安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
When the big dogs do innovate it is rarely based on the ideal thoughts of a developer or designer, like it tends to be for companies like Team Meat. It will be something based on market research and made to fit an untapped market and an acceptably profitable target audience. That's why some publishers will coerce developers to change and modify a game in development. You can kind of see that when you get a publisher contract within the game, it'll force you down a path for an idea they want.
Obviously some companies are more willing to take a risk and arguably these more often tend to be smaller indie houses. It's kind of make or break for many of them. They will just have an idea that they love and will drive to create and share it regardless of it's success or profitability. Where possible they will not want to dilute the idea to appeal to a wider or different market. That's the benefit of being a small developer, not only are there far less overheads but you know if you mess up it will only be you and a may be a few others who know the risks that take the fall and go bankrupt. It's quite different though when you have 9,000 employees and what are essentially big loans (the investors) to pay off.
It basically boils down to greed. Some people are in it for the money while others are in it for the love of games. It's a fine balance and not everyone manages to do it well.
Well, if they take a risk, it could cost them millions or even billions of their cash.
But either way, you ask for innovation right now, but if they brought out a game so unique, so different, you would likely be the first to say 'why not just come out with stuff that works instead of something that is so different?'.......trust me.
Yes you are right, but still the game makes you think and puts you in the pace of great developers.
I think like others had mentioned big companies had many interests and pressures to not risk, and make everything shallow to please the CoD mob that is the current trend.
While indies can’t compete with that market because they will lose against the giants, they must be more innovative and make different kind games to survive, that’s why I think lately we are seeing very interesting and different kind of games from indie developers.
Moreover as the game is designed Publishers are more distributors because they invest almost nothing in the game. So yeah the game doesn't reflect the reality of the bigs nor the relations of developers with them.
But it's more about developers before they get bought by some big. And from that point of view it's not reality and omit many important element like managing temporary employee and game development cycle, but it pinpoint many points like depends of big success, necessity to chain releases otherwise, the risk to bankrupt if failing a too big project or grow too fast, and more.
While indies can’t compete with that market because they will lose against the giants, they must be more innovative and make different kind games to survive, that’s why I think lately we are seeing very interesting and different kind of games from indie developers. [/quote]
The game doesn't include a sim of indies developers. You can try play it a bit like this but for example you can stay constantly in Garage and not take much risk, well I suppose because I didn't tried yet. I recently tried play a mildly big indie dev but bankrupt by failing managing well the grow, really purely a gameplay error more than an impossibility.
I'd answer there's no piety, when many players requested DA2 had to be a clone of DAO, they did it because most of innovation attempts in DA2 didn't work well (in my opinion I don't agree on all points but I agree on many points). Moreover DA2 cumulated the errors not at all related to any innovation elements this is setting up a base for discontentment. So many players request was looking like a request to degree zero in innovation. But I don't think it's what they really want.
The problem of innovation is it allows more errors and if you aren't purely interested in innovation but more about the real gameplay fun, then many innovative releases are half interesting games. But a player doesn't care of this risk, he saws only the result and doesn't want to throw money in the trashcan. When you buy 10 innovative indie games at low sale price, it's ok for many player that they play 9 less than 1 hour and never anymore if 1 is innovative and quite fun. It won't work that well with game based on big budgets.
I'm not trying to defend anybody, the problem is complex and players that complain of this or that about the bigs are different. Those I really don't like are those only able to enjoy production value of AAA games and whining to have qualities they could find in indie games... that they almost never buy or play. And that's why I enjoyed your hidden slap. :-)
Because valve is the only big publisher/developer thats a private company so the dont have to do anything to appease their sharesholder at the end of each quarter. That gives them more freedom but dont make them a better company.
You also have to remember that Valve doesn't make games exclusively. Valve created Steam, and there is loads of money to be made there (here..?). Think about how many different games from different companies are available on Steam, and then consider how many people use Steam to buy those games. There is a lot of money to be made by everybody involved.