Something I've always wondered
 

Okay, now, it's pretty easy for game companies to know they're making crap (there is no way the people who made 50 Cent Bulletproof were not aware of its quality in developement, and companies know when they are doing a cheap license tie in) but do companieas know when thye are making great games? Do you think they knew Ico was going to be as amazing as it was in developement, did Clover know Okami was going to be as great as it was?

I'm gonna say that video game developers don't know when their making a great game simply because most great things come about by mistake. On the other hand this K key on my key board is uber sensitive and annoying me.

I think that most games that are successful fall under two main categories: ones that are intelligent and ones you can mindlessly play.


FF7 was a big hit in the mainstream not because it was 3-D or especially well done (case in point, "This guy are sick." ), but because it was deep and intelligent. You had a basic RPG formula base, but it was populated by love, loss, colorful characters, and a dark world they defended not because it was good, but because there was hope. Alternatively, the Monkey Island series offered puzzle-based humor and zany people in crazy situations.

"With this evil Voodoo Orb, I'll blast Elaine into Kingdom Come! :yarr: That'll show her how much I truly care. ^_^ " - Lechuck

Both were intelligent in their own way: FF7 through depth, and Monkey Island through wit.



On the other hand, if there was ever a fun genre good for hours of addictive play, it was the side-scroller. Hocus Pocus was a simple game to play. Get the shinies and shoot anything in your way. Not much thought required, even with the switch puzzles. And I dumped hours into it.



Now some examples of bad games might be ones focused on graphics. Legend of Legaia had NO story, NO character development, and NO good reason to stay on instead of doing chores. The same goes for Jade Cocoon. They had the best graphics of their time. Tons of combinations of skins and textures in each. But it didn't save them from monotonous gameplay and music no one could possibly listen to for more than a minute without getting a headache.

I think...yes...in some cases, it's pretty obvious you're making something great. I'm sure these instances are a part of other cases where you think you're making something great, to you, but it just doesn't fly. And maybe it is great, but doesn't get swept up by the gaming community (and hence you get those "awesome games you've never heard of")

That makes a lot of sense, but I'm sure nobody goes and looks at the initial character designs and says, "DUDE! This is gonna ROCK!" I think some amount of work has to be done first, before someone realizes, "Wow. Y'know, nobody's ever done it like this before." Like with Tifa's limit. I can just imagine some poor, overworked guy running a test and his boss walking in just as the stop gets missed and sweating over not having put it in until the boss looks at it, nods, and tells him to design some sort of control system.

Alternatively, people can get just as caught up in the crap. They might think that graphics are what sell, or CD sound, or being able to generate items through logic, and pour all their energy there instead of what the audience is really looking for.

Really, the best things are made with the consumer in mind. As in real people. So the best way to make a game is to make something that you, as the ultimate gamer, would want to play, not something that you think everyone else would find cool.

How FF7 made it huge was because a LOT of people were Nintendo fans and Square was the FIRST RPG on the new PSX. Not only that but it was a good game for four friggin discs long and hit a LOT of cords.

But how something like Beyond Good and Evil, though a great game, is nothing more than a footnote in gaming history because of poor marketing and bad timing. -_-

She forever will live on as Alex Vance in HL2 (note the similarities in face structure) but BG&E may never be popular. *sigh*

Damn mainstream!

Three discs.

Obviously the people making them knew they had a vision and believed in their vision, but as for assuming they would be successful, I doubt it. It's the people who make the idiotic crap like Bulletproof that go in thinking "THIS WILL SELL LIKE HOTCAKES BECAUSE IT HAS STREET CRED!"

Now, obviously, if you have some hits under your belt, you'll probably start to feel a little better about yourself, but not with the first hit should you assume you'll be successful. HOPE you will be, but never assume. In fact, assume the worst, you'll probably try harder. I think that's what they did, they said, "To break into the mainstream we really have to put a lot of work into this thing" and their work ethic came from that.

I'm pretty sure Squareenix now "knows" that all their games will be hits, if only because almost all of them are Final Fantasy games and lots of people will buy them purely for that reason.

But... unknown dev's, making their first great game? I don't know. I doubt it. I bet that until they start getting tons of media coverage, they think that they'll be doing an average job at best.

Yes, but most games that get media coverage end up blowing, HARD. I mean, I personally think NIS assumed Disgaea was garbage so they spen the money that should have gone towards presentation on Pixie Sticks and Jones Soda, and it turned out great.

Excuse me for a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, almost done.

And here we go again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

FF7 deep and intelligent?! You've got to be kidding me. Granted, while it manages to pull a hell of a lot of emotional strings, it is hardly something you can justify calling deep or intelligent.