Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samdari
To pile one, you are really wrong about this.
The reasons that nobody has released a game that does both well is economics. To develop such a game would cost more money than developing a game that does one well, and they would not be able to raise the price (since the only acceptable price for a new game is $50).
Football pro 97 did both well, and was released in 96. I don't think football has gotten much more complicated, or computers slower, in that time.
|
Largely I agree. To have a game with the graphics of a Madden game with the financial engine of FOF has nothing to do with CPU resources, video cards or anything else -- it has to do with the fact that you are talking about double the development time and resources. You're essential designing two games.
Sierra's FPS was a hybrid -- but I'd say that rather than double development time, they spend the same amount of development time as say Madden did, but re-allocated resources from graphics to the spreadsheet side. As a result, you got a game that wasn't as good as Madden graphically and a game that wasn't as good as FOF spreadsheet wise. I think Sierra also wisely built onto the game each year rather than starting from scratch. Unfortunately, with '99 they decided to do just that and showed that you can't do high-end graphics and high-end spreadsheet within the traditional development cycle. Given another six months and another $15/game, they could have pulled it off.
You can't get a football game with Madden-esque graphics and a FOF-esque engine without adding another $15 in price at least, and the market simply won't bare that. Joystick jockeys won't pay it.