Laissez-nous parlons... Franco-Trash

Sagrilarus wrote: And yet, French designers and publishers seem to be coming to agreements that produce innovative, well-vetted games with unique looks and feels. So it can be done.

So...To clarify your position:
Stagnation is a worry of yours and that the steady stream of new games is causing an unhealthy industry that in spite of its bad health still manages to produce "innovative, well-vetted games" that "can be done" - Which would imply "can be done" in the current market.

So why then are you worried about stagnation?

VonTush wrote: So why then are you worried about stagnation?

Because I don't speak French.

DukeofChutney wrote: There are a lot of games around that imo don't really need to exist, Mansions isn't one of them.

I want to go on record and state that I wholeheartedly agree. There were innovations in that game. Despite its flaws and unwieldy set up time which killed it for me, there are plenty of merits to the game that do outweigh these.

Back to the original reason why I mentioned Mansions in the first place though.

Giants was not a commercial success, despite the risks involved in making it. There were some production flaws (the statues and caps), some components that could have been better thought out (logs freely rolling around), and a couple mechanical nuances that could have used a bit more refinement. But even with all of that, its a fabulous attempt by Matagot for their second game. So much loving detail went into that game. Even the insert is neat. It was definitely a labor of love by enthusiasts who made some minor errors and had some produxtion errors.

Contrasted by Mansions, which is a neat product in itself. But the lack of proofing of that product makes it hard to call it a labor of love by enthusiasts (even though it honestly was. FFG do pour their heart and soul into what they make, judging by the dozens of people I have talked to from there). FFG, in their fervor to check out the bottom line, flubbed it. And it cost them. More than money, it cost them some rep too.

Its an example of where the money seemed to get in the way of the product. Where Giants problem mostly lied in the company manufacturing the game. The snotty upstart of Matagot performed better than the industry leader. And their main concern was getting a innovative product out in the heat of the eurogame rennaisance with more flair than the competition. (Assumption)

It wasn't to dig on Mansions, it was to illustrate how something special can be created when the bottomline isn't the entire main focus.

Hence my statement that just because being a game company is about making money, it doesn't have to be entirely about making money. There is a subtle distinction there.