RE: [SWCollect] Shock

[Hugh Falk]

Agreed, but another issue is that:   1)  Old EA games were made by non-EA employees.  They were all external development houses contracted by EA.  EA was just a publisher.  The model was similar to what GOD was trying to rekindle.  Now most of EA development is in-house (at a EA-owned studio).   2)  It only took between 1 and 4 people to create a game in the early to mid 80's.  This made it a lot easier to profile (and make stars) out of the authors.  Most games now take teams of 20 - 40 people to create.   It's becoming more like a movie production, and therefore developers get their names and titles listed in the credits (like a movie).  Back in the days of Atari (2600), authors received no credit at all.  So we have come a long way...but the current industry doesn't fit well into the "star" mentality.  Richard Garriott (and most lead designers) are but one piece of the modern game development team.  Raising them to star status would only demoralize the dozens of other people that worked just as hard (if not harder) and had to be just as creative in order to make a game.   Hugh -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Shock In a message dated 11/02/2001 6:19:09 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember when EA still used to present the makers of a game as ARTISTS? We've come a long way. Sarcasm of course, you mean we've fallen a long ways. Yes the Bard's Tale series, they would do a bit of a profile on the box/folder about the designers of the game. Guess the corporations are losing sight of who actually makes the money for them. Tom