Quote:
Originally Posted by Henke
But that doesn't make simpler games any less good. They can in fact be better IMO. The main reason for this is simple. When there are alot of money at stake people won't take chances, instead they like to play it safe. This often results in a boring game. When there is less money involved the developers have a bigger chance of implementing their ideas without compromises.
|
Nah, no matter how much money you invest in a game project you want it to be the best it can be given the budget. Money is money and you wouldn't want to waste $10,000 any less than $10 million. So as long as there's any amount of time and money involved there will always be compromises and decisions on whether to take risks here or there. No one really wants to make a huge effort just to make a lousy game, do they?
Quote:
|
I would also like to point out one more time that cutting edge technology in itself doesn't make a good game and is not something that every developer should aim for.
|
Conversely, low tech doesn't guarantee a good game, either. And it can definitely stifle creativity sometimes because you have far fewer choices on how to design it. With cutting edge tech you get to play around more because there are less walls around you, thanks to better technology and resources. With low tech you're forced to be more resourceful and particularly creative.
