you see the form -- the "boring gaming convention" as central, and the content -- the story, etc., as "packaging."
No, I don't. I recognize that Fallout is the whole of its parts, and that you can't just separate bits of it and say "that's what made it good". It's good because the overall balance of gameplay and storytelling etc. etc. is good.
For some games, such as Rayman's Ravin Rabbids, certainly. But for character-driven, story-driven, setting-driven, and theme-driven games, like Fallout, The Witcher, or Planescape: Torment, it's exactly the other way around.
Surely you're not suggesting that Fallout is more like Rayman's Ravin Rabbids?
I've never heard of Rayman's Ravin Rabbids.
That said, you could make that argument, on the outside, about Planescape: Torment, where the gameplay mechanics are purely a way of delivering the story, and the story is all the game is about.
In Fallout, you spend half your time on combat and skill challenges. Are you seriously claiming it's then not a key part of a person's experience?
They still use the same narrative structure, the same way of intercutting between characters to illustrate a dialog, and so on.
Yes, and they both use cameras too. Looks to me like you're not seeing the forest through the trees.
Are you sure your market is different than mine?
Yes.
I think there's, at the very least, a lot of overlap.
Also yes, but there's also a lot of overlap between the markets of Fallout and BG, yet they're still distinct.
The only difference is that you prefer TB while I'll be happy with anything that isn't a slog.
For our personal tastes, that might well be true, yes.
How do you intend to go about making art-house games if they won't sell? They'll have to sell at least well enough to cover the costs of making them, no?
Yes, kind of like Troika sold enough to cover the costs of making their games but was undercut by publishers backing out. It's not a question of selling enough to cover costs, we know there is a potential market in the range of hundreds of thousands. That's never been in question. The question is why would publishers be interested in that instead of Mass Effect? And that's diversification. But there's no lack of profitability here.
So, you feel that anyone making a game that follows current conventions is, by definition, not making it out of conviction but purely for commercial reasons?
No, I say that your claim that these gameplay mechanics (FP/RT) sell more than other gameplay mechanics (iso/TB) have nothing to do with art, but with business. If you limit someone's options to the former you're limiting his artistic creativity, if you do so for commercial reasons then it is no longer art at all.
You have not shown how FP/RT mechanics work, you have only shown that they sell. That makes your limitations of art house to those mechanics distinctly commercial, and not artistic, and that's a slippery slope.
And then there's the problem that FP/RT and shallower storytelling have shown a natural convergence. Because they're not separate, like I said before, they're two parts of the same puzzle, the puzzle of popularizing RPGs. You're trying to artificially separate them as if they weren't born from exactly the same principle.
Why? I think I also made a remark on this earlier that got lost in the hubbub; action films are easier to make now than before. No, not the hi-end action films with the supar-special effects, but just regular action flicks that are still chugged out, cost nothing, easy to make. Yet there's no natural movement towards deepening out the story of action films. Why not? Because the medium of action films is catered towards an audience that does not enjoy that kind of storytelling, just like the easy-going, action RPG mechanics aren't catered to an audience that enjoys complex, challenging stories or deep dialogue.
You're arguing in favour of mechanics that target a different market than the game's bodyworks. Economically speaking, that's insane.
And incorrect: the folks who made Fallout and Planescape: Torment have *repeatedly* stated that they did not intend the games to be exclusive, snobby art projects, but to sell well to the largest market of gamers they could reach.
Now you're twisting things around. MCA and Tim Cain have stated they liked every sell they got, sure, but you're looking at it from the wrong side. They didn't make the game "to sell well to the largest market of gamers they could reach", if that was their goal they would've made Baldur's Gate. They made the game they wanted to make, and once it was finished, once their art was done, they'd like it to sell well, because it shows appreciation of art (and because they need to get paid), not because that was the intention all along. To sell as well as possible? Sure. To be adapted to selling? Not really.
Seriously, I'd like to hear your vision on this -- all I've heard so far is arguments about why the current model is bad. I've shown you my vision -- a more or less standardized, canned game engine that provides the gameplay, and lets the art-house studio concentrate on the art, the writing, the music, and the content. What's yours?
I don't believe in visions for economic development. Planned conceptions for something as organic as economy never work out.
That said, I already sketched how I picture it. Troika's brand of games has already shown commercial viability, and the gaming market is only bigger now. Nothing needs to be changed about that, there's certainly no need to sacrifice the gaming side by putting everything into one engine (seriously, that's a terrible idea (though as an open source it could work, but open source isn't the magic fix-all many people think it is. I mean, an open-source, TB/isometric engine already exists, yet I don't see games popping up like sprouts)), all it requires is an adaptation of business models. Nothing more or less, it's not a big deal.
And I really don't understand why it appears to upset Brother None so much.
I appear upset?
I'm probably tired, I didn't sleep much and just did an exam on Russia's economic development from Late Tsarist Industrialisation to 1990's Shock Doctrine. Boooring!
You're right: I am ignoring that market... but, as you point out, that market is already being served, so where's the problem?
No it's not. You think that because Spiderweb has been producing 2 games a year for a decade now that the market is "being served"? Honestly, Spiderweb's games aren't for everyone that loves this genre, not just because of graphics, but simply because Vogel's games, while variating, mostly come down to the same mechanics and gameplay style. You really think the market is "served" by an endless repetition of roughly the same game modes (hyperbole, Vogel's games do have variety)
Sure, Eschalon is a step in the right direction but it, too, doesn't represent progress. Neither does Spiderweb. All these two represent is a regression to old gameplay modes and a nice nostalgic regression into that world. Does that represent a healthy industry? Can you fully explore the possible consumer market with those kind of games? Of course not. Indie gaming shouldn't be overpressurized like that, it's not capable of fully satisfying a market that's big enough to support a company of Troika's size. How could it be?
the same market that supported those '90's games when they came out, and was pretty much ignored until The Witcher and perhaps S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Does that imply that there's a direct line between the late 90's market and the Witcher's consumer market? I don't think so, not everyone's tastes developed like yours did, PJ.
