Really interesting stuff there... the more you know, after all.
[quote]Elsewhere in the interview, Fargo discussed how having a publisher on board can greatly inflate the cost of making a game. "At least [by] 25 per cent," he estimated. "In some cases, 35 per cent, because sometimes they insist on taking over functions like doing all the casting and audio recording, where they would spend way more than what we would, if it was our money. I mean, it is our money, because it's advances, but they insist on taking it over."[/quote]
...wow, it's just like those host segments in the MST 3 K The Incredible Melting Man ep (which were meant to make fun of the process of getting The Movie made)
"And the studio insists on getting Kevin Bacon"
JAF?, what do you think about New Vegas??
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Xan-Xan/On one hand, I agree that publishers make developers' lives harder with all their bullshit regulations. Why the hell should a developer's income be related to their game's Metacritic score?
On the other, QA should not be the publisher's sole responsibility; if it is, you have fucked up. Developers should not be giving a game as broken as New Vegas to the publishers, especially when Bethesda can barely keep the bugs in check in their own games. It's equivalent to throwing a turd into a sewage pipe to clean it up.
(I love New Vegas, but it certainly shipped out with a Godawful number of glitches)
edited 28th Mar '12 11:36:30 AM by Scardoll
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.I don't think it's the developer's decision whether or not the publisher's get all the QA.
"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."I think it's ridiculous to take Metacritic into account especially with how the current review system works (A lot of them are mercenaries). I feel really bad for Obsidian.
Instead, I have learned a horrible truth of existence...some stories have no meaning.Many times, shoddy QA is the publisher's fault as they force a game to go onto shelves before it's ready.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Seems like Square-Enix were the only one who treated Obsidian correctly, in that they forced them to sit down and polish the game quite a bit first (or so I heard). And the game in question is Dungeon Siege III. God, what a waste...
People aren't as awful as the internet makes them out to be.Seems like Dungeon Siege 3 was successful from a monetary stand point though, so that plus a good publisher relationship with them might lead to more ambitious projects from Obsidian with SE in the future.
I might have put this in the Wasteland thread, but it does open my eyes about Fallout New Vegas, and really opened my eyes about the industry.
Check it out.
Jonah Falcon