via BBC
This statement has caused quite a bit of dismay. Added to that another quote:
"A female character means that you have to redo a lot of animation, a lot of costumes [inaudible]. It would have doubled the work on those things. And I mean it's something the team really wanted, but we had to make a decision... It's unfortunate, but it's a reality of game development."
via io9
So basically what happened was that Ubisoft, the company behind numerous top titles (Including the Ghost Recon series), declared that the new Assassin's Creed game would not include female assassins. The previous games have had them, but making female models for the new one seemed like too much work. While this may be an excellent chance to take pot-shots against game developers being all male and girlfriendless, in my opinion there is a larger issue here. So what if they chose to cut female assassins out of the game (though they had the framework done for the NPCs), it won't be the only game with no female playable characters out there. What bothers me is that they had to cut anything at all.
The point of making a sequel, aside from making yet another ton of money, is that the original had something to be improved upon. Something that could have been done better or could be done better using new techniques and technologies. Something you think could have been done differently. Those are the sequels that people want and expect, not cheap copies with cut content. DLCs are for adding to the game, not for finishing it. But Assassin's Creed is not the first game to be published before it is a finished product. EA has faced angry criticism to that regard plenty of times.
Time for nostalgia. Back in the good old days when a game came to the market, it was ready. Maybe it required some patches to nail even the tiniest of bugs, but as it was, it had 99.9% of all features and content there would be. Anyone wanted more, there were the modders. When you thought 'hey, this faction would be cool in this game' you did not have to wait for the developers to implement it, you did it yourself or got some people together who would do it together. Developers maintained the project, any more work they did was free extra.
Nowadays, you can publish the game before you finish it. There are plenty of publishing platforms that will let you start earning profit regardless of whether you actually create a wholesome product. Part of the problem are the preset publishing dates that have often been declared overly optimistically. Fortunately there are some (relatively independent) developers such as Triumph Studios that will give a very foggy release date (year, season) until they can be absolutely sure they can have a finished product by the time the clock runs out.
But it is not about games, it is about attitude. It is about the creators' willingness to commit to the project, to make it as good as they can, to make it something they are proud of. It is difficult to do with sequels to successful projects because there is very little new to add. Without anything to add, there is no 'new' project. It is redoing what you've already done, nothing significant has changed. And if you can't be bothered to make it at least as good as your previous work (or aren't enabled to by your publisher/boss), the sense of enjoyment somewhat goes missing. Making a successful product is great, but is it as good as you want it to be? After creating the first few epic titles, I'd imagine you get a bit more freedom to improve upon them as you see fit.
Independent developers often release beta-products. They show what they've done and share it as they develop it. More often than not, these developers do it as their side project. Something they do for fun. They may earn a bit from it, but they rarely put it on sale until it is ready.
All in all, I get that with strict deadlines everything might not be ready by the time it is due. I don't get that the limits are found too constraining until it is too late. I get why releasing a product too early makes sense where money is concerned, I don't get why it has become more of a rule than an exception.
Nowadays, you can publish the game before you finish it. There are plenty of publishing platforms that will let you start earning profit regardless of whether you actually create a wholesome product. Part of the problem are the preset publishing dates that have often been declared overly optimistically. Fortunately there are some (relatively independent) developers such as Triumph Studios that will give a very foggy release date (year, season) until they can be absolutely sure they can have a finished product by the time the clock runs out.
But it is not about games, it is about attitude. It is about the creators' willingness to commit to the project, to make it as good as they can, to make it something they are proud of. It is difficult to do with sequels to successful projects because there is very little new to add. Without anything to add, there is no 'new' project. It is redoing what you've already done, nothing significant has changed. And if you can't be bothered to make it at least as good as your previous work (or aren't enabled to by your publisher/boss), the sense of enjoyment somewhat goes missing. Making a successful product is great, but is it as good as you want it to be? After creating the first few epic titles, I'd imagine you get a bit more freedom to improve upon them as you see fit.
Independent developers often release beta-products. They show what they've done and share it as they develop it. More often than not, these developers do it as their side project. Something they do for fun. They may earn a bit from it, but they rarely put it on sale until it is ready.
All in all, I get that with strict deadlines everything might not be ready by the time it is due. I don't get that the limits are found too constraining until it is too late. I get why releasing a product too early makes sense where money is concerned, I don't get why it has become more of a rule than an exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment