RPGWW

Well, the end of the world is coming. Electronic Arts just announced that it's buying both BioWare and Pandemic Studios.

This can't end well.

EA games is making lots of money so I guess they're doing pretty good.

I don't really know if "making lots of money" and "making good games" are the same thing, though. Not to mention a lot of companies that EA has bought out, like Bullfrog, Westwood, and Origin Studios, have died out shortly after being eaten by EA.

Yeah but a good video game is like a bank error in your favor. It's rare, and good, but don't expect it to happen every time you pull a chance card.

Ah well. Even if they do close, not like the designers won't still have jobs. Feargus formed Obsidian after Black Isle closed, Schafer founded Double Fine after Lucas Arts dropped their adventure game lineup. It's not the studios that are important, it's the people that work for them.

Being bought by a bigger company can help too. While it might mean their games are interfered with a bit, they can concentrate on making the games a lot more, and leave the whole administration side of things to EA, who for all their faults are pretty good at ensuring that games make it to customers.

And anything Blizzard makes is gold.

It's not the people that work for them that are important. It's whether the games made are good and are made available through viable distribution channels. Really, I couldn't give two shits--or even one shit!--about whether Tim Shafer or Mike Whosiface or Macaulay Culkin made a game. If it's fun, I'll play it and buy it. End of line.

My point there is that people that are good at making games will be more likely to make good games than people that aren't good at making games, not that name value is the reason to buy a game. And the people that make a given studio more likely to make good games, such as Feargus or Schafer, will still have jobs even if said studio folds.

Yeah, we all like fun games, but that's like saying you don't care who writes a book as long as it's an enjoyable read. Just like following an author that you've found to give an enjoyable read in the past, if you end up noticing certain people that have made games you consider fun in the past, why not save yourself some effort in keeping up with all the games and put some special focus on these people? If they've made games you've found fun in the past, they're logically likely to make games you'll consider fun in the future.

On the other hand, William Gibson's Idoru was pretty bad. And Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash was pretty good.

PriamNevhausten wrote:On the other hand, William Gibson's Idoru was pretty bad. And Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash was pretty good.

Priam speaketh truth!

I still say that having information at hand on who's got a good batting average is not completely worthless. If someone has made a lot of good games, chances are they are going to continue to make good games in the future. You just can't follow them around like some kind of freaky stalker expecting everything they touch to turn to gold. I mean, they're human after all. They fuck shit up sometimes just like the rest of us.

The end of the world? Let me get my bib.

So... the sign of the world ending is Will overreacting about something kind of mundane?

'Cause, honestly, that shit happens all the damn time.

BrainWalker wrote:I still say that having information at hand on who's got a good batting average is not completely worthless. If someone has made a lot of good games, chances are they are going to continue to make good games in the future. You just can't follow them around like some kind of freaky stalker expecting everything they touch to turn to gold. I mean, they're human after all. They fuck shit up sometimes just like the rest of us.

This is exactly what I was saying. Does Idoru being pretty bad mean that you'll discard Gibson's yet-unread-by-you or future books out of hand? I mean, what makes more sense, ignoring names entirely right from the get go because everyone can make a bad game, or following names because some people have an 80-90% success rate?

Just because a game can be either good or bad doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance of either for a given arbitrary game regardless of other factors behind it. That's as silly as dismissing a wide-spanning study relating tendencies in data based on personal anecdotal evidence.

Truthfully, I think it's a much better plan of action to wait a couple months after something is released and go by what you hear from sources you trust rather than go by names alone. I mean, if you're going just by names, it becomes fairly arbitrary.