Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RLacey
"Substandard" (relating to what standard?) visuals shouldn't be a surprise, as many Underground developers work on their own. Now, I don't know about you, but the chances of finding someone who's an amazing artist, quality writer, excellent designer, technically proficient coder, quality music composer and is capable of making sound effects is, in my mind, pretty damn small.
As for your other points, there are always going to be bad fan games with poorly constructed plots, but the fact that some exist doesn't mean that all games suffer from this problem.
Turning to the length issue: games take time to develop. That's a simple fact. These people are working on games in their spare time, and you can't expect people to produce extremely long titles within a reasonable timeframe on a couple of hours work (and I'm probably being optimistic here) a day.
There are very few games that I'm happy to spend £30 (the equivalent in the UK of the $50 price tag). Priced more affordably, however (let's say £9.99, which is the most I spend on the vast majority of games that I buy), I'd certainly be tempted by commercial versions of a number of these "shit" games of which you've spoken. In fact, I'd happily argue that many of them are far, far better designed than a lot of what does get released commercially...
|
You've just proved what I’ve been saying all along. Fan games are not as good as their commercial counterparts because they're developed by small teams that don't have the resources to churn out games that are worth your while. And how are they better designed? First you take the time to point out their downfalls, then go the other way and try and reason that they're better made. How, how? They're shorter, less professionally created, filled with design flaws and plot holes...I could write an essay on why they’ll never be as good or as downright worthy as something backed by a publisher.
