What Chair?

[raenas]

A philosophy question, or at least one that requires the sound of one hand clapping.

Is it better to play to the recursive cycle of playing to a certain player demographic in the pursuit of financial success, or is it better to hold onto the vision of a better tomorrow (tm) at the expense of low exposure and starving artist syndrome?

Example.

Clover studios created the cult classic "Okami", a game about a wolf set in mythic feudal japan where the chief weapons of import were brush techniques executed by a brief pause and scribble of the controller.

Personal opinion only, I believe Okami to be one of the few concepts for which the graphic cel shaded style works. In my opinion, Wind Waker another high profile title touting cel shaded style just didn't mesh with the Legend of Zelda concept.

Also personal opinion only, I believe Okami is one of the very few truly innovative games along with oldschool adventure games like Grim Fandango and Trifine production 'Psychonauts' which not only produced good games, they produced GREAT games.

Clover Studios went out of business.

They created innovation, but for them, the price of innovation was financial failure. The game sold surprisingly low amounts and it was quickly forgotten by anybody not already charmed by it.

So. Philosophical question.

As the price for innovation grows higher, and we approach the times were corporations and committees are the only places where these titanic game constructs can still be completed, where does the artists vision fit in?

Cut simply. Business or pleasure? Or is it not as simple to pigeonhole? Is it disgraceful to waste great talent on projects without funding? Is it wrong to create games with large amounts of only medium talented people when hiring the greatly talented is prohibitively expensive?

Hmm..

Food for thought.

[Amuki/Ikuma]

Well, personally I feel we are in a bit of a transitory state right now. For years almost every entertainment medium has been controlled by a few big groups, making it difficult for those smaller, more creative groups to break in and make their way to the masses.

We're now getting to an age though where digital distribution of various media is becoming not only more and more viable, but more and more financially successful. People are growing tired of the various big corporations taking their cut, and so more and more performer/artists/writers/developers are going through simpler, more direct means.

Just within the last few months we have had band (Can't remember who at the moment) Not only release their latest album themselves, outside of the normal recording industry, but also only request that people pay what they felt the album was worth. People are making a living off of web-comics, web-novels, and more. You're starting to see more and more creative, unique, games being developed using less expensive mediums such as flash and XBLA.

My bet is, in a few years you will hear less sad stories like Clover's as more avenues for opportunity and profit open up to smaller groups.

[Tay Mation]

I loved Wind Waker, and believe it to be one of the best Zelda Games, in play, and look. Don't get me wrong I don't mind the more realistic look, like Twilight Princess. But I think the Zelda series can be done in anyway and still hold to the Zelda Concept... Anyway, That was just a side note to the topic, but I thought I should share my Opinion.

As for the question at Hand, I agree with Amuki, there is a lot of new stuff coming out that will help with the saleing and sharing of more creative stuff done by smaller groups, even individual people.

[TerdBurgler]

All valid points, my friends but one of the most important aspects of this problem is audience. So you have created a game? Good for you! Now how do you reach your audience and profit? Sadly, I would have to blame the failure of studios like Clover to a lack of marketing. They just don't have the money to reach their audience and as such, their market share is limited to those few who pick the game up out of curiosity. Innovation definitely has it's place, but more importantly, it needs to be at the right time. Take the following for example and I know many of you will be upset for me using this: Grand Theft Auto 3.

By the time Rockstar released Grand Theft Auto 3, they had been well established as a quality developer. Their projects became well-known even before they were released. Games were anticipated. With this in mind, they knew they could take a risk with innovation by creating such an extensive 3D sandbox game. Another example which again, some may not like: World of Warcraft. By taking the MMORPG to a whole new level, Blizzard took the market by storm. However, the only way I feel they were able to accomplish such a task is because they already had the name and reputation to back such a game.

When you have a name and a reputation for good games, you can take risks with new innovations because you already have an audience. Sometimes they bomb but sometimes they catch on and you can create a phenomenon. The most important thing is to be in a position where you can take that risk.