@DeF said:
shocking the player with something outrageous just for the sake of going from 11 to 12 isn't necessarily "out of the box"-thinking ... or "better" than something that's actually well made and well written and clever
@ozhossen: This.
@ozhossen said:
Films, to be considered great, unlike games, typically have to do something different or exciting
Games and films have to make their money back. Blockbuster films cost a lot of money, Transformers 3 cost $195 million. I don't have a figure for CoD, but it's a lot. I read somewhere that GTA IV cost $100 million to make. When you're dealing with that much money, typically production companies tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The reason you get a lot of films that try different things is because you can make a film look as good as a blockbuster for far less money if you don't use many VFX. Films like Black Swan, Monsters, Paranormal Activity, and Clerks, are all as entertaining as their $$million counterparts. A person is a person and a story is a story, no matter what resolution the camera being used is.
Games suffer exactly the opposite of this. A small development studio may not have the manpower to create all the high-resolution textures or high-polygon models featured in blockbuster games like Modern Warfare or GTA IV. Because these games typically cost less to make you get games that take chances and do new and interesting things You get games like Braid, a time-based 2D platformer, and ilomilo, an 3D abstract puzzle game.
That is why you rarely see retail games doing radically different things or styles to what sells well. It would be nice to see new and interesting things, and that's how we got CoD 4 and Gears of War.
Log in to comment