Why Bad Games are Bad - article at Eurogamer
(I would have linked to the original article but the site seems to be down.)
Eurogamer has a piece reporting on an article by David A. Rodriguez in which he "explains" why bad games are that way. While there is an element of truth in what he says (and certainly, publishers should appreciate the skills and experience that a development studio contains), to paint publishers in the light he does isn't going to win him very many friends. If the customer is always right, why is he trying hard to antagonise that customer and drive them away?
Without doubt, publishers are a lot of hard work and there are plenty of times when you don't want them to interfere with the game you're creating, but as it's their money paying for the project they have a right to be happy with its progress. In order not to find yourself in the situation of being told what to do and what changes to make, the developer should work with the publisher in a way that enables them to maintain as much control as possible.
For instance, if there are issues with a certain gameplay element not working, make sure that you come up with an alternative or a way of making it work before the publisher tells you what to do.
Also, if you build your schedule so tightly that there is no room for adjustment based on publisher feedback, then you've only got yourself to blame when they ask for changes that have a serious impact on the schedule. We all know that the publisher is going to want changes at some point, so if you don't have provision in the schedule for that you're always going to struggle to finish the game on time.
Ultimately, though, if you want to develop good, original games without publisher interference, the only way that you are likely to do so is by not having to rely on the publisher for funding. Taking an independent approach is not simple or easy, and may not guarantee good games, but at least you can be sure to have control over the content. And that's when you'll find out if you can really make a good game after all.
Eurogamer has a piece reporting on an article by David A. Rodriguez in which he "explains" why bad games are that way. While there is an element of truth in what he says (and certainly, publishers should appreciate the skills and experience that a development studio contains), to paint publishers in the light he does isn't going to win him very many friends. If the customer is always right, why is he trying hard to antagonise that customer and drive them away?
Without doubt, publishers are a lot of hard work and there are plenty of times when you don't want them to interfere with the game you're creating, but as it's their money paying for the project they have a right to be happy with its progress. In order not to find yourself in the situation of being told what to do and what changes to make, the developer should work with the publisher in a way that enables them to maintain as much control as possible.
For instance, if there are issues with a certain gameplay element not working, make sure that you come up with an alternative or a way of making it work before the publisher tells you what to do.
Also, if you build your schedule so tightly that there is no room for adjustment based on publisher feedback, then you've only got yourself to blame when they ask for changes that have a serious impact on the schedule. We all know that the publisher is going to want changes at some point, so if you don't have provision in the schedule for that you're always going to struggle to finish the game on time.
Ultimately, though, if you want to develop good, original games without publisher interference, the only way that you are likely to do so is by not having to rely on the publisher for funding. Taking an independent approach is not simple or easy, and may not guarantee good games, but at least you can be sure to have control over the content. And that's when you'll find out if you can really make a good game after all.
posted by Steve | 11:53 AM
3 Comments:
It's funny how the gaming community is so much more willing to blame the publisher than the developer. I want to blame the developer more often than the publisher, personally. They make insanely overambitious plans for their budgets, and then produce games that cannot be adequately tweaked into a smooth gameplay experience on the budget they are developed upon.
Not that publishers don't cause problems, but in terms of industry woes I'd point my finger at the developers before the publishers most of the time.
But I'm with you; let's go indie. We won't be able to make games as impressive as the AAA's, but at least we can make the games we want to make. :)
If the developer had done the job right in the first place the publisher wouldn't have to demand changes. :)
In terms of budgets, one of the reasons that The Sapphire Claw didn't get taken up was because of the proposed budget. When publishers started saying that they wanted the budget to be half of what I proposed I realised that it couldn't be done without getting into the situation of squeezing the life out of the project. Now I'm exploring the possibility of doing the game as a series of episodes so that costs can be spread wider.
Hey, Chris, I just saw the press release for your game, Play With Fire. I'm looking forward to having a play with this when it comes out. I hope it does well for you and repeats the success of the Darwinia guys.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home