Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6267203" data-attributes="member: 37579">Partially rcylcing an answer from an earlier post:Going with the designer's viewpoint is fine if creating a brand new game or product without an existing audience. In that situation it is better to make a consistent game that follows their personal design philosophy.It's doesn't work for a product with an existing fanbase, as it puts the views or a very, very small number of people (the 2-10 designers) ahead of the audience. If the designers want to create a game that's their baby, their vision of a game, they should form their own game company and kickstarter their dream like <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?2-Tabletop-Gaming&prefixid=numenera" target="_blank">Numenera</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?3-D-amp-D-and-Pathfinder&prefixid=13thage" target="_blank">13th Age</a>. That's a fine and valid option; not everyone can work on an existing property or conform their design to an established paradigm. If they want to design for an existing franchise they need to follow the conventions of that franchise and respect the audience and the game's history. As the fans have their own ideas of what the product should be like, and they'll reject a product that does not conform to their idea what their game will be. Really, this goes for other creative endeavors such as movies or video games or books. You don't go into a James Bond movie and try and make it entirely your own, to treat it like a personal vanity project. You can't write Spider-man like an independent comic. There are both pros and cons to working with a Brand, such as Dungeons & Dragons.So the designers made the choice when they signed up to work on the brand rather than an independant personal work. They're sacrificing some individuality to work with a more recognisable brand, to build on what has come before rather than create anew, to have the chance to leave a lesser mark on something historic rather than build something new from scratch. The owners of the brand can do what they want with the brand, but that does not mean it will be accepted. MGM owns James Bond, the movie character, and can do what they want with the franchise. If the studio wants to recast Bond as a blond thug then they're within their rights to. Or a quick talking Liverpudlian con man. Or a streetwise teenaged black woman. Or an effete homosexual Korean man. It'd still be James Bond because that's what the movies says. But that does not automatically mean he'll be Bond to the generations of fans. And the farther the character drifts what what is seen as Bond, the better the movie has to be to win over those fans.</blockquote>

Verification