Slashdot Mirror
Whether Prestige Titles?
Via some extended commentary on GameSetWatch, a post by Greg Costikyan on the Games*Design*Art*Culture blog on the lack of 'prestige' games in the modern game industry. By 'prestige' Costikyan means titles that may not do terribly great commercially, but that attract a lot of goodwill towards the developer and publisher. From the article: "Suppose Capcom, instead of closing Clover Studios and muttering about 'disappointing sales' had trumpetted Okami's critical success, instructed its publicists to attempt to interest both game and tech media in presentations of art from this beautiful and visually stunning game, and announced their strong support for innovation and creativity in future? They might have produced greater interest in, and sales for, the game, but more importantly, could have worked to establish for Capcom what no company other than Nintendo has in the industry today--a reputation for actually caring about gameplay. Could Ubisoft not have done the same with Beyond Good and Evil? And since Ubisoft is in direct competition in most of the cities where it has studios with EA, which has a reputation for mistreating its staff and a lack of innovation, would this not also have benefited their recruiting efforts?"
It's not either-or choice. I'd prefer both.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I'm not saying it is an either-or choice. I am saying that art has no gaming value unless infused with gameplay elements. So you can have the most visually beautiful thing in the world but no gamer is going to buy it if it's not really a game (or has poor gameplay)
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Or, you know, you could actually PROMOTE those games properly. Publishers dump boatloads of money into promoting sequels like the latest Madden 200X (which is already going to sell well without any effort), but I don't recall seeing any advertising for Okami. Certainly there was nothing memorable.
Of course the standard single page ad in a magazine generally doesn't even play up a game's strengths properly. If "beautiful graphics" are touted on the box cover, I'll see four 1 inch square microscopic "screenshots". If they're trying to promote the story we get a few stale phrases like "expansive storyline". You're not getting my attention, guys. And don't get me started about eye-splitting obnoxious flash ads. Oh, you're selling a game. That's nice. Your ad doesn't even try to tell me how it's different from the other 50 blockbusters on the market. That kind of sloppy advertising works fine for your sports sequel, because people already know what they're buying, and they're lined up to buy the next installment anyway. But it makes genuinely unique games like Okami flop.
Most companies seem to be blind to the difference between a great product promoted poorly and a mediocre sequel marketed to the gills. If a good game is not selling, fire your marketers and hire new ones. And if a bad game isn't selling, THEN you fire development staff.
"I fail to see why they won't sell well"
because the masses are morons with shitty taste. They want violence, tits, and football.
The fact of the matter is, the majority of game buyers do not buy games based on reviews at all. A mediocre sequel to a mediocre game is guaranteed to outsell a spectacular original game for this reason.
just some guy
A little off-topic, but the logical conclusion to draw from your analysis is that less people look to video games for emotional or mental stimulation than for convenient/cheap entertainment. This is reminiscent of most film and music as well.
However, I appreciate those who go out of their way, beyond goals of profit, to create real art from within the boundaries of these media. I don't buy their goods because they "deserve" my money more, though. My reason is more selfish: I buy their goods because they are worth having.
If these prestige games have beautiful story, feel and gameplay then I fail to see why they won't sell well. I think they should.
For a work to sell well, it needs to grab the attention of the mainstream. It should appeal to mainstream tastes. As can be seen with a form like film, not all mainstream works are "beautiful", and not all "beautiful" works are mainstream.
In other words, the sets of the "mainstream" and the "beautiful" certainly intersect, but neither one is a subset of the other.
"Quick! To the Bat-Fax!"
I've played and finished Beyond Good & Evil. It is a brilliant game and I'm glad I found it at the local store. But I only heard about it this year. It completely slipped under my radar. I bought it from the bargain bin on a whim because the cover art looked interesting.
Psychonauts? I hadn't even heard about this game until the Slashdot story about it being available on Steam. I bought it the same day and it's been very entertaining. It's a little childish and platformers aren't usually my thing but I'm finding it fun anyway. Another one that almost slipped my attention.
Okami? This is the first I've even heard of this game.
The failure in all three cases isn't the game; it's the advertising. I receive gamer newsletters all the time - electronic and paper versions - and none of these games were brought to my attention. Even worse, word of mouth failed as well. Usually I can rely on friends to recommend worthy games but I had to tell them about BG&E and Psychonauts.
Imagine if a movie studio sunk $5 million into a flick and even the movie buffs didn't know the film existed. Yet that is the situation we currently have with $5 million games such as Psychonauts.