?
While I cannot comment on the reasons why Interplay closed down Black Isle, I can guarantee you that if Black Isle was making money, they wouldn’t have done it. Guaranteed.
Other than Thief, what has Looking Glass done? That game was released about 7 or 8 years ago… how do you keep a company afloat for that long with no product to sell? I don’t think it was necessarily Eidos that pulled the plug, but rather, they just ran out of money.
Origin hadn’t had a hit other than Ultima Online in YEARS. Did you ever play Ultima 9? Did you see how big of a piece of crap it was? I’ve never played a game as buggy as that. Origin killed itself with horrible quality control and crappy games towards the end.
And who is to say that it was EA’s fault for what happened to Westwood? Is Eidos to blame for the mediocre-ness of Deus Ex 2? Probably not. It’s very likely that key figures behind the C&C series left, or they just lost inspiration.
Sure, sometimes there are games that look like they have tons of potential to be fun get cancelled, but there are a million and a half reasons for it. Remember, it’s an entertainment business. There are a million steps involved in making each game, and a million different things that can go wrong. It’s never a fun thing to cancel a project, but sometimes it has to be done.
Looking Glass Studios developed both Thief: The Dark Project and Thief II: The Metal Age as well as the famous System Shock. But yes, they did run out of money, which was unfortunate considering the fact all their games did make money. At least Ion Storm retained most of the original Looking Glass developers who have spent much time perfecting their latest Thief game, Thief III: Deadly Shadows (I’m intrigued by the role Garret’s old friends, The Keepers, are going to play in the game).
As for Westwood, I would love to see an end to the original C&C storyline. Unfortunately, EA fired many of the original Westwood developers, and some left, including Joe Kucan (a.k.a Kane) and Brett Sperry. So, EA not only bought a series of games it didn’t create, but fired the creators. I can’t thank EA enough. All the C&C games made huge amounts of money, so I have no idea what was going through EA’s collective mind.
Thief 2 was nowhere nearly as successful as Thief 1, from what I remember… And chances are they spent a lot of money developing it.
As for C&C, I’d have to know the details, which I don’t, to make an accurate assessment. All I’m saying is that things look one way from the outside, but that’s usually only the top of the iceberg.
Thief: The Dark Project was actually released two months after Metal Gear Solid. Imagine that. Which game do you think was given the most credit for revolutionizing stealth gameplay? 
Anyway, the games industry is ruthless, and yet people with talent and integrity will always rise above it all. If I’m naive to think along those lines, then so be it. I really have no respect for EA in spite of its success and massive accumulation of wealth.
You have no respect for EA? I still don’t see why, other than the fact that they may have cancelled one or two titles you were looking forward to (for reasons that you can only speculate about).
I can understand having no respect for certain individuals for things they have said, etc., but not having respect for an entire corporation of thousands of people? That seems… arbitrary.
I’m not saying EA is my bestest friend in the whole world, but I can certainly respect a lot of the games they put out, and a lot of the people that work there.
EA is getting too big and things are starting to get lost in there. The problem with mega corporations is that they aren’t the friendliest place to creative and inovative persons. But EA is still much better than Sony because EA is way less arrogant than Sony. It is OK for the average gamer but for us hardcore diehards it is a ugly way this one gaming is walking to.
But is it? It’s inevitable that the game industry will end up modelling the business pattern of Hollywood. In order to reach a larger audience, you need a larger machine that can deliver the product to that audience.
As for corporations like EA “crushing” creativity, that’s only partially true. They “crush” really obscure creativity… stuff that 90% of the population wouldn’t understand. But, if you have a quality idea that can sell, I guarantee EA wouldn’t “crush” it. Why do you think Maxis is still in business?
There will also always be room for more hardcore games… particularly on the PC. The big companies may make the technology for games, but it will be the independents that make the mods that everyone loves (Desert Combat, Natural Selection, etc.).
inevitable? perhaps. a good idea? certainly not.
we all know what problems the film and music industry is suffering from, and I still can only recomend “Reinventing Comics” by Scott McCloud.
a “hydrocepalus” of marketing and management will crush a backbone made of artists, the industry will collapse.
there needs to be an independent game development szene, that could be fundet partially by the state through tax exemption for game companies or direct state funding. just an idea, but the film and music industry have an independent scene, the game industry has not yet.
An Independent Game Scene would be great but first games need to be respected as an art form. Unfortunately we don’t have the tech for it yet. The constraints that limit the transition from a vision in the developer’s mind to an interactive reality are still too big due to the limits of our tools.
LC: I’m not so sure it’s necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it has the potential to screw things up like they are in the “major” entertainment industries today. Yes, there is a chance that the really interesting ideas (meaning the bizarre ones) will likely not get much of a stage to show their stuff. But, it could create a system of shared talent… where each individual could have a chance to create their own distinct footprint in the industry. For instance, when making a movie, you don’t hire an entire company… you hire a production house who then finds the right talent to build the movie (except in the case of CG houses like Pixar). You have your artists that you hire for specific styles, your cinematographers, your director, etc. A big problem with the game industry is that a team spends so much time learning to do one thing, and they’re stuck doing the same game over and over until the game kills itself.
SegaTecToy: I personally think the technology is available for artists to utilize. There is no reason why a story can’t be made as compelling in a game as in a movie… There’s no reason why a game can’t be as visually stunning as a painting. It’s just that it’s nearly impossible to make an entire game by yourself now, as you can with books, paintings, etc. That’s where is shares things in common with movies.