Why dont the big companies make a game, like an RPG first-person shooter such as STALKER but with Crysis/Metro 2033 graphics.

Also why dont they make an RPG like Dragon age: Origins, but much more open ended like Baldur's Gate, and with Crysis like graphics?

They haven't because there are countless permutations of possible games and each one has a cost associated with making it. Every time a "big company" makes a AAA game like those, it risks millions and millions of dollars on the hope that enough people buy the game. It takes a massive amount of compromise and risk-benefit analysis to decide to make a game.

That's why they haven't made the exact perfect game that you want. But seeing as your ideal games seem to be roughly "combine this game with that one", they're doing a pretty good job of hitting your main desires.

Quote:Original post by shadow85
Also why dont they make an RPG like Dragon age: Origins, but much more open ended like Baldur's Gate, and with Crysis like graphics?

I think this is a reasonable question. They definately should do that :)

wow, I love this thread. Its so funny.

But seriously, if they made dragon age: origins, into a fully explorable world like baldur's gate, how much better dont you think the game would have been? It would have got a rating from 9.5 all the way up to 10. There sales could have doubled.

Instead they have to make the game linear to boredem, and then add small lil crappy expansion packs that are also linear.



....Oh yeah why dont they make a series like 'Lost', but this time they are lost on the planet endor, and the 'others' on the island are the 'ewoks' expermimenting on the planet.

Quote:
But seriously, if they made dragon age: origins, into a fully explorable world like baldur's gate, how much better dont you think the game would have been? It would have got a rating from 9.5 all the way up to 10. There sales could have doubled.

That's a logical fallacy. You are essentially projecting your own desires on to the larger demographic, which isn't going to work. You also don't have any hard evidence to back up the claim that their sales would have doubled, or that the ratings from reviewers would have increased. It's just conjecture and wishful speculation. You're also ignoring (perhaps out of lack of experience) much of the practical realities of software development that companies need to take into account.

You're dreaming. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not realistic or feasible to just say "hey let's make this, but with that extra thing" and magically have a runaway smash hit.

While it's a very different kind of game and not, per se, germane to this discussion as a product, Alan Wake is something to consider. Spent a very long time in development, something like five years, and had quite an ambitious scope -- possibly even more than was publicized in reviews and other media. Got at least a few high reviews (9.0 from IGN with 8.2 press/8.1 player, 8.5 from Gamespot, et cetera). Sold 145,000 copies or so during its launch month, according to the NPD. That's a commercial failure.

High review scores don't mean a game is good and don't mean its going to sell well. Ambitious, sprawling scopes don't mean that either -- plus they're expensive and risky.