Are bosses, platforming and Game Over Screens the Past?

[WTF]

I think what will happen is that just like films, a lot of video games will lose their space/position in terms of visibility. I've already outline what a theatrical release does for a film in a post elsewhere, it's going to be similar except now it'll be what games everyone talks about the first two weeks of release or what's potently visible via sales charts.

 

A good case study would be 'Why do games that are actually terrible continue to sell?'. Forget the AAA titles with heavy marketing, lets look at a different one. Case in point - Naughty Bear - in all honesty that game did not deserve the sales it got. But it managed to hit the charts and as a result became visible and thus people got curious and bought it. Not to mention the price drop in the UK helped it. Now that game has a sequel. It's not that the idea was terrible - they were trying to pull a James Thurber. But the execution was.

 

For filmed content it's always a combined effort. The producer and director don't always have their way (unless it's an indie or grants/ country-financed/self-financed project). It always depends on the 'ego' of the person which is why some films are terribly executed despite the idea being excellent. A lot of the time people tend to work with people they can work in a harmonious way which usually happens after the first 2-3 successful films. For instance Jonah Hex actually had bad production sets. Sometimes the director is an absolute delight for the tech staff but terrible to the acting talent. e.g. Kubrick. While there are terrible tales about him from actors I've not met many tech staff who worked with him that actually have said he was terrible or his working methods were bad. He just asserted his creative direction which can come off as being a jerk. However he was excellent with the crew.

 

You don't necessarily struggle to make a film alone. That's why we have new distribution models, newer outlets and well gonzo film-making. You'll struggle to make a doc because for a doc to be accepted on syndicated TV or the like it needs at least 3-4 researchers minimum. Any lower and it's not accepted as you can tell research has not been done right. It has been a little slack lately is why we have some terrible documentaries. But technically a documentary always needs research. Without research it's not a documentary. But that's OT. I don't think you can compare the film and gaming process entirely. There are things both industries could learn from the other. The issue is that gaming wants to take the studio model of vertical integration that films have but at the same time lack the creative endeavours that have driven film. It will happen but not right away.

 

Totally agree with you Dean on the budget thing. The Middle Class games are defined by Budget. Sega spent 20 Million developing Golden Axe: Beast Rider. That's not a middle class game. Similarly Darksiders was several years in the making as are many titles. What we see at XBLA and PSN are mostly on the lower end of the budgetary scale. What games truly need to do is to not push hardware, which is why PC gaming is stalling. It needs to take a break so they don't spend money investing on studying a console and developing on it and instead focus on games. We want to push graphics because gaming is a hobby that is defined by visual aesthetics. However when new hardware comes up every 5 years companies are not ready because they need to spend more to do R&D. Yes console sales are declining but companies need to face that decline and convince customers that stagnation of hardware growth is beneficial to the consumer in giving them variety. Once that objective has been realised it'll probably see a short burst followed by stability till the next hardware cycle comes in. This should help stabilise the types of games that get released. Another thing is they need to stop hiring talent from Hollywood to write games. Often some of them write terrible stories when it comes to games (this is mostly because ideas, films and even shows that they can't get greenlit are their throwaway gift to games. Obviously they won't say that but it's something I've come across amongst a few screenwriters.)

 

The reason why most games aren't pushing graphics on the PC is that gaming needs to take a break, recover the different models of games. Have a big budget model, an intermediary, a low budget and the indies (which are microbudget, low budget and in extremely rare cases intermediary). If we need to have the different models for the industry we need to let them take a break from having to do R&D for platform and PC development and instead focus on the games that fit each model.

 

Once that is settled, they can move to the next platform. It's not that companies aren't developing hardware and in fact even the next biggest breakthrough in CPUs isn't really happening that fast because they've realised the need to slow down development on one side and focus on another. Money is finite both for companies and consumers and currently it's even more finite due to market scenarios. Once the dust has settled we should have an interesting scenario where we'll have games pushing hardware again but also different tiers of gaming.

 

Of course consumers and PC gamers are not entirely happy with this but it's probably for the best for now. It won't be good however if it lasts over 7 years.

 

One negative impact is that handheld gaming which relies on new/yet old hardware is on the rise and it'll match console and PC graphics of even 5 years ago (1) things that are smaller technically look better visually and 2) one sees growth and the other stagnates to help them catch up). But that would probably just bring a different experience to the table. We're yet to truly see the impact of micro-gaming on the bigger picture. It's not as if motion controls have taken over the world, they've just replaced board-games or rather introduced the board-game dynamic (bringing people together [in the same physical space] to join in a fun recreational activity) to video games.

[Cyber Rat]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/21/heavy-rain-director-encourages-more-personal-stories/

 

*sigh*

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Why are you sighing? He makes a great point and Heavy Rain was great for it.

[Cyber Rat]

Well, first of all, he's blaming game writers. In an ideal world, games wouldn't have stories tacked on to them. The industry currently works with writers usually being hired later in the project and having to make sense of what has currently been made gameplay and graphics wise. Heck, God of War didn't have a definite main character until very close to completion. So you can't blame game writers for being assigned to "space marine game #243" or "world war 2 game #132". You blame publishers. Oh, but I guess he's too scared to blame publishers because he'll never know when he might need their funding?

 

Second:

"Don't write about being a rookie soldier in WWII, because you don't have a clue what that's like."

 

This is one of the most juvenile writing advices you can give. It would mean that no one should ever write about a character committing suicide until we figure out how resurrection works. We shouldn't even be writing about death until we've died once! There's a reason "Death of the Author" exists as a concept. What or who you are shouldn't have an impact or be referenced when writing something or discussing a written work.

 

Heavy Rain was a good game, but that doesn't mean the author isn't talking ego-tripping bullshit.

 

EDIT: I'll take my second remark a bit further and would like to ask whether Mr Cage has done the following (Heavy Rain spoilers incoming)

 

• 
   
  
• Has he killed a potential drug dealer or pondered whether he should?
  
• Has he been tied up in a basement by an insane doctor?
  
• Was he pursued by the city police?
  
• Did he plot an elaborate scheme on how to murder children and test fathers?
  
• Does he have access to narcotic-fueled cyber glasses?
  
• Did he work in a clock shop?
  
• Did he take on a mob boss?
  
• Can he make an origami crane?
  

 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think you're taking him a bit too literally. He's simply saying "write about what you know." Hell, if you've attempted suicide and you're a writer, that would certainly qualify you to make an emotional and realistic ("human") scene of it in a game. That's what he's getting in. Draw from your experiences. He also doesn't call out writers specifically in the Guardian article. That's Joystiq doing that.

 

"There should be more people trying this," he continued. "Don't write about being a rookie soldier in WWII, because you don't have a clue what that's like. Talk about yourself, your life, your emotions, the people around you, what you like, what you hate – this is how the industry will make a huge step forwards. I'm fed up with space marines."

 

He very generically says "more people." Which to me signifies an "industry" change not a "writers" change. He even mentions the industry later in the quote (instead of writers.)

 

What or who you are shouldn't have an impact or be referenced when writing something or discussing a written work.

 

This depends on the job doesn't it? If anything you're saying people should be soulless and empty when it's personal experience that can really liven up a lot of writing. What you are and who you are is what determines how you write in the first place. Sure, in the games industry, it's just a job. When given the opportunity to make it more than that then it should be taken. That's what he means by "the industry will make a huge step forwards." He's talking about change, you're talking about the current state of things.

[Strangelove]

Dude, youre being way too literal. You know exactly what cage means.

 

Unless you truly are that dense.

 

Hes asking for writers to write more about their own feelings and experiences. To turn those things into a game, something most game writers and designers dont do.

Using space marines or any kind of military figure is a crutch. A cheap one. It requires no imagination, no emotion, and absolutely no creativity. Compare that to heavy rain and he has a complete right to call out others on it.

you can talk shit about him and heavy rain all you want but at the end of the day there is still absolutely nothing like it.

game creators personal feelings are hardly ever explored, and games suffer for it. This industry is made of 99% transformers and national treasure and 1% black swan. Thats sad...and its all because either gamers are idiots or game creators think gamers are idiots. They think we dont need any other kind of stimulation besides violence....and cod sells so well that maybe theyre right.

but i personally want more from my games just like i want more from everything else that requires human tinkering.

 

Seriously, i hope you dont take everything everyone says literally, otherwise you might actually believe you sound like an anus.....and thats just crazy.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Strangelove

[Mercurial]

Well anything could be overused and you would call it a crutch. Just because a lot people do it doesn't mean it doesn't require creativity or can't be turned into an awesome story.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Hakidia

[Strangelove]

Well anything could be overused and you would call it a crutch. Just because a lot people do it doesn't mean it doesn't require creativity or can't be turned into an awesome story.

 

Yeah...no. can i have an example so i can play it? I cant say ive played saving private ryan. You know, a war game with actual feeling to it.

if it already exists thats awesome. Ill take back everything i said. Seriously.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think war games have certainly tried to have feeling in them at times (more so in the medal of honor and first call of duty days) but I feel like this is starting to get a bit off-topic.

[Cyber Rat]

He also doesn't call out writers specifically in the Guardian article. That's Joystiq doing that.

 

My bad then.

 

This depends on the job doesn't it? If anything you're saying people should be soulless and empty when it's personal experience that can really liven up a lot of writing. What you are and who you are is what determines how you write in the first place.

 

I think it's more important to be believable than accurate when writing. If you can immerse someone, they won't question what you wrote unless it's something completely insane. But I'm guessing we're going offtopic with this.

 

When given the opportunity to make it more than that then it should be taken.

 

I agree.

 

My main problem with Cage was the original speech of his linked in the first post, which I've already addressed earlier. I did think he was talking about writers instead of "more people in the industry" and that changes what he said dramatically IMO.

 

Using space marines or any kind of military figure is a crutch. A cheap one. It requires no imagination, no emotion, and absolutely no creativity.

 

Yeah...no. can i have an example so i can play it? I cant say ive played saving private ryan. You know, a war game with actual feeling to it.

if it already exists thats awesome. Ill take back everything i said. Seriously.

 

You're a space marine/military figure in Mass Effect.

[Mr W Phallus]

Firstly I don't see how we're going off topic - we're discussing the future of video-games with a particular emphasis on emotional narrative so everything that has been said is relevant.

 

Anyway,

Using space marines or any kind of military figure is a crutch. A cheap one. It requires no imagination, no emotion, and absolutely no creativity.

Quite how creating a character that will face situations you have never faced yourself requires no imagination or creativity, I can't see. Now making use of genre clichés and stereotypes of space marines and soldiers, that is a different matter entirely. It is possible to apply your own personal experience to a speculative situation, in fact all fiction does this to varying degrees of extremity, otherwise it would just be autobiography. If we're going to start complaining about writers taking on unfamiliar subject matter (in terms of plot) then we might as well start complaining about canonical texts such as Paradise Lost, Frankenstein, A Clockwork Orange etc. And you can forget about genres like sci fi, fantasy, even anything written anachronistically. The point is, it is in the characterisation that personal experience matters, not in the situations the characters find themselves in. The biggest problem with the game industry is the characters (particularly player controlled protagonists) tend to feel super-human and invulnerable and this extends to their emotions. They are designed that way to give the player a sense of empowerment. And when games try to bring in character weaknesses, they tend to fall back on clichés and tired tropes. The best characters have strengths and weaknesses, and this is where personal experience comes in, in making a character with the strength and vulnerability of a real person. So you want to make a game that draws on your experiences of fatherhood? Space Marines can have kids too, you know.

Edited March 22, 2011 by withoutphallus

[Thursday Next]

Could he not mean:

 

Don't write about a rookie soldier in WWII, write someone you know, and place them in that scenario.

 

Don't write about WWII, write about War as a whole and set it in World War II.

 

Games about past wars, or even near future wars are all overburdened with information. It's all country names, branches of the military and vehicles. Some areas of the industry have been striving so hard for authenticity that they have forgotten how to tell a story.

 

Look at the games that have told great stories, Half Life, Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus. They aren't about recognisable locations. They're about creating believable worlds. Some in the industry have the two mixed up. They're more concerned with having an UH-1 helicopter in a Vietnam era game because it's authentic than they are about creating a story that makes you believe you're in Vietnam.

 

Game designers are working too hard on making things look authentic and often miss out on making them feel real.

 

Fumito Ueda puts it better than I ever could: "Replicating a real-life dog or cat is not impossible, but if you have a dog or cat in real life, you're always going to notice the unnatural idiosyncrasies of the virtual animal first," http://www.1up.com/news/fumito-ueda-discusses-guardian

[deanb]

Yeah I read Cage as writing about experiences and emotions more than the particular situations. I believe he's a parent, so he's probably up with the whole idea of how horrible it would be to lose your kid.

 

He's very big on the auteur approach of game design, one guy leading the pack instead of what seems to be the common approach of collaborative design. I think that in some cases that's the way to go.

Also more games need to hire the writer at the start, or provide more incentives for writers to join up in the games industry, instead of just hiring them on at the end to polish some dialogue. Or not hiring them at all

 

Heavy Rain sold "surprisingly well" so it's quite possible we'll see more games like it in the future and more games realising they can go for the 20+ market with games like that than games that have an M rating for gratuitous violence.

The more the industry carries on trying to aim for the common denominator, the more they'll lose out on the folks who want a bit more from games. If games want to mature then yeah some games ill have to be for a bit more than just shooting at whatever guys happen to pop out of the building in front of you.