An Indie Games Aesthetic
Greg Costikyan recently uploaded his keynote to Free Play...
Yes, a frequent sound-bite, but there is plenty of meat (including comments) here => "Death to the Games Industry (Long Live the Games Industry)."
Has "The machinery of gaming... (indeed) run amok…(slide 46)"? Can an "indie game aesthetic" about "Rage, Manifestoes, Brickbats, Rabble-rousing" (slide 43) amount to more than a hill of beans?
Posted by Nate Combs on August 21, 2005 | Permalink
« Gorillaz do Habbo | Main | Patent Arcade / IGDA SIG »
Comments
Kenji Ito from Tokyo University did a talk at DiGRA on indie games that really got me thinking a lot more about the ideological loyalties of the game industry, and how that might affect innovation. His point was that in Japan, at least, most commercial games are culturally bound to promoting certain social values, reflected for instance in the typical Japanese RPG (or even Katamari Damacy) scenario: hero's father did something bad or silly and hero/heroine is duty-bound to sacrifice in retribution, thus maintaining a societal construct that values duty to the group over individual needs. But there are a whole new crop of Japanese indie games (like Seraphic Blue ) where these typically accepted storylines are being challenged with depictions of personal misery (including suicide attempts) resulting from the feeling of being trapped by family duty, personal repression, and other norms within a collective society.
Rockstar and other renegades aside, I wonder if the commercial industry in the west is widely bought in to supporting certain cultural norms, or at least preventing certain questions from surfacing? Is it possible that they are inhabiting a box that reflects certain modes of thinking that might not continue to resonate? Are we distracted with violence, sex and simplistic gameplay to avoid dealing with our bigger issues? If so, I suspect that the indies might be the first to engage players in entirely new kinds of challenging and illuminating experiences, ones that might be transformative, instead of entertainment-only.
I'm just fascinated by this idea, and wonder what the real distinction is between indie/commercial titles. Is it game play? Budget? Or is it philosophy? What do indie developers want to achieve, really? Just an equal or better game without creative restraint? Or do some of them want to change the world? If so, is that why they choose to operate outside the system?
Posted Aug 21, 2005 1:52:14 PM | link
Great points, Lisa, provocative and important questions.
For me, the answer begins with philosophy.
If the primary objective of a project is to make money, that colors everything that follows.
If the primary objective of a project is to make a difference, that colors everything that follows.
If the primary objective of a project is to serve one's ego, by creating what one wants to create, audience be damned, that colors everything that follows.
If the primary objective of a project is to please the audience, at the lowest common denominator, that colors everything that follows.
To seldom, do we stop to think what is the basic philosophy propelling what we do. Thus, we find ourselves involved in projects that thwart our intents, because their goals do not match ours.
Personally (YMMV), I spent years trying to reconcile making money with making a difference ("doing well and doing good"). I finally concluded that, at least in contemporary American corporatist-capitalism, the two are irreconcilable.
So, I gave up on the make money part. Surprisingly, this freed me up to such an extent that, not only am I much happier and fulfilled, not only am I free to concentrate on what happens to be most important to me (in my case, using my particular abilities in the most efficient way to make the greatest, sustainable difference for the most people), but, interestingly enough, I am well on the way to getting "enough" money that it will no longer be a pressing concern.
You can't innovate within the current industry, because the fundamental structure is designed to inhibit innovation, because innovation represents risk, and the purpose of corporations is to minimize risk, because the goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return.
That's it.
If you are interested in spending your life maximizing the shareholder's return, then you are happy working in the corporate game industry.
If you get off on other things, you will not be fulfilled in that structure.
One does not become an independent entrepreneur, in the game industry or anywhere else, solely to make more money (at least, I don't know any successful entrepreneurs for whom that was the sole motivation). One becomes an independent in order to do things one must do, that one cannot do in a corporation. Simple.
Whatever one's motivation, unless it is to make investor's rich, the corporate game industry is the wrong place to do it.
Of course, corporatists will argue about economies of scale, start-up costs, access to proprietary technology and the like. All myths, or, at best, temporary positions that cannot be defended in the long run.
My organization intends to develop, and release for public use, all the professional tools and technologies necessary to create competitive virtual worlds. Just as in other fields, Open Source, public domain and other free offerings will ultimately emasculate the proprietary advantages of corporate scale.
It is happening in every field of human endeavor, it will happen here. It is only a matter of time.
Posted Aug 21, 2005 3:36:28 PM | link
Greg doesn't even make games anymore. He just complains about the games industry while simultaneously ignoring the fact that he's about 10 years late to the party. Virtually everything he talks about is already being done and done profitably. It's like he lives in a time warp where the internet is something new.
He complains about review media. Did Habbo and Runescape need review media? He complains that it is "Very hard today to establish yourself as an “id”". Right. As opposed to that mythical time when everybody and his brother managed to become the next id.
He complains that developers are "Increasingly being acquired by major publishers." Wow, yeah, having the option to cash out is such a downside for a developer.
He talks about how we need:
- A market that serves creative vision instead of suppressing it.
- An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz.
- A business that permits the success of niche product (profitability in the tens of thousands rather than millions of units).
- Creator control of IP.
Goddam. Is he aware of the many game developers who are already doing this? It's like he's just described companies Simutronics, Iron Realms, Spiderweb Software, Three Rings, and so on.
He writes, "Why the hell are we shipping boxes full of air and a metal platter when what we’re selling is bytes?"
I have no idea. You don't seem to make games anymore, so where is the 'we' coming from?
Best part of all this is where he complains about derivative, license-driven games, yet his website says he serves as Chief Creative Officer for Unplugged Games. The link to their site has a junky mobile game based on the "Mean Girls" movie license. He also licenses out his own IP (Paranoia, for instance) to other game developers. I guess his major objection to licensing is that he doesn't own the big properties or something?
This guy is impossible to take seriously.
--matt
Posted Aug 21, 2005 3:48:36 PM | link
Lisa Galarneau wrote:
What do indie developers want to achieve, really? Just an equal or better game without creative restraint?
Well, I can only speak for my company here. What we want is to have as much freedom as possible while still making money. We'd deal with a publisher if the arrangement was right (ie either a lot of freedom or a lot of money), but after a bad experience with Sony, we have no plans to try to work with a publisher in the future and will self-fund as much as possible. I like making games that no one but customers have a say over. No Christian fundamentalists at Wal-Mart telling me what I can and can't put into my game. No external producers telling us that we need to make games more like Diablo (or whatever). That is worth a HECK of a lot of money to us as everybody that works with Iron Realms enjoys the complete creative freedom we have to try to deliver our vision to the customer.
We're not out to change the world. We're just out to make the little world we exist in a more pleasant one than it would be if we had to be some publisher's bitch.
--matt
Posted Aug 21, 2005 3:53:45 PM | link
I find myself (as so often) somewhere between Galiel and Matt. Matt, what you said - yeah. I might have said it somewhat more generously, but... yeah.
Galiel said, You can't innovate within the current industry, because the fundamental structure is designed to inhibit innovation, because innovation represents risk, and the purpose of corporations is to minimize risk, because the goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return.
If you're talking about BigGameCo corporate, you're absolutely right. I remember at E3 in about 1997, the floor was full of shooters. One marketing person said to me, "Our shooter is completely different." "Oh?" I asked, naively intrigued. "Oh sure," he replied, "we have entirely different weapons!" By which he meant their machine guns and rocket launchers looked a little different. That is what typically passes for "innovation" in BigGameCo-land.
(And before someone brings up The Sims or Spore, you have to understand that a) Will made his mark as an indie developer first; b) EA tried many, many times to kill the Sims -- though its success made the long run-up to Spore possible; and c) people with the right mix of talent and timing like Will are vanishingly rare, with BigGameCos doing all that they can to make sure they are even more rare than they used to be.)
So if you want to innovate, steer clear of the big game companies; your idea represents nothing but risk and will be crushed into some other, more conforming shape before you're done. I don't say this out of bitterness or cynicism; it's just reality. OTOH, if you're content to work on someone else's IP where innovation amounts to slight variations on a well-established theme, that part of the games industry can be a terrific place to work -- and one where more jobs are to be found every year.
Matt mentions successful groups like his Iron Realms, Spiderweb, Three Rings, and Simutronics -- all strong indie contenders, no doubt, and companies with a great deal to be proud of. They're also businesses that are (or have grown through) a "lifestyle business" stage, where you can employ a few people on low salaries who work out of love or dedication until you're able to break through with sufficient sales to make for a more reliable revenue stream. I'd say Skotos and eGenesis fall into this same mode.
There's nothing wrong with that model at all, except for the risk of being unable to ever quite grow beyond that stage, which happens to many such businesses (in and out of the games industry). This leaves the long-term viability of the company in question, and at some level means the company is always teetering on the edge of extinction. OTOH, this same fate awaits even many large companies these days, so maybe the small/lifestyle route isn't so bad.
Posted Aug 21, 2005 5:30:47 PM | link
A few other comments on Greg's presentation.
Slide 11: After showing nicely done bar charts of sales, costs, profits, etc., he says as a caveat: "all numbers off the top of my head. Not like I've actually done any actual research."
What?
This said about the core "data" supporting his whole screed in a keynote address that we're supposed to take seriously? What about preparation and supporting your argument with stuff other than what you made up to suit your own purposes?
On slide 20, Greg points out what has been glaringly obvious for at least a decade: advance on royalty deals don't work. It's feast and famine for the small developer. So (as he later suggests and again, as has been obvious for years) you have to go a different way -- bootstrap, friends-and-family, contracting, or if you're fortunate, completion bond or angel investment. Do what companies like Mythic have done: use publishers in the distributor role only, and keep them out of your development process (contrary to what Greg says, as far as I know Mythic didn't get significant VC funding until long after DAoC was released).
On VCs (slide 30): don't bother. VCs are not interested in anything hit-based. Period. They're just not. Games don't fit their investment/revenue model. Now and again one might take a flier on some early funding for something that sounds like it has an interesting technology behind it, but even that is extremely rare. Greg saying that there's "a lot of VC interest in the games industry at the moment" is laughable, and unfortunately sets people up for a long string of meetings in snazzy conference rooms that ultimately lead nowhere.
On blowing up the retailer... well, good luck with that. It'll work eventually, but not just yet. There are a few online aggregation sites (the analog of brick-and-mortar stores), but even there it's difficult to sell significant numbers of games -- unless you're aiming in the low thousands and are able to keep the lights turned on with those numbers.
As for "re-engineering our consumers"... right. Just as soon as we get these hypnosis rayguns perfected. Nothing is harder in business than trying to change consumer behavior. Trying to do this raises the risk of whatever you're trying to do -- and the money you're spending -- far more than any cool game feature you might put in.
One other note. Maybe I'll come off like a prude for saying this, but I don't care. Aside from the obvious points, the rhetoric that's long on style and short on facts, the lack of preparation and data, and the other points Matt raised about this presentation, IMO using profanity in a professional address demeans you and your audience. Talk how you want on your own, but if you're here to impart some knowledge on me, don't waste my time with your inarticulate attempts to express your emotion through profanity. Profanity is what the cool kids do, I guess, but to me, rising above that ought to be a no-brainer for any professional presentation.
Posted Aug 21, 2005 6:13:09 PM | link
I'd be hard put to be described as a prude, and I'd agree. Random profanity used for shock value is just not a mark of professionalism. Take it from someone infamous for using random profanity for shock value!
As for the points raised, well, if you're wanting to make World of Warcraft II and get 3 trillion subscribers, you're probably not going to do it using open source tools and three artists.
If you're wanting to make a fun game, have realistic expectations as to how much you can sell and how many customers you can support, and are willing to scale down the expectations of your customers (who WILL judge everything in your game based on World of Warcraft, now), there's easily over a dozen "garage shops" doing very well, thank you.
It's very much about what expectations you bring to the table, though. If you start buying the hype about "MMOS ARE OUR FUTURE AND THEY ARE SO EASY AND EVERYONE IS DOING THEM WRONG EXCEPT ME" the amount of money and time you can waste is nearly limitless. If you know what you're capable of, and focused enough to reach that goal, there's still plenty of room left in the marketplace. Besides, dodging 9000 pound gorillas is fun!
Posted Aug 21, 2005 7:17:53 PM | link
In 1999, Ann Stephens, then president of then high-flying, authoritative PC Data, gave a keynote speech at the GamExecutive conference. I'll never forget her climactic slide, where she gave "the key to success" in the industry. She had been promising it throughout her presentation, and the suits in the room were positively salivating at the prospect.
The slide said:
The Key to Success is...
MANAGING RISK
All throughout the room, heads nodded, applause broke out, the acclaim was deafening. It was like witnessing a corporate orgasm.
And I sat there shaking my head, realizing that I no longer had a place in this industry.
Fulfilling A Genuine Need In The Marketplace;
Providing A Real Service To Consumers;
Efficiency;
A Great Team;
A Great Leader;
Original Ideas;
Great Customer Support;
Recognizing And Exploiting Opportunity;
Tenacity;
Agility;
Timing;
Luck;
Fuzzy Dice;
Even, yes, Failure, and Lessons Learned;
An argument for any of those might be made as keys for success in a creative field like game development -- but "managing risk"?
INNOVATION is the key to success in a creative industry (to the extent there is a magic bullet, which their really is not). CREATIVITY. ORIGINALITY. DREAMS. GUTS.
But, if you talk like that to people in a corporation, they either think you are nuts, or they start attacking you viciously because you remind them why they got in this business in the first place, and they don't want to remember--it's too risky.
Managing risk is a means to an end--not the end itself. That's like saying the purpose of a bridge is to stay up.
Of course it needs to stay up. But if it doesn't go anywhere, or takes you where you don't want to go, what good does that do?
That is the corporate attitude. Managing risk. Game Design as actuarial table. And the more original, creative shops that sell out to the big parasitic conglomerates, the less room there is for innovation and the more "risk management" takes over. No matter how many times the team leader says, "we're not going to change, our new corporate parent values our individuality, blah blah blah".
It isn't even a rational economic approach, since the most successful products are inevitably the most original, innovative, and risky. But reason has nothing to do with corporate behavior. Fear is what directs corporate behavior.
The future is with the lean, the agile and the free.
(Incidentally, PC Data shut down and sold its assets to foreign companies several years ago, if memory serves. So much for the key to success...)
Posted Aug 21, 2005 10:43:42 PM | link
dMike Sellers wrote:
I might have said it somewhat more generously, but... yeah.
I would have too, but considering how dismissive he is of virtually everybody actually making games, I decided not to bother.
Matt mentions successful groups like his Iron Realms, Spiderweb, Three Rings, and Simutronics -- all strong indie contenders, no doubt, and companies with a great deal to be proud of. They're also businesses that are (or have grown through) a "lifestyle business" stage, where you can employ a few people on low salaries who work out of love or dedication until you're able to break through with sufficient sales to make for a more reliable revenue stream.
Thanks! I can't really speak for the other indies I listed, but they're also all past the "lifestyle" stage. Simutronics was making a lot of money as far back as 1995, for instance. You're right, at least in terms of us (Iron Realms), regarding having gone through a lifestyle stage though. "Lifestyle" reasons was the reason I naively started the company 10 years ago. I'm just glad we survived that stage and moved on to feeling reasonably confident in our revenue stream. We'd certainly not have been able to attract the talent we've been able to if all we could offer them was a cool job paying shit money though.
There's nothing wrong with that model at all, except for the risk of being unable to ever quite grow beyond that stage, which happens to many such businesses (in and out of the games industry). This leaves the long-term viability of the company in question, and at some level means the company is always teetering on the edge of extinction. OTOH, this same fate awaits even many large companies these days, so maybe the small/lifestyle route isn't so bad.
Well, I think you're mixing issues a bit. Small isn't the same as a 'lifestyle' company to me. A 'lifestyle' company, to me, is where someone can't really afford to pay him/herself at a rate that is somewhat above an equivalent employed position (above to compensate for the extra risk). Small != lifestyle though and big certainly doesn't mean much in terms of survivability. Have a look at the Dow from 80 years ago and compare it to today. Most of the companies are out of business. Heck, have a look at the dot com boom and bust.
This leaves the long-term viability of the company in question, and at some level means the company is always teetering on the edge of extinction
You know, I used to feel this way constantly. It was quite stressful. After awhile though, I realized that it's possible to operate well, well away from the edge, and that there's no reason to be so stressed. Paying attention to the evolving needs of the customer is important, of course, but it's possible to operate as a small games company without any worry that you're in imminent danger. You're always in some sort of danger, but then, so is any company, no matter what the size, as you mentioned.
On blowing up the retailer... well, good luck with that. It'll work eventually, but not just yet. There are a few online aggregation sites (the analog of brick-and-mortar stores), but even there it's difficult to sell significant numbers of games -- unless you're aiming in the low thousands and are able to keep the lights turned on with those numbers.
This was one of my biggest problems with his rant, aside from the general "I'm way behind the curve"-ness of it all. It's like he's never used the internet. I wonder, does he honestly believe that an internet storefront can actually sell thousands of products in any sort of volume without having Amazon-level traffic? Is he familiar with the fact that screens and websites effectively have limited space too, insofar as it comes to pushing marketing messages at a consumer? Has he ever visited, say, Popcap.com and seen how there are only a small handful of games pushed there, and for a good reason?
As for "re-engineering our consumers"... right. Just as soon as we get these hypnosis rayguns perfected. Nothing is harder in business than trying to change consumer behavior.
It's also incredibly arrogant to believe that the consumers should match their desires to yours because...well, because they're yours of course and your likes and dislikes must be the Right Ones! Consumers who enjoy Madden year after year must all be brain dead morons, right?
IMO using profanity in a professional address demeans you and your audience.
I am most certainly not a prude, but I agree. Swear around me all you like, but don't expect to influence anyone worth influencing if you're going to scream and rant like some over-involved university sophomore. Just ask Howard Dean.
--matt
Posted Aug 22, 2005 4:08:05 AM | link
Galiel says: "It isn't even a rational economic approach, since the most successful products are inevitably the most original, innovative, and risky."
How do you figure that?
The last time I looked over sales charts(unless you're defining "successful" in some other way), most of the big ones are either part of an ongoing IP(sports games, for example), a sequel(Sims2 for example), expansion packs(er, Sims again), or licensed/derived IP(World of Warcraft). We can throw in *-alikes, there, too. Currently, it's team-based FPSes(BF2) and RTSes that seem to rule the coop.
I just don't see innovative equating to success. There's plenty of innovative failures, but the successes seem to be variations on the Flavor of the Month.
I'm just curious, seriously, as to how you support "the most successful products are inevitably the most original, innovative, and risky."
Posted Aug 22, 2005 3:13:04 PM | link
There would be no Sims 2 or Sims expansion packs without The Sims (which hasn't been outsold by it sequel). So that's original IP.
There would be no World of Warcraft (or Warcraft III, Warcraft II, or even StarCraft) without the success of the original IP of Warcraft.
Similarly for FPS games, Doom, Quake, and the like were original IP. There have been some licensed shooters that have done well (e.g. some of the Bond games), but many haven't.
Outside of sports games, I don't know for a fact that the most successful game products are generated from original IP, but I'd bet that that's the case. The definition of original IP I'm using is a game that is either wholly original or is based solely on another game of the same general type and brand (i.e. not a sport, movie, comic book character, etc.). So, sure WoW is doing terrific, but it still counts as an original IP success as it never would have been around if someone hadn't been able to take the innovative risk on the Warcraft IP in the first place.
Moreover, while many games fail to make a profit, I'd also be willing to bet that more licensed games have lost more money than have original IP games. The initial risk seems lower because you're banking on name recognition, but the back-end risk is at least as high, because a license doesn't buy you anything at all in terms of actual enjoyable (and salable) gameplay.
Posted Aug 22, 2005 3:32:20 PM | link
That sounds like some odd logic, Mike.
From galiel: "the most successful products are inevitably the most original, innovative, and risky."
So, was Doom more successful than, say, Doom2?
Quake1 more than Quake3?
MUD1 more successful than EQ?
Civ1 more successful than Civ 3?
The original Pirates more successful than the recent remake?
I'm defining "product" as a single SKU. A sequel is not the same product as the original. A derivative is, by definition, not original.
I dunno. Yes, original IP can be successful, but it is not necessarily the most successful. It can lead to the most successful, but in general, as in other fields, games seems to punish the first mover and give advantage to those that follow and refine.
Posted Aug 22, 2005 3:59:13 PM | link
Depends on how 'original' original IP has to be for you. In terms of counting whether original IP games or derivative/licensed-IP games are more successful, I wouldn't consider a Bond shooter original IP; I'd consider Doom 2 to be a sequel original IP, and thus (when counting in one pile or another) it goes in the original IP pile.
The point is that many game sequels get made, but those are possible only if the first, risky, innovative IP is developed.
Posted Aug 22, 2005 4:21:32 PM | link
As Mike points out, "original IP" stands in opposition to derivative/licensed IP.
And I would note that "sequels" created by the originator tend to do better than sequels farmed out to third party developers, or clones.
Of course, there are exceptions to any rule.
If you genuinely think that the path to successful games lies in copying Will Wright rather than being Will Wright, more power to you :-)
Posted Aug 22, 2005 4:25:11 PM | link
Ducki >I'm just curious, seriously, as to how you support "the most successful products are inevitably the most original, innovative, and risky."<
If you measure “success” by the ratio of final sales to initial investment, original and innovative is the way to go. I think its fair to say “Blair Witch” was a more “successful” film than a $50 million studio production that made the same box office. The original success of SimCity is more impressive than the larger dollar “success” of Sims 2. To my mind at least, your measuring stick for success should include where you start from as well as where you end up.
On "re-engineering consumers", I’d argue that some of the most dramatically successful products are ones that reshape how consumers behave. Starbucks re-engineering of how Americans perceived coffee is an example. Or Ebay, redefining how people got rid of (or acquired) their junk. Or the whole Personal Computer industry for that matter. In most cases though, the innovators didn’t expect the social changes they fostered. (Starbucks may be an exception here). They just wanted to do something original.
Posted Aug 22, 2005 9:20:24 PM | link
galiel wrote:
"INNOVATION is the key to success in a creative industry (to the extent there is a magic bullet, which their really is not). CREATIVITY. ORIGINALITY. DREAMS. GUTS."
I'd have to respond with an "Mmm, kind of I guess." Certainly every once in a while something new comes along which is wildly successful--in the world of film "The Matrix" springs to mind. But I think the case is that more often something new comes along and falls flat. If you're a Hollywood executive, and your primary concern is making money, then it probably makes sense to hedge your bets and churn out profitable sequels. After all, even the Matrix conformed to the summer popcorn movie format. Less conventional films are almost always confined to a niche market.
The point is that there is an alternative to Hollywood in film, and there is a growing alternative to the big studios in gaming. Producing material for that alternative market is not as financially beneficial as working for a big studio, but given what the general audience likes (Titanic, Britney Spears, etc.) and what the alternative provides (Broken Flowers, etc.) why should it be?
Posted Aug 22, 2005 9:26:33 PM | link
whoops.
Thought this was gonna be about aesthetics there for a sec.
nvm.
The reaction to profanity is kind of interesting though. Particularly for those leaning a bit to the Abbie Hoffman side of professionalism.
Posted Aug 23, 2005 8:41:47 AM | link
Mike Sellers wrote:
Moreover, while many games fail to make a profit, I'd also be willing to bet that more licensed games have lost more money than have original IP games. The initial risk seems lower because you're banking on name recognition, but the back-end risk is at least as high, because a license doesn't buy you anything at all in terms of actual enjoyable (and salable) gameplay.
I think you're wrong actually. NFL, NBA, and FIFA licenses are HUGE and produce extremely successful games year in and year out. Madden is arguably the biggest franchise in the industry. And, while I'm not a sports fan, my sports fan friends tell me that these licenses do directly add to the enjoyability of the game. They'd much rather play a football game with a license attached than a football game without one.
--matt
Posted Aug 24, 2005 2:02:45 PM | link
True. Though I believe that the share of revenue sports games provide to EA has been shrinking over the past few years - not sure of that though. And then there's the up-front cost of such marquee sports licenses.
And if you take sports games out of the equation, how do licensed games fare then?
Posted Aug 24, 2005 2:27:14 PM | link
Well, if you take sports games out of the equation, licensed games (that aren't licenses from other games, like WoW is) don't do that well as far as I can tell, but it's a bit unfair to say, "Take out the big license successes and then evaluate how licenses do."
--matt
Posted Aug 24, 2005 2:33:22 PM | link
Not that unfair if you're comparing non-sports original IP games to non-sports licensed games. Sports are the special case, not all the other games.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 2:41:56 PM | link
Yeah, fair enough, though aren't sports games one of (or the?) biggest genre in the games industry? My point is just that there's nothing inherently wrong with licenses. The sports games show they can be used to simply make better game experiences in some cases. The problem is with how licenses are used and how often they are inappropriately applied to games, I think.
--matt
Posted Aug 24, 2005 2:53:10 PM | link
Nothing wrong with sports games at all. But they are, I think, inherently different from other kinds of games. When you get a movie license, you have some general parameters for what sort of game you'll end up with (the definition of the world, themes, etc.). But with a sports license, you're handed the actual rulebook. No one is going to make a shooter incorporating a love story based on an NFL license. :)
Separating out sports games from other licensed games is useful, I think, because it shows that most (non-sport) licensed games don't do that well. The idea that a book, movie, or other license means you'll have a financially successful game is lunacy -- but it's nevertheless widely believed.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 3:09:55 PM | link
The licensed games that do well do well because they are well-designed games, not because of the license. The field is littered with failed games that had big licenses.
Successful games, based on licenses or not, are usually innovative, or successors to innovative games.
No one is suggesting the opposite - that innovation in an of itself is a guarantee of success, or even merit.
Merely that to argue against innovation and creativity seems rather curious in an innovative creative medium.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 3:14:58 PM | link
I don't think anyone is arguing against innovation and creativity, per se. The point is that any "industry" is inevitably made up of a bunch of individuals flying in loose formation. So far as the guys who write the checks goes it seems to me that their motivation is not to foster creativity but to make money, and so far as making money goes it is probably safer to continuously mine a few shopworn genres than to go out and try and develop new ones.
One caveat about innovation in games: what matters is innovative gameplay. So far as character, plot, etc. goes I can't remember any of those details when I think back to playing Quake, Warcraft, whatever--those elements were simply so underdeveloped as to be instantly forgettable.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 6:21:19 PM | link
The point is that any "industry" is inevitably made up of a bunch of individuals flying in loose formation.
If only. Increasingly, "the industry" is made up of a small (and growing smaller) number of megacorporations that swallow up anyone willing to sell out for a stash (and usually dismember the shop and spit out the parts).
Which is why an alternative to "the industry" is (inevitably) emerging, fueled by people who treat "the industry" as damage and seek to route around it.
so far as making money goes it is probably safer to continuously mine a few shopworn genres than to go out and try and develop new ones.
But that's the point - it really isn't. The industry currently covers for a hundred flops with a single hit, and, more often than not, the single hit is innovative and was created with great struggle by persistently original thinkers fighting an increaingly uphill battle against the risk-averse suits, while the hundred flops are mostly derivative clone crap.
What matters is innovative gameplay. So far as character, plot, etc. goes I can't remember any of those details when I think back to playing Quake, Warcraft, whatever--those elements were simply so underdeveloped as to be instantly forgettable.
Why does that suggest that story isn't important, rather than that, as you say, story is merely poorly implemented at present?
Perhaps good story might have a synergistic effect with innovative gameplay and propel our market to the next level.
The very nature of innovation is its unpredictability. To narrow its parameters, to say, "only this kind of innovation matters" seems to me to thwart the whole purpose of innovation.
Incidentally, have you checked out Facade?
Not, necessarily as Ernest Adams points out, for its execution, but for the way it expands our view of what is possible in a "game", what is possible with this powerful, immersive, participatory technology at our disposal.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 8:23:23 PM | link
galiel wrote:
"If only. Increasingly, "the industry" is made up of a small (and growing smaller) number of megacorporations that swallow up anyone willing to sell out for a stash (and usually dismember the shop and spit out the parts)."
Which was kind of my point. Even with those megacorporations you have a collection of individuals with disparate motivations. The problem is that the people whose motivations might include doing something new and interesting are subservient to the guys who are motivated by turning a profit.
"But that's the point - it really isn't. The industry currently covers for a hundred flops with a single hit, and, more often than not, the single hit is innovative and was created with great struggle by persistently original thinkers fighting an increaingly uphill battle against the risk-averse suits, while the hundred flops are mostly derivative clone crap."
Lacking hard data I really couldn't say. It doesn't seem to me however that the gaming industry is undergoing anything like a financial crisis, despite the admitted lack of creativity in the current batch of offerings. What I'd be interested in seeing is the breakdown of games which are financial failures: are they primarily from small studios who can only afford to turn out crap or from larger groups which can afford to produce shiny crap?
"Why does that suggest that story isn't important, rather than that, as you say, story is merely poorly implemented at present?"
I'm just suggesting that story isn't important in terms of making money because none of the big successes of the past have had anything approaching a compelling story. How many people who play WoW have the slightest idea what's going on in terms of the game world? I have no idea who that big flaming giant is in the Molten Core instance. He's important to me not because of his background story but because of the loot he drops.
I'm not convinced that story considerations will ever be critical to sales success--how important was character or plot to the recent "Dukes of Hazzard" movie? I'm hoping that games in the future do improve in this regard for purely selfish reasons. I can't be the only one growing increasingly weary of the same old "badass with mean looking gun/sword/chains runs around slaughtering vampires/zombies/robots" cliche being trotted out over and over and over and over...
"Incidentally, have you checked out Facade?"
Not yet, although I've been meaning to. Quite frankly this is the kind of stuff I'd expect to furnish something new and exciting in the world of gaming. The big game studios are like Hollywood--they've started to settle down and ossify.
Posted Aug 24, 2005 9:11:12 PM | link
I'm just suggesting that story isn't important in terms of making money because none of the big successes of the past have had anything approaching a compelling story.
Myst? KOTOR? The Sims? (The last having the whammy of, if you will, "procedural story" -- people over and over said what they loved about the game was the stories they told themselves about the Sims as play went on.)
We don't really know yet how to do compelling story all the time, but clearly when people do do it well, it catches the imagination and tends to sell well (but not always: Grim Fandango, for example, may have been a little too avant garde).
Posted Aug 24, 2005 9:35:56 PM | link
So far as the examples given all I can say is tastes vary. Compare the stories told in the examples cited to something like "12 Monkeys", for instance. Of the three I'd have to say that Grim Fandango came closest to approaching something like a movie or novel in terms of richness of character and plot, and even then I'd say it fell pretty far short.
In the interests of fairness I am going to give an example of what I do consider compelling story telling: Final Fantasy 7. Actually, it's just about the only example I can think of.
Posted Aug 25, 2005 8:26:38 PM | link
The assertion above (by yet another unnamed poster) was that "story isn't important in terms of making money." While tastes clearly vary, that's neither here nor there. Games such as Myst, KOTOR, The Sims, and your suggestion of FF7 all succeeded commercially in large part because of their story-based component -- they would not have done nearly as well without it.
But we've ventured pretty far from this topic's beginning. I guess no one is willing to defend Greg's thesis or presentation. Is there more to be gleaned about what a commercially viable indie aesthetic might be?
Posted Aug 25, 2005 9:07:24 PM | link
Yeah, fair enough, though aren't sports games one of (or the?) biggest genre in the games industry?
The last numbers I heard were woefully out of date (1990s), so things may well have shifted a great deal in one direction or the other. But back then, sports games were responsible for close to half of all sales volume (by dollars, not units). For what it's worth. I heard that, and thought "Ok, there's half of my industry I won't be participating in. Oh well."
(Though I did spend two weeks once writing golf screensavers for EA. Shhhh, don't tell!)
Posted Aug 26, 2005 1:34:25 PM | link
Mike Sellers wrote:
"The assertion above (by yet another unnamed poster) was that 'story isn't important in terms of making money.'"
Actually that was me. For some reason this web page is letting my posts go through when I forget to fill in the name field. I was hoping that from the context of the post it would be clear that it was a response to galiel's reponse to one of my posts higher up.
As for the reasons for the success of the games given as examples in your post I would reply that's a pretty difficult thing to pin down. Certainly there are many possible factors--buzz, a built in fan base, an innovative gameplay model. From a story perspective I don't think any of the games listed come anywhere close to a good movie or book in terms of plot or character development. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the actual writing in 99% of the games I've played has been overwhelmingly lousy.
So far as the original point of this discussion, is the game industry broken? I'd respond to that question with another question: Is Hollywood broken? Evidance of a slump in box office sales notwithstanding Hollywood is profitable and will probably remain profitable for a long time to come. The movie and gaming industries are not broken in a financial sense.
That said, I don't watch too many Hollywood movies. I take a lot of joy from stuff like "Kung Fu Hustle" and "Broken Flowers". The director of the latter film has turned down numerous requests to direct in Hollywood because he would rather retain the freedom to direct his own films in the manner he sees fit. There isn't anything analogous to the indie market in film in gaming right now--there's no alternative.
Posted Aug 26, 2005 5:51:04 PM | link
So far as the original point of this discussion, is the game industry broken? I'd respond to that question with another question: Is Hollywood broken? Evidance of a slump in box office sales notwithstanding Hollywood is profitable and will probably remain profitable for a long time to come. The movie and gaming industries are not broken in a financial sense.
"Profitable" is a deceptive measure.
Who is making the money? What opportunities are there for innovative products to be funded?
I guess the music industry isn't broken either--unless you ask any musician, big name or unknown.
By your measure, the industry wouldn't be broken even if it was entirely dominated by a single monpolizing company--or, even run by the state! As long as it is "profitable".
Incidentally, "slump in box office sales notwithstanding" is a rather facile way of putting it. Even those most invested in maintaining the Hollywood status quo are more worried than that, at the long-term trends eroding the industry.
You are aware, I hope, that more than 75% of all movie industry revenues now come from DVD sales and TV licensing, NOT from theaters, and that the gap between a theatrical release and a DVD release (which kills the box office) is shrinking, and will continue to do so, since DVD salemen now have all the clout in Hollywood?
More importantly, do you know that that represents 90% and growing of Hollywood's net profits? In fact, they *lose* money on every theatrical release, with continuing declines in attendance and cost factors that rise faster than ticket prices can.
As for the game industry, it is far more like Hollywood in the mega-studio days before Creative Artists, than it is like the movie biz of today.
So, yes, both Hollywood and the game industry are broken, and the game industry is more broken.
Ask any captive developer, off the record in a dark corner after they've had a few, if they are happy with the constraints of today's commercial industry. It's not just the indies that are crying, we are just the only ones without the marketing muzzles on.
Posted Aug 29, 2005 7:35:58 AM | link
galiel wrote:
"Who is making the money? What opportunities are there for innovative products to be funded?"
I think you and I are basically in agreement here. From a financial perspective Hollywood isn't broken. From a creative perspective it is.
My point is that Hollywood doesn't exist to make good movies--it exists to generate profit. At least with movies there is an alternative however, and there is a mechanism for moving those alternative movies from the producers to the audience who would like to watch them. Sadly, that alternative doesn't exist now for gaming.
(That probably applies to music as well. I can't count the number of times I've heard that one of the bands I've liked has gone back to being lawyers, or waiters, or whatever and said to myself "WTF?".)
So my argument boils down to this: it's probably not worth it to try and reform the mainstream, where the powers that be are more interested in profit than making good movies or games. I hope that just as something approaching real diversity has crept into movies that something similar will happen to the gaming industry. I just expect that if that does occur that it will develop through parallel channels of marketing, distribution, etc.--kind of like the independant/art house movie industry.
"You are aware, I hope, that more than 75% of all movie industry revenues now come from DVD sales and TV licensing, NOT from theaters, and that the gap between a theatrical release and a DVD release (which kills the box office) is shrinking, and will continue to do so, since DVD salemen now have all the clout in Hollywood?"
Yup, but I would argue that the point isn't how Hollywood is selling its product. What matters is that it is (still) succeeding in selling its product, just through an alternate venue.
Anyway, a thriving DVD market may well be a benefit to independant film makers.
Posted Aug 29, 2005 8:26:40 PM | link
All points well taken, lewy. At this point we seem in violent agreement.
Posted Aug 29, 2005 9:18:12 PM | link
