It used to basically mean you were willing to pay very big sums of money for a gaming machine, because that was the only way to access games. That alone filtered out the audience to be a certain kind of user. Now that access to a gaming machine is fairly ...
@Kenneth Blaney r nYes, many of his case studies involved companies with cultures that believed lower quality products were beneath them, even though it became clear over time that their customers preferred them.
@Bart Stewart r nBigger is not always better. The experience does not necessarily improve simply because the world is bigger, the player has more agency, the possibility space is bigger, etc. I believe game designers have had a severe misconception about what makes for a more emotional experience. r n ...
@E McNeill r nI thought this was generally the accepted interpretation of the story, somewhat confirmed by interviews that Jonathan Blow gave. r nhttp://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php /topic/190136-the-story-of-braid/ r n r nYes, it can be ambiguous in its message, but it is a vehicle for story.
Those are good reasons. William Gibson said the reason he became an author was because nobody would pay him just to read books. Sometimes the only reason is that I just want to be close to games in some capacity, because I like them, regardless of whether I am making ...
@Raph Koster and E McNeill r nA great essay as always. Yes, other dynamics make popularity a hazy metric. But still a metric nonetheless. Clearly slot machines are a more enjoyable game to modern audiences than, say, Othello. And that 's not because of payola or incompetent Othello marketing departments. ...
