|
Re: New Review Posted: Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain
I haven't played the game but I've always thought of the Syphon Filter line of games as a poor-man's Metal Gear Solid.
But it really makes you wonder, with the money that is thrown around in this industry, and the amount of time it takes to produce so many games that we end up blasting, making good games cannot be that easy. Or is there a total dearth of talent working in this industry?
At $50 a pop, I think gamers have an absolute right to be as picky and critical as possible (and we do appear to be so) but with the endless supply of reviews and forums that do nothing but bash bad games, it's amazing that so many bad games are still made.
I know it's not an easy question to answer, but perhaps some of the guys who work for developers can try to explain how/why such bad games come to be? It's been my own experience when dealing with developers personally that many of them are so involved in the project and for such a prolonged period that they're unable to honestly tell whether or not if it came out well. This is usually the case for average or sub-par games. When a game's great, the folks behind the scenes seem to know it's good.
I know a part of the game's greatness/suckiness has to do with the powers-at-be forcing an artificial release date, or not giving the group the resources they need. But is that always the case, or does blame often fall on a lack of talented workers? Perhaps the artists aren't all that, or the programming is lazy, or the testing dept only scratches the surface?
I know there are times when the only thing we can complain about is a cornball story or bad voice-acting--those are usually the really good games that are just shy of greatness. But what about games that just have horrible control schemes, boring, repetitive gameplay, bugs, dated graphics, more bugs? Is this just a fact of life for the inexperienced developer or is there a larger, more profound explanation?
|