|
Do you think that publishers are
abandoning the PS2 generation too early?
DJ: Well, I think it's a chicken/egg
thing. Look, I think if I was a publisher, I definitely would at least
be putting some of my ammunition in the PS2. I definitely don't think
I would be like, "Oh, let's spend fifteen million, or even ten
million dollars on a brand new IP for the PlayStation 2," but,
you know, I think that there are lot -- you know, worldwide, over a
hundred million people who have that console.
And so I think there's
definitely more gas in the tank, in terms of being able to make money
off of it. And we'll see. We'll see how this game does; we'll see how
some of the other titles coming out from Sony do. You know, there's
a Ratchet game coming out, based on the PSP game, so we'll see
how it does. But yeah, I'd love to see the PlayStation 2 continue, at
least for a couple of years, with new releases.
What's
also interesting about this project, to me, is that up until very recently,
it's been hard for people to get their hands on games from prior generations,
or earlier works of developers they might have discovered later on.
The Wii's Virtual Console is one way to do that now, but this is a different
sort of approach. What do you think about the importance of that? Does
that drive it, or was it just like, "Hey, we have all this cool
stuff, let's chuck it in!"?
DJ: Well, "chuck" wasn't
the verb that we chose. (laughs) But I mean, it wasn't so slapdash.
It was definitely that we made conscious choices about what we wanted
to include, and we wanted to create a product that could sell like a
substantial piece of gratitude for fans of the series. And so, we didn't
just throw in stuff that we had sitting around; there was conscious
thought that went into it.
But in terms of, you mean, how do I
feel about other people being able to play work from earlier systems,
and see it now? I think that's cool! That's great. As long as it's compelling;
as long as it can still hold up. I'm like a lot of people, I buy a lot
of these retro packages.
It's funny, I just reinstalled GameTap on my
home PC today, and I was playing a game when you called. It's kinda
like, I love going back to those old games, and I love that they're
available, but I'm not one of these guys that's like... you know, I
do think games have -- it's not like movies, unfortunately, where you
can watch Casablanca and get caught up in it.
Kinda hard to go back
and play Battlezone, and appreciate it for anything other than
the nostalgia factor, as well as the appreciation factor of what it
brought to the table in terms of the evolution of gaming. But in terms
of being able to get engaged in a game from 5, 10, 20 years ago... I
don't know about you, but for me, I find that hard to do.
It can be. What do you think about,
you know -- this isn't totally analogous, but for example, Square
Enix will take a game and they'll remake it from scratch. And you find
that with other developers, too, and your project is sort
of like that. Do you think that's a good way to keep the old, classic
titles alive, rather than just shoving them out on compilation discs
or software services?
DJ: Well, the Square thing is, though,
what they -- I have the Final Fantasy remake on my DS... Or,
Final Fantasy, what was it...
Three.
DJ: They didn't actually change much
of the game, though. It was just a graphical upgrade, yeah?
It varies from title to title, but
do you think it's the graphics or the gameplay? You know,
that's another question, I guess. What that has to be revamped?
DJ: Well, I think it's both. I think
that there's an expectation from consumers; it doesn't have to be the
latest and greatest graphics, but they have to be competitive enough
that they will immerse players in the world, based on what they're visually
used to. But then I think the gameplay as well, you know.
I have
not gone back and replayed, what is the game that they put out recently...
It may be one of the Final Fantasies, I don't know, but it's
like, you know, there's part of me that recently has been wanting to
play, what was it, Orcs & Elves, from id, from Carmack?
And
I saw a review that was actually slamming it for this, they gave it
a pretty low score, and were like, "This is fine if all you want
is old school dungeon crawl with turn-based combat." And part of
me was like, "Ooh! That sounds great!" I'd love to
play Wizardry again; like really old school Wizardry.
So there's part of me that really likes that they're doing that.
But there's also part of me that thinks,
after twenty minutes, that it's just not engaging enough to stay involved
with. So, I don't know. If somebody said, "Remake Twisted Metal,"
or, "Remake God of War," you could go to the nugget
of what those games are, and hopefully if you're a fan of those games,
what makes those games good. But I think that you have to do a lot more
than just a graphical upgrade for me to be satisfied and involved with
a project like that.
Because I think that, for better or
for worse, expectations of gamers -- and I don't mean in terms of production
values, or explosions, or graphics, but just in terms of the meaning
of the interactive experience. You know, for people who those titles
would actually make a difference to, who understand the name Twisted
Metal, or Final Fantasy. Not necessarily the casual games
market.
But for those people, they need more, in their sort of "interactive
meal", and I think I would want to definitely make sure that the
game has changed, and evolved in some fundamental way before I went
back and put a new coat of paint on something.
|
This sentence makes no sense, americans needs to learn that "could care less" and "couldn't care less" means completely different things.
It's good that Jaffe is admitting to not knowing what the future holds because that is a real concern. Developers just need to do what they know with the data they have, strong and steady, and the crystal ball will become *less* murky in the next 6 months, I think.
My prediction - games based on advertising revenue cannot sustain themselves. Maybe for the foreseeable future (in that murky crystal ball) but relying on advertising as a financial model and expecting it to support your games for years into the future is a mistake. A few different models need to be used in a combination in order to create a reliable revenue stream.
This interview also got me thinking about the remakes on different platforms - isn't it funny how people go crazy over different levels of graphical achievement? A DS game could look 'gorgeous' while a PS3 game could also look 'gorgeous', only because they are capable of different things.
Well, I found it hilarious.
My prediction? Sony will draw it's own crowd and standing with the casual gamer when the price cintinues it's accelerated drops. These are usually the most pliable bunch who often confuse marketing with true consumer information. It will however fall to second place in both the casual (to the Wii) and hardcore (X360) gaming markets, although it will be technically a success. Sony will trumpet on about another solid product made, while secretly trying to find out what the next generation's competitors will be doing, knowing they've barely escaped a massive failure with the PS3.
Jaffe will continue in the tradition of making GoW titles for Sony, further continuing the now stale stable of flagships that are churned out as the next big thing for the series. I'm sorry this is not Sony bashing, I was a fan of the PS2, but Metal Gear Solid 4? another Final Fantasy?
Also, I want to point out for Mr JAffe that Sony has no loyalties if it can impact Microsoft sales. Look at what happened with UT3.
1. Look, I think I was like, you know, like -- the thing is, and I mean like, you know, like definitely those people -- and it's happening.
2. For a creator, it's "exciting" to be able to put ads inbetween levels of his games.
Also, "couldn't care less" is sarcastic without saying it the wrong way (that would be by leaving out the "not"). "Could care less, but not likely" doesn't make any sense whatsoever.