[ZFR]

I promised myself not to get into these types of discussions, I told myself not to start it when Luvian posted, but after Sever's post, and seeing how similar posts to these pop up quite often when discussing NWN2, I decided to write this post, especially seeing how quite a few members seem to want another bickerfest.

Originally posted by Luvian: Monetary success is more important to those companies right now that making a masterpiece.

Originally posted by Luvian: They are owned by stockholders, not artists.

Originally posted by Sever: $$$ is the current trend in game design

Originally posted by Sever: and at the very top of every games company lies a fat corporate whore who really doesn't give a shit about whether or not fans are happy once they've handed over their cash.

Well, Sever hasn't told us who should be at the top of the games company instead of the "fat corporate whore". I would appreciate an answer. A concrete answer. (On a side notice, why is the adjective "fat" used in a negative way? Would a thin corporate whore be better? or is it really the hidden belief that prosperity is evil behind such usage?)

Saying that NWN2 would be bad because the only aim of the producers is money, is a contradiction. If NWN2 will be bad, it might indeed sell well because of the name, but no one would ever buy another game from this company. As it is, already quite a few people are saying they are not going to buy it. If it turns out to be really this bad, not even the most devout neverwinter nights fans are going to buy NWN3. The producers won't gain money this way. That's why the above statement is a contradiction. You cannot make money in the long run by making terrible games, so if they release a terrible NWN2 their aim cannot be money. Whether it is on purpose or because of their ignorance or stupidity, the producer's aim is not money.

Taking the example of art (since Luvian used the word "artist"). So long as the artists' aim was to make money, they reated good works of art, because they knew that otherwise no one would buy it. Right now, when art is being funded by the government and "artists" declare monetary gain is not their goal we get not art but shit (metaphorically and literally, I've seen feces claimed to be art by "artists"). They can afford to do it, after all $$$ is not what they're after so they don't bother whether people will buy this art or not. And if you say you don't like it you will be called a person without finer feelings, a crude materialist who can't understand such a high concept as art, which is beyond such vulgarities like money.

"Monetary success is more important to those companies right now that making a masterpiece." - the *only* way for those companies to create "monetary success" is by having people buy their product. If you create a mediocre product, you make mediocre monetary success, good product - "good monetary success". In order to create greate monetary succes, you have to create a masterpiece.

It is not the corpoate whore who decides what games are to be made. It's the gamers who decide by voting with their wallets.

"really doesn't give a shit about whether or not fans are happy once they've handed over their cash." - If he wants to make money he would give a shit. Would anyone buy another game from such a producer. Would you buy another game from such a producer?

So, I hope $$$ is and remains the current trend in making games. No businessman whose trend is $$$ will ever realease a bad product into the market, even if he knows people will buy it. His greed and aim for money will prevent him from doing it. Only a person whose aim is not money doesn't care if his product is good or bad. I hope all game producers get filthy rich, because if they do, it means they have done so by realeasing games for which I was happy to give them my money.