next »

[msilver]

@JWK5

I don't think creator intent factors into it. If Coppola's intent with The Godfather had been to convince the United States to declare war on Finland it wouldn't make it a weaker film. It would make Coppola a bad director and person, but the work stands as a great one. Similarly if his attitude was that he really only cared about getting every penny he could from making the film it still would not change the greatness of the work, it just diminishes Coppola.

The wonderful thing about art in any form is that artists create value. They turn a few bucks worth of paint and canvas into historically important masterpieces. That value almost always translates into a dollar amount, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think we start to call something a money-grab when it manages to scoop up more dollars than the artistic value generated.

[Manuel Magalhães]

@Richard Kain Yeah, marketing should be always a smaller priority than the game itself. Or we get Zynga.

@Veracity I agree with everything you said about the subject. I guess that there's nothing morally wrong into making games *just* for the cash, indeed, even though that "usually" makes clones so it's detrimental for an artform. Even if it's no longer a safe bet for the first condition, making innovative games is a lot more inspiring for everyone. That's why a GameLoft game will be forgotten while Far Cry or Killer7 will stand the test of time. One is a poor man's version of a retail game while the other two are an original piece of art. Now, not that I mind that games aren't 100% innovative, I like to play a traditional FPS once in a while, and it's not that these games will not stand the test of time. But Team Fortress 2 has it's own vision, like Battlefield 3 has, like Bulletstorm has. They are derivative in their own ways, but they aren't clones.  

Also, why "LOL"? Making fun of a set of innocent people pretty much seems a bigot act for me.

@msilver I got it, thanks. I'll try it and send my feedback to you via PM.

@JWK5 I can agree with execution, but not intention. A piece of art doesn't devalues with the actor's intentions. If Inafune said that he did Mega Man only for the money, I wouldn't have the same level of respect I currently have for him. However the talent expressed on Mega Man doesn't disappears because of it.

[JWK5]

I think you are both misunderstanding what I mean by "the intention behind its production", you can make money and still make art even if the goal behind creating the art is just to make money.

I could work at a restaurant with the goal being to make money but that doesn't by default mean I won't cook the food to the best of my ability or that I don't care about the enjoyment of the people it is being served to. However, I could just be only concerned about my paycheck and half-ass the job and only cook the food with the bare minimum effort needed to get it out of the kitchen.

This is what I mean by intention behind the production. If the creators' intentions (in this case all involved) are not to make a quality game but only make a lucrative game it will show in the quality of the work. So in your Megaman example, the talent expressed does disappear if the intentions of the artists isn't to create a quality product. The execution will suffer for it and the talent won't show through.

[J-Snake]

@J-Snake I didn't saw anything money-grab on that video, could you explain it for me?
(off topic = Wow, that's a pretty bigoted game. I saw an article on this on Kotaku and a whole family did this game. Sad.)

Games like this are made for quick cash solely, it's disappointing that I even need to elaborate on this.

[Manuel Magalhães]

@JWK5 Ah, fair enough then. I can see how someone for profit makes sloppy games with a money "gimmick" that attracts money. At the end if they get their money in the most efficient way, they don't care about the rest of the game.

@J-Snake
I still don't know where the money grab is. I don't see any "buy this to pass this level!" iApp purchases (judging from the trailer, one of the reasons why I made that question) or anything that seem to ask for money in ways that makes the game more of a gambling experience than a challenge. And by "games like this" you meant that games from this genre are cash-ins or is there anything else? If the former, that was what I feared on the first post, if the later please elaborate.   

[Richard Kain]

I could work at a restaurant with the goal being to make money but that doesn't by default mean I won't cook the food to the best of my ability or that I don't care about the enjoyment of the people it is being served to. However, I could just be only concerned about my paycheck and half-ass the job and only cook the food with the bare minimum effort needed to get it out of the kitchen.

I think JWK5 is on the right track here.

The issue at hand is not one of "cloning" game mechanics. This is a fairly common practice, but appropriating existing mechanics is not the same thing as a money-grab. Some games are not about developing new mechanics, but simply focus on refining existing ones. This is a somewhat less ambitious approach to design, but it is not inherently mercenary in nature. There can be genuine craft in such an approach.

When I refer to mercenary intent, I am usually referring to distinct design decisions that were quite clearly made with the sole purpose of increasing revenue, usually at the expense of the overall game experience. That is where I draw the line. When the designer intentionally hamstrings the experience of their game in order to make a few more bucks, that is when I believe their mercenary intent has slipped into the realm of the money-grab.

[Manuel Magalhães]

Now that I understood what JWK5 meant, I can agree to that. A good example alongside with the restaurant analogy is the iOS port of Mega Man X.

They are sacrificing the game's design over some bucks. You can pick up all those items in the hard way (except the BGM), but it shows how they don't mind harming the game's experience for profit.

Aside from that the port has some really cheap graphics. One thing is not being able to do better, other is doing graphics worse than the ones from the same game from 15+ years ago. They slapped a filter in there and called it a day, not like Mega Man Powered Up or the Mega Man Maverick Hunter X, where they did them from scratch. So A) Someone at Capcom really likes to apply filters to pixel art or B) They knew that putting a store with game breaking but profitable upgrades was enough to make a good sum of money. I'm aiming towards B).

[e_va]

just stop tryign to make a bad game

[Muz]

just stop tryign to make a bad game

Why would anyone try to make a bad game? They don't make money.

[e_va]

tons of bad games make money.... "money grabs"

[Manuel Magalhães]

@e_va oh ok, im dum. thx for the input, e_va.   

[nikki]

That's a money-grap-concept, I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W5J6Cg__Xso

Games like this are made for quick cash solely, it's disappointing that I even need to elaborate on this.

the video was funny, the gameplay looked differnt from things i've seen before, so as it stands it looks to me as is your problem with that game is something totally differnt and personal
 
so please do elaborate

[kinglake]

Well personally i would have to agree with what has been said before, if you want to do it then do it.

I make for the most part two types of games: Platformers and Educational Games. Why? Because i enjoy it. The educational games market is filled with games that have the sole purpose of making money (not completely of course), however the reason i enjoy creating educational games is because when i was in school all i did was read from a book and listen to the teacher spout information. Not to say those techniques don't work, but i personally didn't and still don't enjoy them and if I can help at least one person have a more enjoyable learning experience then that will make me happy. And quite simply i enjoy making platformers because they're my favourite type of game to play.

Don't listen to what other people say, if you enjoy doing it then fantastic and if you can create an experience that others will enjoy by doing some you enjoy then thats even more fantastic.

[Snow]

I made a casual game for both reasons: money and fun. It's a casual/arcade iPhone game that takes advantage of tilt and screen touch. Despite a very simple mechanic, none the less, my partner and I spent 18 months on it (it was my first project, had to learn a new language and worked on it on and off). My philosophy, if people are going to pay for it, it should be worth their money. We've spent hundreds of hours play testing it, tweaking and killing every single bug we could. I had a lot of fun creating it. If it makes me money, I'll be happy. If not, I still enjoyed creating it and whoever does play it will enjoy it. I see a lot of games on the app store made with clipart and demo code and slapped together - THOSE are just money grabs. Same with some games made with a 3d engine. I've seen a few games made in Unity, that although the company had enough money to hire decent artists and in some cases even good level designers, it was still put together in a hurry and barely play tested or bug tested. The end result of these games being money wasted on 3d eye candy.

As for labels, who cares. Despite the irony of posting in an indie gaming forum, I personally don't consider myself as part of the "indie" scene or community. My partner and I went to art school together to learn how to be artists.. I guess. However as soon as you call yourself an "artist" that means you are categorizing yourself with a group and so there is the expectation that you're going to be producing similar work as your peers. We hated art school. I quit. If I had to listen to the word "juxtaposition" coming from the mouth of some hipster moron one more time, I was gonna punch him or her (and I'm not a violent person, but holy fuck). However, most importantly, depending on what kind of artwork we produced, we were either criticized positively or negatively. If our work wasn't some bullshit post modern contemporary piece of crap, oh man watch out. If you make comic art for instance, you were shunned - unless you were part of the Visual Communications major - which is where you learn how to do technical art and design purely for making money and of course for advertising. I said to my friend one day, "Who can judge my artwork but me? I enjoy creating what I create, isn't that the most important part of making something?" Right now I do a bit of everything. I animate, illustrate, make games and most importantly have fun doing them. However I don't fit myself into any category. For instance with game creation, I don't have as much experience as many "indies" do, nor do I eat, breathe and sleep game making on a daily basis to the point it feels like being in a concentration camp. So my partner said to me simply, "we're creators". That's it. We create what we wish, whenever we want, for whatever reason (in my case fun AND money), and couldn't be happier.

[Moczan]

For instance with game creation, I don't have as much experience as many "indies" do, nor do I eat, breathe and sleep game making on a daily basis to the point it feels like being in a concentration camp.

Someone took the movie too seriously.