myk
The Disciple of Lüt
Posts: 9949
Registered: 04-02 |
Jonathan said:
Whereas yours explained what a franchise was (thanks for educating us all)
To this and the rest of the trollish comments: don't waste any more of your time.
Whether Doom 3 is counted as a remake or a sequel has no bearing on that.
Yes, in your opinion, which is different than mine in some respects.
According to John Carmack's .plan update announcing Doom 3 and its associated fallout,
Some opposed the idea strongly, not wanting to go back to something they had worked on in the past or not liking it. In my opinion, that was the main turning point for the company (in relation to their current setup).
it was not a presupposed decision that id would make Doom 3.
Well, evidently some thought had been given to further DOOM projects, at least by John Carmack (e.g., looking into Doom2000). How is the "presupposed decision" thing a rule now (as opposed to a couple of years ago), other than that they are pretty certain DOOM 4 will be started and that they know the business value of their groundbreaking titles? You can often tell when a project has potential and it's not so hard to announce it then (an announcement which is sometimes necessary to help funding, organization, or other business needs).
If you have some evidence that the choice of Doom 3 was based mainly on branding/business reasons, please share it,
In addition to DOOM 3 itself and other projects that have been worked on by them since it was announced? When judging where a company is going do you merely go by what their PR department (or equivalent) is saying? Regardless of the way they may present it (or have presented it), their choice pretty much set them on their current business/company trend.
By the way, listen to Carmack himself say how they can rely on their old titles to be safe businesswise (from the interview this thread is about):
It is a different style of game which is risky especially when you’re talking a $20 million budget, and the safe this for us to do would be to run right into Doom 4. But we made the conscious decision that we want to broaden id a little bit. We’ve got Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake.
It seems they're heavily reliant on those franchises, but they still want to keep other doors open (Rage is an attempt) so that their opportunities don't stagnate in the future.
Given that they are only now in the process of setting up a second internal team, I don't see how you can argue that this isn't a change, or is something that's been going on for years.
Did I say there wasn't any change (recently)? No, but instead that the changes, such as the company restructuring (described at the end of my post above), are part of a process that started more or less when DOOM 3 was announced. Not too long after they had Return to Castle Wolfenstein released, and they have been providing more Quake material on the wayside all along. If anything, and possibly due to some growth related to their recent deals (DOOM 3, the movie, other projects) currently they have increased their involvement into sideprojects. They even mentioned that they did Quake 4's recent bug fixing themselves, as opposed to leaving it to Raven.
There was a little "civil war" in id back in 2000 (not that there hadn't been similar conflicts before, to a degree), which changed the kernel of the company and marked their way from then till now.
|
08-14-07 17:36 
