N-Space 'down, but definitely not out,' announces layoffs

Wait i thought Nintendo bought up N-Space some years back to be somewhat of a 2nd party developer ala Rare?

And Geist was cool. And different.

@Wonkuoysseleht

No it didn't. It was a pretty decent game. I enjoyed it.

"Geist sucked anyway"

I would say the current trend of "cool" linear regenerative FPS games with little to no exploration that have nothing to offer, with wonky physics for vehicles and their only redeeming features being the plot and multiplayer, I would say THESE THINGS SUCK.

Geist is nothing like the above. Had some more care been given, it would have made one of the best GC games. As it stands it is still a pretty good game with lots of GREAT ideas executed pretty well.

bottom line. STOP READING AT REVIEWS AND GO PLAY SOME GAMES.

I really don't see how the price of a game affects it's quality. That said, I bought it for 10 bucks so, I don't see your point at all.

You guys should have seen the prototypes of Geist (running on a PS2 IIRC) back in 2000/1. The n-Space guys talked at one of UCF's student ACM meetings. Great bunch of guys.

@Wonkuoysseleht
Decent games are at least worth $30-$40... maybe $45 if it's good rather than decent.

Besides, you can't expect every game to be great. ...that and if decent games are supported, their great ideas are supported - if they die off, their unique ideas die off... then we're stuck with great, but rather used-up ideas sequels.

I hate that. N-Space really does seem to try, and I love how well their DS versions of CoD are made.

Please stop defending Geist. The game did suck. Did it have a lot of good ideas? Yes. But ultimately the game never delivered on any piece of the equation that would add up to a good game. And yes, an engaging plot and strong multiplayer can make a good game. Why the hell wouldn't it?

@Wonkuoysseleht
"It shouldn't be hard to develop games."
Er... yes it is.
From the ideas, to the development, to the quality control, to the maintenance. Games are quite hard to develop.
It's just that dev-teams run into several challenges, such as: the idea didn't come out right but they had to release it or they'd lose money from not producing a game, the team didn't work well together, the team has neat ideas but aren't grade A developers themselves, etc.

"It's just most developers treat their games like cash cows instead of games."
While that may be true for many shovelware out there, many developers actually give their games love and care... if it doesn't turn out perfect, it doesn't mean it wasn't treated like an actual game - the team could just not be that experienced with games - or perhaps they aren't good at capturing the formula of good games.

"Some developers stick out the crowd and give you everything they have and create masterpieces. Take Team Fortress 2. It's only $10-20. It has 130 updates across 3 years for free. They make balance changes based on community feedback. How many can claim they do that?"
Seriously... comparing Valve to other companies is like comparing quality goods right from the source to high quality goods sold in business districts. Not everyone can hold up the same standards as Valve. Valve has treated their games well, managed their team perfectly, and know their audience better than anyone (mostly due to the fact that the audience GREW AROUND Valve, rather than Valve having to advertise itself to new crowds).
Valve has it good, but not every company can follow the same standards - it's much like how a single form of government can't survive in every environment: The audience and the resources change the name of the game, not the government/company.

"A few will release 3 or 4 updates in the first couple years a game is out and call it a day."
It depends which games you're talking about.
And which genre.
And which developer.
And the game's lasting playability.
And etc.
There's several factors to consider.

But yes, there are lazy developers. I'm not entirely sure whether N-Space was one of them.
Quality of Product does not always equal Quality of Work.
Though it is vice versa.

@Wonkuoysseleht
Also please realize that Team Fortress 2 is a multiplayer-only game with a predesigned setting already set in place.
All they literally had to do was re-skin, re-polish, and re-program a few things and just a heckuva lotta' maintenance.
It can sell for $10 and they'd still get money off it (also consider it's sold virtually, hence, no middle-man to cut profits).

So... not really a good example.