chk772 on 9/12/2023 at 22:07
So, Arkane Studio was given a couple of million Dollars by them, and could do whatever they want with it?
I don't think so.
Apart from that, we see what happened to Dishonored after that. There'll probably never be a third part of it. Simply because games studios aren't given a couple of million of Dollars, and they can do whatever they want with it.
Pyrian on 9/12/2023 at 22:50
Quote Posted by chk772
Would you give someone a couple of million Dollars, and let him do whatever he wants with it?
Would you contract a lawyer, and let them decide how to defend you in court? Would you go to a doctor, and let them decide how to treat your illness? Would you hire a construction company, and let them figure out how to build a house?
Paying a group of experts a whole lot of money and then ignoring their advice is what's stupid, here.
chk772 on 9/12/2023 at 23:19
I can't see how any of your comparisons remotely makes sense here.
As a publisher, you're not only responsible for the quality of the stuff you're funding, but, you also buy in developers you're convinced of, and who will add to your portfolio. If you think you just give them a couple of million, and then see what comes out, you're hopelessly naive. That didn't happen with Dishonored either, come on.
demagogue on 10/12/2023 at 02:12
I think it happened once with Ion Storm, and then John Romero wanted to make us his bitch by trying to sell us the ill-fated Daikatana, and now they don't do that anymore ... although granted we did get the wonderful Anachronox out of the deal. So it wasn't a total loss.
EvaUnit02 on 10/12/2023 at 08:56
A lot of creatives need checks and balances otherwise they'll go completely off the rails. Eg George Broussard. This has definitely been the case with a lot of Xbox studios.
chk772 on 10/12/2023 at 11:53
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think it happened once with Ion Storm
At least that's what they claim. And, also at a time where the games industry wasn't nearly as big and commercialized as it is today.
Anarchic Fox on 16/12/2023 at 01:34
Getting handed millions of dollars to do whatever you want is what happens with the big indie hits, and their studios often go on to make subsequent games that are also stellar. Some examples: Papers Please into Return of the Obra Dinn; Towerfall into Celeste; FTL into Into the Breach; Super Meat Boy into Binding of Isaac; Bastion into Transistor into Hades.
demagogue on 16/12/2023 at 01:48
I think the difference is most of those examples are made for a small team. The trick with an immersive sim, maybe the real paradox at the center of them, is that the good ones are actually pretty ambitious and call for bigger teams and really convoluted and complex systems that take a lot of testing. They're indie in spirit, but still somehow need to be up to AAA snuff.
The catch as far as funding goes also is that they're vulnerable to feature creep, which more money only encourages, dragging the whole game possibly into dev hell.
What I thought was the most important principles for them was the Irrational Principle, always aim for the simplest tech you can get away with, set your ambitions low, and stay as far ahead of your schedule as you can, and then you get a game like System Shock 2.
That said, I'm glad Dishonored and Prey were still really ambitious games that still delivered the goods. Arkane's special role or way allowed them to get away with that, and I guess shaking up whatever magic they've had is the worry here.
Anarchic Fox on 16/12/2023 at 09:09
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think the difference is most of those examples are made for a small team. The trick with an immersive sim, maybe the real paradox at the center of them, is that the good ones are actually pretty ambitious and call for bigger teams and really convoluted and complex systems that take a lot of testing. They're indie in spirit, but still somehow need to be up to AAA snuff.
Thief and System Shock 2 had budgets on the order of a few million dollars, right? So great immersive sims can be made with that kind of budget. In fact they should be cheaper now that you have more advanced asset-creation tools and don't have to code your own engine.
I just don't think the difficulties of immersive sim development come down to budget. I think it's more that it's a genre that cannot be reduced to a template, unlike many other genres, and without a template it's much harder to implement an effective workflow at larger scales.
EvaUnit02 on 17/12/2023 at 08:37
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think the difference is most of those examples are made for a small team. The trick with an immersive sim, maybe the real paradox at the center of them, is that the good ones are actually pretty ambitious and call for bigger teams and really convoluted and complex systems that take a lot of testing. They're indie in spirit, but still somehow need to be up to AAA snuff.
The catch as far as funding goes also is that they're vulnerable to feature creep, which more money only encourages, dragging the whole game possibly into dev hell.
You just described what's been happening with Judas. Take 2 basically gave Ken Levine a blank cheque after Bioshock Infinite's success and the thing has been in development hell for at least a decade at this point. (March 2025 is the current pegged release date, going by Take 2 financial reports.)
IIRC, (
https://archive.ph/20220103175237/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-03/bioshock-creator-s-next-game-and-its-narrative-legos-in-turmoil) Levine has been stuck on trying innovate on narrative reactivity to player actions.
(
https://store.steampowered.com/app/388860/Judas/)
[video=youtube;pmefiirV0JM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmefiirV0JM[/video]
