It is not how things "must" be, and it is not trying to explain how the mainstream gaming is in its "best state". Personally I would prefer if companies made a Baldurs gate (the second one in particular), or a fallout (1 or 2), or Sims (Any of them). I'm giving the view of one flawed human on why companies can make games that aren't at all what we want and get away with embarrassingly large stacks of money.
I don't think the reasons for being able to make such game were in doubt. Most people accept the "can do this" portion to the extent that they feel no need to mention it; rather we object to the "should do this" part. There are a million better ways to own a porsche than to start tinkering with code. Literally. If money was the raison d'etre for making a game in the first place, then why not become an investment banker instead, to seal up a sure thing? Most these companies did begin with a small team and a vision not yet obscured by stacks of cash, and even with an enthusiasm for their creation itself. That they "can" change their course is obvious, and if the "can" is defended as logical, then it follows it "must" happen. Only by asking "should" and by ethically placing value in the desires of one's original customers is there a hope of avoiding the siren call of jingling mainstream coin.
So then, we ultimately arrive at this: is it truly the logical step, having entered game design to create something new, to sacrifice the original goal once your company has gathered enough buzz around it and then to seek only the broadest and basest appeal for the sake of profit? I dont see the logic.
I like this view, I really REALLY do. I think my Cynicism is longer and harder than yours though, I do not believe money to be altruistic, or even neutral, I believe that people will do pretty much anything to get it though. This is a point where our personal opinions differ, arguing this is out will probably degrade hideously and I have no desire to do that.
(On the subject of internet and modern computers I claim military funding.)
I really protest that your cynicism could be longer and harder than mine. Mine is exquisitely long and hard--and thick, too, which is what's really important.
And moving on to the perhaps timely subject of thread degradation, I say let it within reason. Why stir the surface that reflects our beliefs and not probe the depths? So explain where you're coming from. I disagree already that people will do anything for money. Some unmotivated people won't even work the simplest job for it. Others would not trade a heart-breakingly hard job for it. Rather most people see money as the measure of potential to fulfill our true desires that lie elsewhere. Few of us keep treasure hoards in our basements to swim through like Scrooge McDuck or curl up atop like Smaug. We seek it to pursue other ends, and it disappears swiftly down that path. When those other ends can't be defined in monetary terms, we're doomed to unhappiness and hoarding. To sum up that fate: ROSEBUD.
It is only when humans facelessly combine as shareholders in traded corporations that we lose the individual passions that motivate our getting of money. Only then do we become part of an entity that relentlessly seeks the means rather than the ends.
Finally, regarding the Internet's non-profit origins, if you view profit motive being at the heart of all progress, then claiming military funding in the case of computers and the Internet places you as far from a profit motive as humanly possible. While government in general lacks a profit motive, no other branch of government is more dedicated to the outright destruction of profit and the ruin of wealth than the military, which aims at efficiently breaking the most stuff at once.
Oh, btw, it's 3:30 AM in China, so I am going to sleep a bit.
Author
Topic: My rant on modern video game rants (Read 9773 times)