Based in China with over 400 staff, Virtuos is one of the largest providers of outsourced production services
to the games industry, specializing in 3D Art, Animation, Co-development, Engineering and QA.
Its international
management team is led by Gilles Langourieux former Founder and Managing Director of Ubisoft China Studios and
backed by Legend, the number one IT group in China. Since its creation in late 2004, Virtuos’ clients include
leading developers as well as 14 of the top 20 games publishers worldwide.
Website: http://www.virtuosgames.com
|
Blizzard has not only ruined the fantasy genre for me, but now also spits in the face of people trying to break away from convention?
Disgustingly cocky.
WoW's success derives from blizzard's good standing with its older audience.
I'll tell you, everyone I know that plays... says they play because people they know play.
Matter-of-fact, most people I've asked say that they do not enjoy the game, unless they can talk trash over VoIP, or get their lollies being elitists.
WoW's success also comes from its friendly, welcoming visual art style. So when some hardcore blizzard fan says "Hey! You should try this game!" people aren't so intimidated. And want to play with their friends.
I can't imagine going into a game like that not knowing anyone. Too many "Xbox Live" attitudes.
Also, I may not be "beating around the bush" with fancy buzz words or going in depth about all of this, and I don't feel this should be seen as "trolling", only because that, while I may (seemingly) be pompous on the subject. Look deeper, and you'll find I'm right.
The assumption here is that it is easier to do a good job of implementing common mechanisms than it is to figure out and effectively implement new mechanisms.
If a company can't do a good job of the basics, then their attempts at pushing the envelope may be vain and misguided. However if they can nail the basics, then they should be more confident about exploring the domain a bit more.
WoW's success is obviously due to a combination of factors but the prime factor, the only one that really matters and that is at the heart of Pardo's statements, is that the game is *fun*. Its reward structure is perfectly poised, it's completely accessible to new players, and it has enough depth that game mastery in the later levels pays handsome dividends to those who choose to take a paddle in the numbers.
I happen to agree with the sentiment that innovation is over-valued. It's hard to disagree, actually, when the arguably the company that exemplifies the statement is the most succesful PC developer of all time.
Ever wonder why you have a Quality Assurance team and not a Quantity Assurance team?
True in many cases, but what you often find, especially with WoW is that they watch the community. When something does well in the community, they pull it into the game, and make it better. There's a lot to be said for taking something and making it better. Like those great ideas that Mark mentioned that weren't implemented well.
At the end of the day their observations are just that.. observations.. it's arguable about the Wii's success and i don't think it's all driven by a motion driven controller.. price point, previous popularity with certain demographics, built in wifi and other stuff all contributed to it's success... even it's production shortages (i think) created a demand that might not have been there if the item was readily available..
and yea innovation over execution is very common. The nature of (most) games is a creative process.. new ideas offer very little roadmap for how well they get executed and unlike other more formal / business applications for computers, there is a dynamic that we all seek and unfortunately this makes for a rocky road, especially with time constraints and other considerations knocking on our doors. I doubt that will change and a few exec's sitting around eating lunch kicking out some thoughts is going to alter the nature of game development.
Nintendo has the luxury and experience to take the time they need to do a game right and efficently. Most developers don't have as much control of their development fate.. even independent developers want to get ideas out asap so they can work on something else.
When execution and innovation exist side by side, only then does innovation really become worthwhile, in my opinion.
Considering each of those series has at LEAST three separate published titles devoted to their respective IPs, that does NOT strike me as innovative at all.
Review:
GTA: 7 releases (1, 2, 3, 4, vice city, san andreas, london 1969)
Halo: 3 releases (4 for collectors' edition)
Warcraft: 8 releases
Diablo: 5 releases (including D3, not released yet but expected soon)
Guitar Hero: at least 3
Rock Band: at least 3
I think Blizzard needs to get off their high horse, and not only realize they aren't rewarding innovation ENOUGH but also that they're the butt of every other joke about video games. Also, they're the poster child for video game addiction - something I don't think they've ever said anything about publicly.
Starcraft and Warcraft have always been good, solid RTSes, and while you might not call them totally paradigm-shifting/innovative, or say that they "redefined the genre" with each new game, they didn't stagnate and they were very well executed.
At the end of the day, I would rather watch a really solid movie in a well-established genre than an "innovative" film with bad production values, terrible acting, awful lighting, annoying soundtrack, and sloppy editing. I'd also take a good cheeseburger for dinner over an experimental dish that tastes disgusting. Pardo's got a good point: You can innovate all day, and it's really cool to try new things, but if the final result isn't well-executed, the experiment has failed and you need to try again or move on.
Spector is a designer I hold in very high regard, but his constant insistence that violent themes are somehow bad strikes me as counter-intuitive. So much of art, even going back to the classics, is centered on expressions relating to our most base urges and primal emotions that it seems ridiculous to block off the whole category of violence. I understand that it would get old fast if every game were designed by Itagaki, but to say that violence shouldn't be included? Why not? It seems arbitrary.