Turn-based combat is another one that comes up often, but is this any more "correct" than real-time combat? Personally I don't care for it, though I'd shy way from criticising it on that basis: it's just not my cup of tea, that's all.
Yes, but you are on the side of the companies : No-one does turn-based combat anymore. Drakensang is an exception, and I don't cound "combat with automatic pause" as "turn-based". It just
feels different.
In my case, it isn't that I'm feeling like an "eliticist". I just want ... I often try to compare it to museums. People just don't like museums. They must be supported here, by he state or the town, usually.
But what is popular are mass events like football. TV. In cenemas, the demanding movies are not those which generate the most profits.
Same with gaming, in my opinion. Demanding games like - the prime example cited by everyone ! - PS:T just doesn't as much buzz as BLizzard's action RPGs do. Even today ! these action RPGs are sold at the local markets here - together with WarCraft, its world of, and StarCraft. You won't find PS:T in ANY shop of today ! - It's just that no-one wants it.
And I always wonder why ? Why are some games which don't even have social interaction at all so insanely popular ? Why does no-one go into museums ? Are both (PS:T and art museums) too demanding ? Do people rather prefer some sort of "light enetertainment" ? Like Mass Effect ?
If I think this consequently to the end, then the path of the profit is leading to this : To the smallest ever possible risks in terms of financial losses, to the greatest mass appeal in terms of financial income, and to the best audience possible, to vbuild up a good brand name for future sales.
In terms of financial thinking, demanding games are high-risk, low-profits games and should therefore be avoided
at all costs !
Or - a huge company spends an insanely huge sum on marketing - like Dragon Age - "this is the new shit !"
Games like Drakensang are the losers of this system. And onsequently, Radon Labs became bancrupt.
