-
-
- Industry Doesn't Properly Value
Visionaries
-
- The games industry doesn't always
properly recognize the contributions of individual influential
developers, Epic Games design director Cliff Bleszinski told
Gamasutra during a recent interview. Below is an updated
version of the original blog response made by Eric M. Scharf
regarding the interview article displayed on Gamasutra.com. Click
HERE to read
the original article.
-
- October 13,
2008
- By Eric M. Scharf
-
- I wonder how many of the millions of
people out there (e.g. high school and college students furiously
making MODs of popular Epic and id products to prove their game
design skills), who are regularly trying to squeeze their way into
the games industry, are actually going to take the time to read what
Cliff has said. They should . . . especially if this is not the first
time such a statement has been made by an established games industry
veteran.
Everyone "thinks video games are the coolest things since sliced
bread." Everyone "has dreamed of making their own video games since before they were even born." And, yet, one of the most
recognized game developers of the past couple decades has stated the
fact that, in the games industry, you are, in fact, no better than
your last product . . . that every 1-3 years – in current game development
terms – you need to re-prove that you have not lost your touch as
one of the best.
While game development – in some sectors
– has come a
long way, and while there are certainly several mainstream
interdisciplinary development procedures that individuals and teams
should regularly follow . . . there is still very little about quality
game development that is a dot-to-dot cake walk, and this is
completely outside the task of making sure you are properly
utilizing your target hardware platform(s) as well.
While it is certainly safe to say that Cliff will have a home at
Epic for the next 1,000 years if he so chooses, if your next
offering is off by a hair – regardless of who you may be – critics,
even groupies, will always come running to make sure you are aware
that you missed the mark (especially if you have disappointed the
fans of your last product who simply wanted a bigger, faster,
greater version as a follow-up).
Most of us understand that rarely, if ever, can you make everyone
happy, which is why, ironically, more "risky" original IP should be
supported (and publishers throughout the world suddenly feel a
familiar chill run up their collective spine). If a product
is truly original (with a given, in this case, of being visually
pleasing with above-average game play), it is much harder for
critics to smash to pieces until they have, first, taken the time to
really play and understand the depth of what it is they are reviewing. But I digress . . .
Reviews for motion pictures and video games – which, again, directly
affect the amount of praise one receives for their product-creating
efforts – will continue to be treated like 1A and 1B, or one 1F,
until they are judged on the same general criteria, which may never
be possible. Your semi-typical movie review (displayed in mainstream
newspapers, magazines, on film critic shows, and online) provides
separate, in-depth judgments on the director, the producers,
production costs and profits, the various shoot locations, plot and
story quality, rumored story alterations, chosen actors, actor
backgrounds ("Are they up for the part?"), character believability /
depth, special effects, audio, sequel potential, number of domestic
and foreign theaters in which it was released, and whether or not
there will be any academy award nominations).
There
are currently no more than a handful of game reviews that go into that kind of
detail. And the typical response? "That critic has too much time on
his / her hands." Game players / purchasers – for whom game reviews
are mainly generated – care not for most of these kinds of details. They simply want to see the set of ratings a game has received (e.g.
7.5 out of 10), and, then, go about their business. Game ratings and
related materials are generally not going to be on the agenda during the average American family's dinner together (where they
are more likely to discuss the latest football game, the latest
movie, the latest fashion, and – gulp – the latest test scores).
One of the toughest parts of having to re-prove your game industry
greatness, over and over again, may be that you rarely hear people
(regardless of age) referring to their memories of a AAA video game
like they would a blockbuster motion picture: "Hey, remember when
Ripley got into that loader mech and took on the queen Alien?" vs.
"Hey, remember when we were playing Unreal Tournament 2008, and you
shot my arm out of its socket and blew out my knee right as I was
about to capture your flag?" This is a no win comparison in favor of
motion pictures . . . even with better examples.
You almost never hear people (non-industry, game-playing folk)
saying, "Hey, the Dark Knight brought in ticket sales of over $1
billion dollars over its first six months on the silver screen, but
the video game by the same name brought in $500 million over its
first two months of availability on store shelves." Besides, sales
comparisons are not directly indicative of "creative genius" or
"innovative brilliance" (SEE my recent comments on Steve Jobs and
Apple, regarding
the greatest business innovator).
You have to remove the money issue
completely when comparing something like a motion picture to a video
game, and even that is not enough. Yes, blockbuster directors are praised when their films sell
an interstellar number of tickets – and it is hard to ignore when it
is constantly being displayed on Entertainment Tonight or Access
Hollywood – but, just the same, directors of
well-received, low-budget, independent films (with a limited
following) that may go straight to DVD, have
garnered the same positive attention as well.
Therefore,
again, even when comparing motion pictures, you can strip away the
financial figures and study the core of each film. Did the
director, whether star-spangled or unknown, present a compelling
message or story? The same process applies to games, where the
only difference involves interactivity, real-time or otherwise.
Regarding interactivity, one other "minor" detail to remember is that, other than inserting a
DVD, Blu-Ray disc, or, gulp, VHS tape into a player and hitting
"play," society does not have the chance to play a movie the way you
play a video game. This ties into Cliff's additional comment – under a mildly different context (I believe)
– about the games
industry still functioning a bit like the "Wild Wild West" (one of
my favorite old TV shows with Robert "I dare you to knock this
battery off my shoulder" Conrad).
How can you fairly and properly critique or judge a product (and its
creator / creative team) that is designed to allow for as many
unique endings as your personal game-playing skills can produce? You
can run out of "lives" at any point during a particular game, within
any of the available environments / levels, where you may or may not
have interacted with main characters, level bosses, or environmental
puzzles. You can
make one false move, and, if you have not saved the game before
making that mistake, you are done (again, only after you have
controlled your fate through your own skill).
Motion pictures are
one-and-done, like a traditional oil painting or stone sculpture. You can watch or study them as many times as you like, but, other
than the now-popular bonus disc, you can perform no such interaction
like you can with a video game. All that great game-playing skill
collects dust when it comes to a motion picture. Therefore, it will
remain, for some time to come, very hard for critics to review video
games like motion pictures, and it will, in turn, be even harder to
reward quality results equally in each of these entertainment
fields.
One last revelation on the depth of the problem with video game
developers ever achieving the daily or even annual recognition
typically sprinkled / heaped upon motion picture production teams. Video games
– and game development by
unappreciated association – are widely viewed by society as
throw-away commodities . . . non-essential products that provide
soon-to-be-forgotten experiences. Society and, in many cases,
publishers (and their bottom-line share holders), view games and
game development as forever cookie-cutter and – dare I say – like the
toys they were originally invented to be, without question.
Speaking of toys, a very good friend of mine, Alec Tam, is an
extremely important playa' in Mattel's Hot Wheels department, and he
is known throughout the world of Hot Wheels fans (young and old
alike) as a star creative visionary who has delivered time and time
again for that product line. Again, Hot Wheels are toys, as
was the original intent for video games, and even board games;
quick, portable entertainment that can be pulled out from a cabinet,
played, and put away just as quickly. Furthermore, Hot Wheels
also benefit from being collectibles which – according to general
society – do not include video games.
The number of people in the world
who have "historical" collections of video games and video game
hardware (e.g. Atari 2600, Collecovision, Sony Playstation 2, etc.)
is, again, too small to be recognized and too limited to encourage
recognition of game developers as entertainment super stars. Video
game developers – for better or worse depending upon your
perspective – have been historically, traditionally, and
somewhat-naively viewed as a rag tag, nerdy, techy, aloof,
misunderstood, antisocial category of misfits who do not have "real
jobs" but work on "cool stuff" in an unstable, high
risk, high reward industry. This
is quite a generalization that society has applied to people of the
games industry . . . a group of which I have been a part. It simply
may be that becoming a star within the games industry will have to
be just that – where your colleagues recognize your accomplishments,
but the rest of society is either unprepared or unwilling to do the
same.
Regarding collections, with the
concept in mind that there are popular video games for almost all
age groups now-a-days (and not just the lonely, male,
parents'-basement dwellers who purchase a great deal of them), ask anyone
what they have a library of at home. Most will say "a humble
collection of my favorite movies." Others will say "a humble
collection of my favorite movies and a smaller collection of my
favorite video games, because I keep trading them in for new
ones at my local Game Stop." And, finally, the smallest group, the
hard core gamers, will have a fairly robust collection of video
games, and, still, they will admit to trading away half of that
collection to their local Game Stop, because it takes them about a
day or less to play through each of those games, AAA or not. If hard
core can become mainstream (scenes from "Idiocracy" keep
flashing through my mind), then, game developers may finally start
to receive their just due . . . those developers, of course, who really do
create AAA, top-quality, brilliant products (whether entertainment,
serious, casual, or edutainment), that is.
Ultimately, back to Cliff's original comments, he is right – but,
much like the time it will continue to take for the visual quality
of video games and motion pictures to "meet in the middle" – so, too,
will accolades for both video game development and motion picture
production take a long time to reach the same level. Time will
tell if video games can finally separate from the clingy shadow of
toys that, again, has been established by a long history and rich
tradition.
It will also be interesting to witness whether or
not video game products (through the logical prioritization of 1 -
genre, 2 - target audience, 3 - usability, 4 - depth of game play,
and 5 - visual quality) are holding back proper recognition of games
industry achievements, or, if it is the behavior and perception
of game developers themselves.
What came first? Did a game
developer's attempt to change the traditional landscape of toys and
entertainment result in society's debilitating
perception of a game developer as a nutty professor, or, vice versa? True recognition of achievements
that have been reached outside of the norm, or, more accurately, true acceptance
within mainstream society in general, rarely occurs on one's
preferred timeline, and that acceptance is rarely ideal.
"Do not hate the playa'. Hate the system."
-
-
-
HTML clipboard
-
-
- The original version of
this response was posted directly to the public blog associated with
the original Gamasutra.com article.
|
