tk102 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Why do you hate LucasArts so much? What rational train of thought has led you to this? No wait, don't spoil the surprise! I'd rather read about it...on the new blog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Why do you hate LucasArts so much? What rational train of thought has led you to this? LucasArts is not a person, so stop personifying it. Three reasons. 1. Star Wars games. Crappy, terrible Star Wars games. It's bad enough that they feed crap to the masses and try to release games as quickly and efficiently as possible, making them tacky at best, but they don't even bother trying to make them good. It's the same reason I despise EMI [the record company] and Capitol using "indie" as a marketing term. Indie should have dignity, and as soon as it catches-up with a good market the big corporations will strap the word on anything that remotely resembles it, strapping it of its dignity and turning it into profit. How much more would we love Star Wars if it the games didn't exist? Okay, fine, let the games exist. But games are a growing art form. If LucasArts are really about business, they'd know that good scores would open-up a whole new market for them. Right now, only 10% [not a real number but where are all the gaming genres?] of potential gamers bother gaming. I know this because everytime I hand a copy of Monkey Island/Grim Fandango to someone to play, they finish it and then ask for more of the same. When I say that there isn't much more like it, they shrug gaming off. There you go, LucasArts. You just lost another customer. Good scores and some experimentation would open-up new areas of the market. Creating very bad games based that they know will sell makes gaming look trivial, and would kill it. Sort of like the comic book industry, where anything mature is labelled as "underground". 2. Original titles in Q4. These are games that have so much potential but they're not allowed to simmer. Armed and Dangerous should have simmered. KotOR 2 should have simmered. But no. Lucas wanted the Christmas rush. And instead of giving us something unique or interesting, we get a half-finished game that deserved better, and should have. I'm pretty sure Mojo agrees with me on that one. And the resentment might have died-off for you guys, but it'll always sting for me. 3. Remember in 2004, when they said they wouldn't cut anyone loose, and then they laid off more than 80 people? I hated that. The only reason I'm OK with it now is because those 80 people went on to do some wonderful things, including Telltale. I know a lot of people will disagree with me and I'm trying to forget about it but then I see another Star Wars game and I feel resentful. I should underline that Lucas aren't the only culprits. I don't like them for the same reason I hate EA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven_Q45 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I hate the new LA-logo... So! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Kroms, you're missing the point. LucasArts is not a "they", it's an "it". It's a business, a comercial venture, a for-profit enterprise. It doesn't have a personality, it is not cruel or kind or smart or stupid; it exists for the sole purpose of making money. This is the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Kroms, you're missing the point. LucasArts is not a "they", it's an "it". It's a business, a comercial venture, a for-profit enterprise. It doesn't have a personality, it is not cruel or kind or smart or stupid; it exists for the sole purpose of making money. This is the real world. Sadly, I know. But part of my reasoning is that if LucasArts took risks, or even just made decent games, they'd open-up a market to themselves. As a business, that makes sense. Better games = more profit. Different kinds of games = different markets. And it bothers me they aren't. The crappy games that make money basically say: "OK, we can make crap games very quickly and roll in money." And that's not good for gaming - OR for their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 "OK, we can make crap games very quickly and roll in money." And that's not good for gaming - OR for their business. If money rolls in how exactly is that not good for their business? I mean, I agree that LEC isn't superbly interesting to me personally right now, but sales numbers would suggest they're doing just fine without my or Mojo's support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 If money rolls in how exactly is that not good for their business? I mean, I agree that LEC isn't superbly interesting to me personally right now, but sales numbers would suggest they're doing just fine without my or Mojo's support. It IS good for business, temporarily. But they can't keep on releasing bad games or they lose their audience. But more importantly, they could be making more money. They're tapping into the hardcore Star Wars market. That's - what, 10% of Star Wars fans? 1% of gaming fans? There's more to life out there. And again - they should have let KotOR 2 simmer. It would have made more money I swear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Better games = more profit. Not necessarily, I mean look at Psychonauts. Even if the game does sell well then you've got to bare in mind what the developments costs are. I'm sure the new GTA is selling a whole buch of copies and it's getting great reviews but I'm also sure Rockstar sunk a boatload of cash in making thing - how many units have to sell before Rockstar makes a profit on the game? Freaking loads would be my guess. Different kinds of games = different markets. = a lot more risk too. The risk vs reward for a Star Wars game as far more favourable to that of a random game in a random genre that LucasArts has little to no experience with. Remember that LucasArts doesn't owe us good games, it doesn't owe us anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tingler Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 If you're specifically talking about "us" as "us old farts who want the old LucasArts adventures still to be going" then you're right. If you mean "us" as "the game-buying public", yes they do. We buy their games, they make games we want. Unfortunately, we obviously want Star Wars games and not adventures. I think they realise about the Good Games thing now, which is why TFU and Indy 2008 are taking so long. Remember Kroms - KOTOR2 is a Star Wars game. You use it for several examples, including "Original games in Q4" when it clearly isn't an original game in any way. True, it needed more time, which was a stupid idea. Armed & Dangerous too, which could've done with a LOT more time. LucasArts are not the only company to do this though. And I don't understand why you linked Sam & Max in there when that was cancelled in March, not Q4. How much more would we love Star Wars if it the games didn't exist? Less. Part of the coolness of Star Wars games, and the reason they continue to be bought, is that those games represent fantasy reenactment - putting us in the movies we love. Oh, and I'd trade Knights of the Old Republic for the Prequels any day. Hell, I'd trade Super Bombad Racing (paradoxically)!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It IS good for business, temporarily. But they can't keep on releasing bad games or they lose their audience. But more importantly, they could be making more money. They're tapping into the hardcore Star Wars market. That's - what, 10% of Star Wars fans? 1% of gaming fans? There's more to life out there. And again - they should have let KotOR 2 simmer. It would have made more money I swear. This is all nice and I'm sure every activist in high-school would buy into it, but really... Reality is different. Also, going by LEC's front-page we're currently talking about half the games being SW, so there's a bit more to their overall strategy than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Not necessarily, I mean look at Psychonauts. Even if the game does sell well then you've got to bare in mind what the developments costs are. I'm sure the new GTA is selling a whole buch of copies and it's getting great reviews but I'm also sure Rockstar sunk a boatload of cash in making thing - how many units have to sell before Rockstar makes a profit on the game? Freaking loads would be my guess. GTA was made for $100 million, is making profit. GTA is an exception though. And when I say Good games = better profit I mean a licensed game. Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. It makes sense with Star Wars because you can release so many Star Wars games and rake-in so much money, and the hardcore Star Wars fan will want all of them, or as many as possible, if they're actually GOOD, right? I never bought a Star Wars game but I did rent Jedi Power Battles* back in the PSone days. I would have bought it if it were any good. * Can't say I liked it too much. I know some people really like it but I was let down. = a lot more risk too. The risk vs reward for a Star Wars game as far more favourable to that of a random game in a random genre that LucasArts has little to no experience with. Remember that LucasArts doesn't owe us good games, it doesn't owe us anything at all. I know it doesn't. And frankly this is one industry that could use some risk. And they CAN risk things and come-off well: KotOR? LEGO Star Wars? This is all nice and I'm sure every activist in high-school would buy into it, but really... Reality is different. Also, going by LEC's front-page we're currently talking about half the games being SW, so there's a bit more to their overall strategy than that. So you disagree that they could be raking in more profit by making a better game? They could just tap into a sequel that EVERYONE would now buy. Halo 1 had no hype but it was really good; so Halo 2 sold like no tomorrow. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I don't know why you care so much about whether or not LucasArts makes better games now. All the people who were responsible for them in their golden days are gone, and they're not going to make any more adventure games for the simple reason that they sell like crap these days in comparison to other genres — even Grim Fandango! I don't see LucasArts as anything more or less than the many other publishers out there nowadays. They're in it for the money, and there's not a great deal of innovation happening. Who really cares if they start doing good stuff again? I'd rather keep my eye focused on the likes of Vivendi (publishing Brutal Legend) and EA (publishing Spore) than waste time worrying about whatever LucasArts is doing. I think LucasArts can be best summarised as 'irrelevant' as far as I'm concerned these days. I realise they're very tightly intertwined with Mojo's history, but what exactly makes you care about them? Again, everyone who made the wonderful games you pine for is gone. LucasArts really is now just another publisher in the sea. I think it's analogous to the (Fictional?) Double Fine upper management sacking everyone, including Schafer, and filling the company with EA Sports employees who pump out annual sports titles. What would be the point of continuing to care about the fate of the company? The valuable people are gone. All you can do is hope the people who were there go to work elsewhere, and then start following that company instead. Indeed, that's pretty much what Mojo's done with Double Fine, Autumn Moon, Telltale, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udvarnoky Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I know it doesn't. And frankly this is one industry that could use some risk. And they CAN risk things and come-off well: KotOR? LEGO Star Wars? Sorry, those games were not risks. If KOTOR was made in an original universe, then it would be a risk, but just by virtue of it being a Star Wars game it was guaranteed a degree of success from the get-go just as Episode 1: Pod Racer XVI was. I think LucasArts can be best summarised as 'irrelevant' as far as I'm concerned these days. I realise they're very tightly intertwined with Mojo's history, but what exactly makes you care about them? Again, everyone who made the wonderful games you pine for is gone. LucasArts really is now just another publisher in the sea. Pretty much agree with this. Nowadays it's not even a matter of LucasArts being a "bad" company, it's about their being an uninteresting one. I feel toward LucasArts the same way I feel toward any faceless big franchise developer, which is a huge step back from a company that you could once legitimately call the biggest innovator or most creatively vital in the field. At least when we hated them 4-5 years ago there was passion there, because we cared about what they used to be and had been following them long enough to give a care. At this point it's just like, move on. Everyone who used to be at the company left or was fired, and the whole corporation has been reset in everything but name. They're just another publisher, so there's no point in getting worked up over them whether it be in a positive or negative way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 GAH, forget it. Lol I'm just not getting my point across. I'll organise my thoughts and put them all somewhere. Right now I'm way too miserable and exhausted to think properly. Cheers and sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Hopefully with something more convincing than "Halo 1 had no hype" ¬¬ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Hopefully with something more convincing than "Halo 1 had no hype" ¬¬ =) It's a good argument - the one I actually have. Right now I'm scrambling to get other stuff in order and Mojo's just a procrastination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tingler Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Pretty much agree with this. Nowadays it's not even a matter of LucasArts being a "bad" company, it's about their being an uninteresting one. I feel toward LucasArts the same way I feel toward any faceless big franchise developer, which is a huge step back from a company that you could once legitimately call the biggest innovator or most creatively vital in the field. At least when we hated them 4-5 years ago there was passion there, because we cared about what they used to be and had been following them long enough to give a care. At this point it's just like, move on. Everyone who used to be at the company left or was fired, and the whole corporation has been reset in everything but name. They're just another publisher, so there's no point in getting worked up over them whether it be in a positive or negative way. I do agree with this I suppose - right now I don't really care about LucasArts the Company, but I do care about the games they're making. It's the same as, say, EA - hate the company, but am interested in C&C: Red Alert 3 and Mirror's Edge. I can't think of a single publisher who I care about, just the games they make. Maybe Nintendo or Sega once, but not really anymore. It's all a bit faceless now - I'll still care about certain developers and the games themselves, but publishers? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroms Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Dear Kroms, Stop making dumb posts that make no sense. Past you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Woah, I completely missed this thread back when it was being written on properly. You still there, Bad AsP? If you still want to write an editorial, we'd only be too happy to publish it in your name. You have some very interesting ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebox Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 A Question. For those who do wish to publish editorials, what is the suggested length I.E. Word or Paragraph count? I have a few Ideas I might like to try out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I would say about 1,000 words is a good length to aim for. Anyone is welcome to submit an editorial if you've got some ideas you'd like to share, though we can't guarantee that everything will be "published"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascovel Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I might write something too. An editorial certainly need less time to be put together than a comic strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.