Obviously some did not get what I said, so let me try to simplify.

What I said does not go against another point I made.
On the quality of the game
1 Have games with a meaning.
2 Have games with some truth and morality
3 Do not have games that are negative or meaningless.

On the sale of the game
1 Understand the “little thing” in what people want since many will agree to many little things.
2 Do not give every twisted fantasy since there are people that get encouraged, so do not give the “big things” in what people want since you can not please everyone with it since many do not agree with the big picture.

Encourage people to do something good, time is short so give them something manful. Distracting one self from something will not make the problem better. A game can be used as a tool to help more than procrastinate. Kids find games great then how will they deal with school when it’s so boring? Let’s look at it in another, like eating sweets for fun and bad tasting veggies for health. The problem is that too many become addicted to the want and not care for the need. There has to be a balance and enticing the consumer with will help the company that made the game now but will hurt them in the long run.

Like I said people come first then the sale. If there is a collision to this then you have to go with what is beneficial to people. If you do not you will loose money not as a company but as a community as a whole. Ok remember when I said that the company benefits from making a fun game than making a quick back? Well on a bigger scale if the companies take responsibility and not be forced to be regulated they can make more money if the games are meaningful and moral. How you may ask? Well think about it, since people work longer on things they like and less on things they do not like then that’s can be used to your advantage. If the game was meaningful and every time the person plays it they get something out of it and can not let it go since its addicting fun.

For example let’s say a child wants to study for his math class and plays an addicting math game and he plays it a lot compared to a child that does not play educational games but a violent one to blow off steam from having to study math in his text book. Who will learn faster? If the child does well in school or the guy learns from a game called “Sim stock” or “Sim construction” then they can use that knowledge. The more a person learns that can benefit them the more money they get and the more they can afford more games which they would want the educational games more.

1 Fun game = good for company
2 Meaningful game = good for company
3 Moral game = good for company
“Positive action = positive results”
What goes around comes around and can not help a game company but people and society. Having the government waste our taxed to talk about game violence and the implications does not help. Like another saying goes if you are not the solution then you are the problem. Taking away time to do something useless (meaningless, or semi useful) when you can be doing something useful does not make the useless thing useful.

People have to do their part and people that are selfish
Thins have a cause and affect. You can’t expect to play with fire and not get burned.

Also a person’s personal preference in a neutral category and does not count from choosing Mozart vs. Batavian, DaVinci's work vs. Van Gogh.
What I said in the last post does not go against this since I said to have a truthful game which so happens to be bad news. Reread my last post in here on what I said on page 2 or 3.

Did that clear things up a little? If you understood more then post in how you think I said it so that you help other to get it. Lol I can please some people some of the times but not all people all of the times. ;)

Quote:
Also a person’s personal preference in a neutral category and does not count from choosing Mozart vs. Batavian, DaVinci's work vs. Van Gogh.
What I said in the last post does not go against this since I said to have a truthful game which so happens to be bad news. Reread my last post in here on what I said on page 2 or 3.

What? Could you please repost that, in a way that semantically, logically, and grammatically makes sense? Try to locate a fluent english speaker for assistance if English isn't your first language - I'd like to know what you're trying to say there.

Kazgoroth
The poster Zarthrag said “Would you rate DaVinci's work as being "far superior" to a Van Gogh” that does not mean one is better than the other but different.
The other poster Onyxflame pointed out about saying the truth does not mean that the game would be negative since in the game you need to justify why you do those actions and explain why.

So I guess you got the rest so would you agree in a way? This post was about making a better product to the next level. If people do that they would help themselves and the consumer.

Quote:
The game companies do not seem to do much useful R&D

What data, exactly, do you base this assertion on? From my experience (which is only with a few companies), this is not true. Market requirements very much play into the business planning of games.

I think the more R&D you do to pedal your game to a mass market, the less original and innovative your game becomes. This has be discussed a lot lately; the video game enterprise is bastardizing games to make money, pumping out unoriginal sequels, spin-offs, and clones that - while the original may have been really friggin good - have nothing special to offer. This is very much the way that all entertainment goes, eventually. We are seeing this more and more in games because they are so new, but it's nothing that other art forms haven't suffered through. The motion picture and record industries are prime examples.

Movies, as an example, are now virtually dominated by the Hollywood formula. Blockbusters are spewed out constantly, and seem to always be overmarketed, overhyped, overfunded, and underdeveloped. There's the right time of year to put out movie X; there's a right demographic to put out movie Y to; it's been Z years since movie W was released, lets make W2:The revenge. It can be argued that the only people out there making movies because they really want to make good movies are independent film makers who rarely get recognition; or if they do, they lose the sense of their former art in the face of money. (I know there are a number of exceptions to these rules, but generally, you can't deny it). Back the days of motion pictures' youth, films were silent, poorly acted, and cheaply made. Technology then advanced, and movies became of higher quality, telling brilliant stories, giving amazing performances, and dazzling the world with their newfoud splendor. Then the commercialization iceburg hit it and the artistic ship sank.

The recording industry is much the same, if perhaps to a lesser degree. The biggest money makers in the business have NO artistic merit. They're pre-packaged, formulaic, genericized, non-threataning karaoke machines with powerful commercial moguls backing them so there isn't a chance for them to fail, barring some 'wardrobe malfunction', burst of sporadic 'personal opinion', or lack of judgement in an alcohol induced incident (wedding, anyone?). True artists don't make it nearly as big, but make genuinely good music. Case in point is the pop fad groups versus classical composers. You think anybody will be playing Britney in 300 years? Will anybody know the difference between 50cent and Ja Rule? (again, there ARE exceptions to all things, I know, I know)


I could rant some more, but to get to the point (sorry for the delay... really) I would say "fine, go and figure out what people want in your game and make that, instead of making what you want in your game." You are now a corporate, commercialized machine-whore, slaving away for money instead of true personal fulfillment. From this point onward there will always be money grubbing developers pumping out generic games, this can't really be avoided, but that shouldn't be what we all aspire to.

Game developers have so much more at their fingertips than those in any other industry. Visuals, music, and story come together in a way no other media can: with interactivity. This is the new entertainment form, it's going to be bigger than any other we've seen, and it has an infinite potential.

Wait, I STILL haven't made my point? geeeez... Well just this: keep making games for you. Your vision is truly art, until it becomes blurred by money. Don't do it to sell out. Do it because the work doesn't ever feel like work. Do it because you believe in it. Do it because you want others to know how great it can be. But mostly, do it because you love it.

I do NOT love statistics, I do NOT love research, and I do NOT love people who think they're 'experts'.

Who's with me?

As ever,
*****Cosmic*****

Every company uses a percentage of R&D which some use it more and more affective than others. Even the movie industry does not use it affective since you see Christian movies (passion of the Christ) doing well which many did not understand why.

What is more important want or need? What some said is understandable but not in the right direction in the long run. People do not know better and letting parents or society tell you what is right is a joke since most do not know. You do what you think is right also. You can make a fun game but try to put some hidden meaningful things in it. It’s a slippery slope to the lowest denominator.

As for a meaningful game you see some action games incorporate puzzle elements. Maybe the game company needs some sort of a union, or maybe it should be regulated like TV was to have a certain degree of educational value to it. If the masses had it their away always they would never want to go to school or eat healthy. We would end up selling to unhealthy uneducated people, and we would have to pay for their health and welfare since, we can’t advise them what they should do but we have to pay for what they do.

We are kicking ourselves in the ass in the long run. It’s like eat junk food straight for 10 years then worry about the consequences later. People need to have a balance and have junk food not all the time and they should have some sort of quality. A meaningful game does not have to be boring; it’s the lack of creativity that makes it so.

Use statistics to a degree. I am not saying that if sonic is the #1 game and we should make a sonic game since stats say people like that a lot this year. Look at stats on little thing on what like a political game since that’s the mood of the country this year because of the elections for example. Look and see if people like a never ending online game. Do people want long levels or short ones and how sort? Do people want to play a rugged female figure or moderate male figure (tomb raider vs. Leisure suit Larry)? We don’t have to show in their face that a game is centered around education but about adventure. We don’t use the phrase “state tax” but the new word “death tax” to make people care about issue. We don’t see the word “global warning” but now we use “climate change”. The same concepts can be used in games.

A conscious does not work so well which is why people need some sort of rules. It is why religion helps government bring order in society, and why we have rules in games for it not to be annoying and boring. Thing just have to be balanced which even some games do not have proper rules like 3D games where you keep wondering and don’t know where to go which becomes boring. And some games do not care for a moral obligation which is why they companies are crying like GTA that their game is being pirated despite the middle initial to the games name is theft!
Take care