Dream games plural. There are quite frankly a bunch of ways you could do urban fantasy. Magic is hidden from muggles, magic was recently revealed to the public, alternate history where Dracula married Queen Victoria, etc. Within just the first you have countless way to explain the magic and its relationship with muggles: a secret history where immortals have warred for control, a single race of magical beings who inspired all the myths, a kitchen sink where all myths are true, dark superheroes fighting evil monsters, UFO conspiracies, cryptids, occultism, aliens, etc.Your dream game you keep describing, I want to play it too. Hell, I wished Bloodlines 2 would be it.
Nothing wrong with exploding all over random strangers sometimes
For an RPG? I don't see it. SCP is great because of conceptual ideas. Most of them wouldn't be able to be presented visually even.It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted opportunity.
Nothing wrong with exploding all over random strangers sometimes
You generally have to pay them something for the privilege though.
For an RPG? I don't see it. SCP is great because of conceptual ideas. Most of them wouldn't be able to be presented visually even.It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted opportunity.
Nothing wrong with exploding all over random strangers sometimes
You generally have to pay them something for the privilege though.
Lobotomy Corporation, no?For an RPG? I don't see it. SCP is great because of conceptual ideas. Most of them wouldn't be able to be presented visually even.It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted opportunity.
Nothing wrong with exploding all over random strangers sometimes
You generally have to pay them something for the privilege though.
Maybe RPG isn't the best fit, but I think a SCP facility management game would be super popular, especially in the style of Prison Architect or something. I'm sort of surprised nobody really attempted one.
Or a game where you build a MTF squad to capture SCPs, and research new weapons X-COM style.
There's so many better ideas than yet another FPS.
For an RPG? I don't see it. SCP is great because of conceptual ideas. Most of them wouldn't be able to be presented visually even.It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted opportunity.
Nothing wrong with exploding all over random strangers sometimes
You generally have to pay them something for the privilege though.
Maybe RPG isn't the best fit, but I think a SCP facility management game would be super popular, especially in the style of Prison Architect or something. I'm sort of surprised nobody really attempted one.
Or a game where you build a MTF squad to capture SCPs, and research new weapons X-COM style.
There's so many better ideas than yet another FPS.
It's not quite the same as SCP, but same general wheelhouse.Lobotomy Corporation, no?
I’m not impressed. Their tryhard monsters include a weeping angel that shits bloody diarrhea, a genocidal lizard with limitless regeneration, a giant titty monster that brainwashes anyone who stares at it too long, a demonic teddybear that rapes female employees, an undead fetus that mind controls and gnaws female employees to death, and… wow, who the fuck came up with this misogynistic torture porn?
I know the classic folkloric stuff is passé now, but those stories lasted thousands of years for a reason. Even the 20th century ufology and cryptids is just a repackaging of fairies and monsters.
It's not quite the same as SCP, but same general wheelhouse.Lobotomy Corporation, no?
I’m not impressed. Their tryhard monsters include a weeping angel that shits bloody diarrhea, a genocidal lizard with limitless regeneration, a giant titty monster that brainwashes anyone who stares at it too long, a demonic teddybear that rapes female employees, an undead fetus that mind controls and gnaws female employees to death, and… wow, who the fuck came up with this misogynistic torture porn?
I know the classic folkloric stuff is passé now, but those stories lasted thousands of years for a reason. Even the 20th century ufology and cryptids is just a repackaging of fairies and monsters.
I agree the most popular ones are kind of lame. As with most things, some of the lesser-known ones are more interesting.
Besides, it is very much a kitchen-sink situation, since it is a shared universe that anybody can contribute to.
SCP used to be cool, but like anything that the mainstream catches wind of it became overran with troons and faggots.
A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.THE video game industry, obviously. The theory that video games are made for an idea and not to make money is simply outlandish.What videogame industry are you talking about?
Look at EA, Ubisoft, CD Projekt or even Paradox. When Hearts of Iron IV was discussed (mainly in how streamlined it was) the lead developer said something along the lines of "If we want to keep making games, then we need to reach as many players as possible so we can afford to keep making games and not end up on the streets". This is business first and foremost. And that means profit.
Stupid "inclusive" bullshit is mainly PR people or suits, who have no idea what's going on, giving green light to some devs high on crack, because they think it'll mean their game will appear as "progressive" and "progressive" means good PR in their book. But you don't really have to give a shit about that, as long as your game is solid. Hell, you can even afford to be "controversive".
1) Just because developing games is a business it doesn't mean everyone has a good business sense. Of course, good business sense isn't always a good thing for the players or their games (loot boxes and other similarly scummy tactics being a prime example).A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.
There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.
Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.
Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.1) Just because developing games is a business it doesn't mean everyone has a good business sense. Of course, good business sense isn't always a good thing for the players or their games (loot boxes and other similarly scummy tactics being a prime example).A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.
There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.
Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.
2) Aren't giant companies like Ubisoft and Activision releasing "the same game" over and over again (Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty) in order to get "predictable profits"? I'd argue this pretty much fits the "sequels to games delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience" behavior.
They are still "producing consistent sequels" that manage to bring "predictable profits" (which is why they kept being made). Regardless of how much money are "poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets".Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.
You may consider it "diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry". For them it's just good business.In the persuit of big profits they are diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry.
Activision's annual net income is higher each year for at least two decades. Ubisoft's annual net income is less successful, but still pretty good (between 80 to 100 millions of euro. Save for a single year where Ubisoft's annual net icome was -124 millions).It would be a more sustainable business if they had two flagship franchises that alternated release years.
The SCP universe is so rich, its just sad that most of the games are simple first person horror games.It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted.
I agree. The economic rationale has clear limitations. It's not about what executives greenlight to actually make money, it's what people *think* makes money in the first place. Which is all about marketing. Game developers aren't just chasing target demographics, they are also in an irrational arms race with each other. Dragon Age 2 chased the 'Call of Duty demographic', which was misguided at best. But that's not all. Dragon Age 3 had to be some sort of open world because Skyrim was gonna come out. It also had to have horses just like TES.There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.
Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.
I agree. The economic rationale has clear limitations. It's not about what executives greenlight to actually make money, it's what people *think* makes money in the first place. Which is all about marketing. Game developers aren't just chasing target demographics, they are also in an irrational arms race with each other. Dragon Age 2 chased the 'Call of Duty demographic', which was misguided at best. But that's not all. Dragon Age 3 had to be some sort of open world because Skyrim was gonna come out. It also had to have horses just like TES.There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.
Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.
I don't know why you are confused. Niche games are consistently destroyed by targeting too wide of a market. Obviously that would not apply to games that already intentionally target the widest mainstream market.They are still "producing consistent sequels" that manage to bring "predictable profits" (which is why they kept being made). Regardless of how much money are "poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets".Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.
They're doing pretty much everything you said, only on a much bigger scale. And it sells. So much for "A common and incorrect refrain". Especially when it was said not by me, but a lead developer of Hearts of Iron IV from Paradox, the most played series from Paradox Interactive:
https://steamcharts.com/cmp/394360,1158310,281990,236850#All
You may consider it "diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry". For them it's just good business.In the persuit of big profits they are diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry.
Activision's annual net income is higher each year for at least two decades. Ubisoft's annual net income is less successful, but still pretty good (between 80 to 100 millions of euro. Save for a single year where Ubisoft's annual net icome was -124 millions).It would be a more sustainable business if they had two flagship franchises that alternated release years.
All things considered I'd say it's pretty damn sustainable business model if they are able to keep doing it for years (13 in case of Assassin's Creed, 19 in case of Call of Duty).
So why don't they just do that? Well, I think it depends on where you're at.If they weren't, they would've realized years ago that spending millions of dollars on celebrity voice actors, top-notch graphics, and hiring an army of developers is strictly inferior to 10 dudes with Unity shitting out yet another spooky crafting survival game.
No there's a secret developer secretly behind the scenes making it even better than before. Brian's coming back. Rik's making a new OST. They've fixed all the problems and are all true fans of the original.
We're going home.