Home
As a reader I have to draw my own conclusions. If you had a much more lengthy, in-depth interview that made the developers intention to do more than simply slap a new coat of paint on the old codebase clear to you, you should have shared it with your readers. Because you didn't, the offense you seem to be taking to my comment is a bit misplaced.
And no, you're not supposed to lower your expectations because a developer tells you to. That's not what I said at all. What I'm getting at is that your expectations should be based on the very public intention of the remake. And as I stated in my first comment - 343 was pretty upfront about the fact that they would be leaving the codebase alone. A quick google search will find you loads of examples of this from various previews and interviews with 343 folk.
Do you have to be happy with that? Of course not. It's entirey reasonable to be disappointed that the Halo remake doesn't go back and buff the AI to a 2011 shine or fix animation bugs. I'm not taking issue with whether you like or dislike this game. I think there are very legitimate reasons to dislike it. But to make the leap from "new coat of paint on a 10-year old game" to "I'm worried these guys can't make a good Halo game" is completely illogical.
If you have relevent information that justifies your fear for Halo 4, you should make it a part of the discussion rather than a sarcastic "I was there, you weren't" response. "
it reminds me so much of the year that Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil came out on the same day during the holiday season. BG&E was promptly buried.
Rayman deserves a purchase at full price. But I sincerely doubt the lion's share of its sales will happen before it hits the bargain bin."
I dunno. Seems like this article is written from the point of view of someone who didn't understand the intention of the product in the first place. It sure would be nice to see all of this stuff fixed, but I don't remember 343 ever claiming that would be the case.
When you think about that logically, how can you possibly connect Halo Anniversary with the potential quality of Halo 4?"
GT5 does offer that same white-knuckle racing experience. You seem to be claiming that unless the car is damaged "realistically" (a stretch in either game), that the user isn't getting that sensation. I put it to you that the sensation is separate from the visual result - when I'm screaming around the track at top speed in either game, I get that feeling. The penalty for a wrong move or an off is really the only difference: in Forza it may be a spectacular wreck, whereas in GT5 it's lost time (which is just as bad or worse). Both games will simulate a performance drop based on damage if you want them to.
You're constantly dismissing the GT5 experience and those who enjoy it in this article by calling out things like a confusing menu system in GT5 (Forza is better, but has its share of weirdness), or claiming that those who like GT5 are living out some "bizarre racing fantasy" instead of being entertained. Those sorts of statements do nothing but take credence away from your otherwise valid points.
You're totally right that Forza and GT are attempting to deliver the same sort of experience in different ways, and that Forza is much less clinical about it than GT. And it's entirely your right to say that Forza's approach is the better one. I just think you're going about it the wrong way in this article.
All in my opinion, of course."
Codemasters must have had some incredible foresight to create a 360 game back in 2001.
For shame, Shoe. :)"
One major issue is that he seems to think getting rich in the gaming industry is a likely prospect – that six-figure salaries are somehow the norm. That is absolutely not true.
As soon as you accept that, the whole “people who attain a certain wage level don’t need a whole lot of protection” argument goes completely out the window. I’ve had jobs in the games industry where I made much less than half the wage Pachter’s citing and was expected to work lengthy crunch time. When you change that statement to “I just don’t think people who make $35,000 bucks a year need a whole lot of protection because they have to work overtime,” it starts sounding as ridiculous as it is.
But the other major issue here is the terminology being used. Somehow “overtime” has become synonymous with “ridiculous crunch time.” By using the much less powerful word overtime, Pachter robs the description of the problem of the weight it really deserves. I don’t think you’d get too many in the games industry complaining about a little unpaid overtime – a few extra hours here and there, maybe a couple of weeks where you don’t go home each night until the sun has long set.
That’s not what these people are complaining about, however. These people are complaining about months upon months of working from sunrise to sunset (or perhaps even the following sunrise), seven days a week, with little-to-no compensation whatsoever.
Rus’ article makes some good points about things like going into a job with your eyes open, and that some people volunteer for crunch. But this isn’t exactly indicative of the reality of the situation. It’s well-documented that crunch is not always planned, and thus is not something an interviewer may even think is going to happen when you’re first hired. Or, crunch may be planned but kept from the employees until it actually happens. Or the employees may be given false deadlines and end-dates for crunch that just come and go with no change in the work situation. The EA Spouse blog from a few years back and the latest Team Bondi articles both describe this sort of thing.
As for crunch being voluntary…yeah, I doubt that’s the norm. Sure, it’s your right to refuse to work unpaid overtime. But again, the real world isn’t always that simple. Especially when you have people who have spouses and children to support, or in this current economy, where hundreds of development jobs disappear every other month. Do you really think with the existing out-of-work or up-and-coming talent pool that refusing to crunch when it’s asked of you is a viable option? The game industry grinds people up precisely because some managers know there are a dozen other people lining up for that position right now.
Not to mention the emotional toll. Some folks may roll their eyes at this, but it’s a fact that this sort of grind will wear people down emotionally, which eventually leads to physical wear as well. Mistakes are made, depression sets in, etc. And again, for those who have families, all the time spent at work is time spent away from those you are trying to support.
Crunch is not a necessity. Crunch of the sort that has sparked this conversation is a result of poor planning and unrealistic milestones/deadlines/expectations. A bit of overtime here and there? Not a necessity either, but likely. Who knows when that last minute check in is going to cause some sort of catastrophic crash the morning of a major milestone? These things happen. But there is no reason why they shouldn’t be the exception rather than the rule.
And the funny thing about the sort of overtime I’m talking about? It’s absolutely possible to compensate your workers for it on the back end of a project, even in the form of time off, since the amount of overtime hours won’t be astronomically high that your whole studio isn’t on vacation for a year. A couple weeks here and there, maybe.
The happy byproduct of that is a content workforce that feels as though it is valued. Talent retention becomes less of a problem, as does low morale.
I’m not saying unionizing is the right way to go. I actually agree with the sentiment in Rus’ article that unions may very well kill the creative process. But the whole attitude of the alternative view – shrugging your shoulders and saying “deal with it” – is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion."
I highly doubt video games and the personalities within the industry even come close to carrying the sort of weight with the general public that would result in viewership that would drive the amount of ad sales needed to fund such an event. It would be the equivalent of a three-hour Academy Awards ceremony where 90% of the awards given are for best foreign language films and best documentary.
I do agree that the VGAs will not change as long as they remain on Spike. The network has built an audience and will continue to cater to it. No surprise there. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with that."