Game Developers Fear Hollywood-ization of Gaming 77
While the new generation of console hardware is something to look forward too, CNet has a story discussing the possible downsides to more beefy machinery. In specific, the increase in development time that next-gen games will require may "Hollywood-ize" the games industry even more than it already has been. Warren Spector, from the article: "Once hardware guys give us the capability to do something spectacular, someone's going to spend the money to do something spectacular...The quality bar is going to be raised. Someone is going to spend $20 million or $30 million or $40 million, and the rest of us who don't have deep pockets like that are going to have to find some way to compete."
Thankfully .. (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, plot and world matter MUCH more than the FX or graphics, so
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but there's a problem. Noone has any patience anymore. We all want to be gratified immediately. Noone has the patience to sit down and 'get into' a text-based Zork game anymore, even though it might provide a much richer gaming experience for them. Some of my favortite games like Wasteland and The Bard's Tale are just too slow nowadays. I tried playing them again a while back and when it came to navigating a maze blind, or getting that 3rd servo motor in the sewers I just didn't have the patience to see it through.
Paradoxically the more a game frustrates you, the more fond memories you have of it in later years. But it's harder and harder to pick up and play games like these, because they don't sell anymore. They don't sell because people don't want to work for a sense of accomplishment. They want the illusion of accomplishment. Also the internet has completely destroyed the 'puzzle game' genre because now you can just Google for walkthroughs, maps, passwords, you name it.
In a lot of ways the gamer's greed ends up compromising the magic of gaming. Most people aren't even aware that they're doing it.
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently I'm not the only one, considering how popular that game has been. So I think there *IS* a market for it, and one that is being filled.
Also look at things like civ, etc, which aren't graphics/effects heavy but still very popular.
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:2)
They don't sell because people don't want to work for a sense of accomplishment. They want the illusion of accomplishment.
I modded you up before I re-read your post so sorry if your rank goes down - my mod point is gone.
That's an excellent evaluation of many games and maybe an allusion to the now and future workforce.
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bard's Tale, for instance, had no story to speak of, no character development, and a maddeningly boring, repetetive style of gameplay. Sure, it was good for its day, but compared to games nowadays? It has almost nothing of worth.
Another issue isn't so much instant gratification, but simply that many of us don't want to have to work at a game to have fun. If I want to work, I have school, and a job that at least pays
I agree with you very much (Score:2)
I like to write novels about this sort of stuff, but I'll limit it to just one extra point. The reason you normally have nostalgia is that a game is the first to bring the new genre in. I remember Super Mario Bros as addicting at first play, but future platformers weren't as fun because I've already seen them in another form. Newer games deliver better game play that old school video games for the most part, but old vide
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thankfully .. (Score:2, Informative)
But it's not the issue. The problem is that the studios that will spend $40 million producing a game will also spend millions to advertise it and put it in your face. How does an indie game, as wonderful as it may be, compete with the latest EA game as featured on MTV? (Did you catch the xbox 360 infomertial last night?)
As is the case in the movie world, distribution is everything. Marketing is everything. And unfortunately, whe
Plot? Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plot? Nope. (Score:1)
Re:Plot? Nope. (Score:1)
Re:Plot? Nope. (Score:1)
Re:boohoo (Score:1)
I really don't think things will get as bad as some predict. Yeah, you have giants like EA and VU dominating the market and mostly putting out crap, but I thin
Fear Not (Score:4, Insightful)
For example look at the Final Fantasy: The Movie. They spent tens of millions of dollars to do the most sophisticated (of the time) CGI rendering for that movie. But it failed because of the horribly poor plot writing and "acting". Sure this example isn't a game, but it exemplifies that flashy cinematic eyecandy is not what makes something great.
Re:Fear Not (Score:2)
Good example, but an even better example is coming to theatres next week.
Re:Fear Not (Score:1)
What I'm wondering is why in the world it would be bad for Hollywood to get into video games. All it means is that some expensive games will be based on movies. Designers will be able to play with some vast new options, and where's the drawback in basing it on a movie? It gives them a definite place to start, and they're playing on something familiar to people.
And meanwhile, if you don't like a game
Diverging Market (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like there have become three sort of general categories for games, and systems. The first is analogous to hard core action movies with essentially no plot. They appeal to the largest number of players, beccause they appeal to people normally not inclined to play games, and also can be a sort of guilty pleasure for more hard-core gamers. The XBOX seems to be mostly this sort of games.
The second group is sort of like the hollywood drama, it appeals to people who like to thing their tastes are high brow, but in general they are cookie cutter, though they can often be good-enough to sustain people with higher brow tases during a drought. Occassionally one will really stand out as an excellent game. This seems to be what a lot of the most notable PS2 games are.
The last sort is the games noir, the less notable types of games who's fans like to be somewhat elitist and like to think of as being high brow. These correspond to independent films and such. They are usually innovative, and sometimes they work out to be something great, in which case they generally are picked up by the mainstream. These tend to be the type of games that the gamecube gets.
I think that what's going to happen is that the costs for the first, and somewhat for the second types of games will rise, and result in fruther hollywoodification of games, but I think it will also breath new life into the struggling third sort of games. The more every other game becomes a cookie cutter overhyped FX render of a giant turd, the sooner people will start to crave something really fun, unique, different.
Re:Diverging Market (Score:2)
Instead, I'd say there's the mainstream game players, who populate Yahoo! games and enjoy a Mindsweeper or Hearts distraction from tim
just a thought (Score:3, Insightful)
somebody doesnt get the concept of "software" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:somebody doesnt get the concept of "software" (Score:1)
Shift away from eyecandy (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, games even ten years old would surive in this market with a little boost for the next gen consoles. The problem is the developers rely more on sequels of previous hits that don't get the full development time they deserve [thief3.com] and end up bombing, when fans would much rather see innovation and fun elements.
I thought we've been down this road before.
Re:Shift away from eyecandy (Score:1)
why does mr. specter think we care what his opinion is anymore? whats he trying to say - it will cost more for him to make shit sequels in the future? great, save yourself some money and don't bother.
honestly warren, it doesnt take $20 million to figure out that one type of ammo for pistols and rocket launchers and everything inbetween is a Bad Fucking Game Dynamic. when you have proved that you are even capable of make a good game again, THEN come back and tell us about all your problems.
Afraid of becoming like Hollywood? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Hollywood now, for crying out loud. This year, among others, we've got the sixth Star Wars, the fifth Batman movie, the fourth Harry Potter. And let's not mention the slew of derivatives drawn from other genres - Fantastic Four, Dukes of Hazzard - or the remakes of earlier films - Pink Panther, The Love Bug, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera - hell, if the gaming industry is as dry for new ideas as Hollywood is, might as well give 'em the big budgets to cover for it - if I can't have original, at least blow some shit up for me in a really expensive way.
Re:Afraid of becoming like Hollywood? (Score:2)
I'm as tired of all the sequels as the next gamer. But I'll give the game industry this: At least their sequels are usually better their predecessor. When I heard about MGS3 I decided to pass thanks to the inferior story of MGS2 compared to MGS. I recently checked it out however and I was blown away. Not only is the story is just as great as MGS, they also further refined the gameplay down to every little detail.
Now when's the last sequel movie you saw tha
My God.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What, is it 1985? Even by the middle of the 1980s, budgets were being blown on insanely stupid ideas trying to keep up with movies, buying movie licenses or paying stupid development costs to make the next Pac-Man or Donkey Kong.
ALL of the game companies, and I mean ALL: Atari, Taito, Nintendo, Gottlieb... they all spent TONS of money developing INSANELY dumb games trying to get blockbusters instead of focusing on good gameplay and letting people work out games other ways.
This is nothing new; just another article acting like there's something shiny and dew-like under the sun.
The Gaming Industry has been polluted for decades.
Re:My God.... (Score:1)
Like this hasn't happened already?
Even people I have respected for ages, Bungie, have been devoured by this monster.
Stop the insanity: play poker.
Re:My God.... (Score:2)
Ok, that's the exception that proves the rule...
Square Enix budget already higher (Score:2, Informative)
Funny, since I remember that the budget for Final Fantasy IX was already $40 million... and that was still on the original Playstation. I have no doubt they've gone higher since.
It will settle out quickly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Shenmue (Score:3, Insightful)
Shenmue at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Shenmue (Score:1)
I don't think Hollywoodization is a big deal. (Score:1)
Hollywoodization is not going to hurt developers that much. Even today, you've got big budget games like Halo 2 or Final Fantasy X coming out, that cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Sure, big budget games will probably always sell more copies, and have better graphics, sound and production values. However, that doesn't stop cheap, innovative, fun games [namco.com] from doing very well.
If Hollywoodization is the future, it won't be such a bad thing. There is room enough in the market for both Sideways and
There are still great games being made! (Score:1)
The bar HAS ALREADY been raised. (Score:3, Interesting)
Half-Life 2 cost $40 million to make, and is arguably one of the best single player games ever made. It looks to me like the bar is already set, and at $40 million to boot. The person quoted in the article better FIND some deep pockets.
That said, a game doesn't have to cost that much to become popular. There are a few mods out there that are more popular than a lot of "blockbuster" games, and yet cost almost nothing to make. The trick seems to be making your first game low-budget as a startup company, and then using the proceeds from that to fund a big-budget followup.
The console makers (Score:2)
The trick seems to be making your first game low-budget as a startup company, and then using the proceeds from that to fund a big-budget followup.
Problem number 2 is that the console makers often don't seem to want low-budget games from startups, so how are you going to get a signed bootloader so that you can even sell your company's first title?
Re:The console makers (Score:2)
PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:1)
Easy. Do a PC game
Not all games are rated M. For those games that are rated E, E10+, or T, how will parents afford a recent PC for each child so that all the children in the household can LAN up, as opposed to a single console for the family? And how can a PC game developer prevent the game from triggering bugs in some obscure combination of hardware drivers?
Re:PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:2)
If you really want to make a console game, but don't have the budget, but know you can make a good game, there is an option. Make a good PC game, use the money that game produces to make a console game.
Sometimes you don't get to make the game you wanted, sometimes you have to make a game that will make money to finance the game you want to make.
Re:PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:2)
Who said anything about children?
Gratuitous violence offends me. If what you imply is correct, that the gratuitous violence of an M-rated title is necessary in order to attract seed capital, then I'm not sure I could survive in a startup game development firm.
Re:PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:2)
You're wrong of course, since not only are there PCs out there that cost less than the $400 that new consoles can cost, but most families already have PCs that children can play games on. It is a poor assumption that every parant buying a game for their child
Re:PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:1)
but most families already have PCs that children can play games on.
No, most families have PC, singular, that children can stand in line to play games on. The PC isn't well suited to multiplayer on the same screen.
I would also point out that what does and doesn't offend YOU is totally irrelevant to the way the videogame market works.
Does this mean that if the games that investors like make me vomit, then I should not work in the video game industry?
Re:PCs are 10 times as expensive (Score:2)
What is this, a grammar lesson? If I say "Nearly all elephants have trunks.", does that mean that elephants have more than one trunk?
Apparently you've never heard of a little thing called "taking turns". Let me explain how it works. Say you have a group of people who want to do the same thing, but only one can do it at a time. Well, what you do is have ONE pers
Taking turns (Score:1)
Apparently you've never heard of a little thing called "taking turns".
Could a game with similar mechanics to Nintendo's Mario Party or Super Smash Bros. Melee have been made on a PC platform? How can players "take turns" in a fighting game?
Re:Taking turns (Score:2)
Are there types of games that don't work on PC? Very likely. But there are, of course, some games that wouldn't have made the transition very well. However th
Re:Taking turns (Score:1)
First of all, there is the internet for multiplayer gaming.
Which doesn't help if two children in the same household want to play against each other. It also doesn't help if the parents can't afford broadband because they're putting food on the children's plates or because they don't want their children to see erotica.
Re:Taking turns (Score:2)
If parents are avoiding broadband because they are afraid of porn, they have much more serious problems in their parenting that should take precedence over a discussion ove
zerg (Score:2)
Let EA, et al spend all the money they want, good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:zerg (Score:2)
I don't buy this (Score:3, Insightful)
Number One: "the internet". Right now, hollywood is very much against the internet for distributing movies legally because they can't figure out how to suck more profit for each of the middle men involved - the game industry, at least the game companies, LOVE this. The game publishing companies (much like the distribution companies for movies) might not like this, because it enables game creators to directly publish their own material (aka direct download, etc). This allows a tiny game company to get their product out without all the huge overhead costs involved in an "on the shelf" product. Traditionally in the movie industry, it was virtually impossible for a small independent film to get the same notice or distribution as a huge film. In the game industry, a game like Gish will be noticed and can be equally distributed without a huge budget.
Number Two: Games provide more long term entertainment than movies - as long as mods and mod developers are out there, a small game company/individual can get a huge amount of notice, because you can make mods on a shoestring budget and distribute them for next to nothing. Most recent game makers usually allow mods if not encourage them outright. Hollywood is old-school and too worried about payoffs and liscensing rights to even THINK of independant people using parts of their movies, etc (in general) to make a NEW movie or a changed version. Think of how lucas would shit if you made a short of starwars clips voiced over and published as a movie without paying him off first. It's a crude analog to a mod, but you get the idea.
Number three: Hollywood has too many middlemen involved with EVERYthing, thus costs are astronomical. You have to pay off this group and that union and these guys and those people just to get stuff done. Costs are spread all over the board, outside of the movie company as well as internally. With a game company, the costs outside of the company are less fragmented. You basically have creation/production (usually internal), publishing (external/internal) and maintenance (internal). Some people will argue that yes, some things are being outsourced at the moment, and these could be arguably be considered the same as the movies. That logic works until you realize that with Hollywood politics today, you have to hire/pay your unions, or pubishers can't carry your film. This and that contract prohibit a non-union film maker from being distributed by someone with an agreement with the unions, etc, blah blah. That kind of setup doesn't exist (yet!) in the games industry, due to the internet distribution model as a possibility:
"You won't carry my games? Screw you, I'll publish them myself."
As a matter of fact, movie makers like Robert Rodriguez are moving the movie industry toward how game makers create stuff: "You wont publish my movie without union workers? Screw you, I'll publish it myself"
The two industries are very different right now, and the sooner everyone realizes this, the better.
Self-publishing? (Score:2)
You seem to think self-publishing is the future. But how can one self-publish if all major consoles require the bootloader to have been signed by the console maker? And how are you going to sell your same-screen multiplayer title on PCs when very few people have their PC hooked up to a large enough TV to make same-screen multiplayer on PCs viable?
Re:Self-publishing? (Score:2)
And why do you need same-screen multiplayer on PCs?
The LAN party where everyone brings his own machine is a well established concept.
LAN parties under age 18? (Score:2)
And why do you need same-screen multiplayer on PCs?
The LAN party where everyone brings his own machine is a well established concept.
Do you think parents would let kids take the only family PC to some (comparative) stranger's house?
Re:LAN parties under age 18? (Score:2)
Re:LAN parties under age 18? (Score:2)
Re:Self-publishing? (Score:2)
Because I want it. Because the best fun you can have with a screen is crowding a whole bunch've people onto a sofa in front of a big projector and playing Bomberman, Super Smash Brothers, and Powerstone II till the cows come home.
Now that more people are hooking PCs up to the living room TV sets, I hope to see opensource developers making more fun party games. USB gamepads and hubs also mean that gameports and keyjamming are no longer an excuse.
Re:I don't buy this (Score:1)
I think what is really happening is that the game industry has not reached the same level of maturity as the now 70-year-old film industry has. Games will get there, and soon. Once the bar is high enough that it really excludes little (say, less than 100 employee) studios everywhere from making mainstream games, there will be room for little studios to make independant games that are about on the scale of what we would call mainstream now.
It is not simply about how games are published. You realize that mos
Yeah, but actors are cheap... (Score:2)
Smaller developers need to share code and models (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not suggesting developers give away their material to competitors for free. Charge some money, but make it still cheaper for the licensors than re-modeling the wheel for the thousandth time. This should make development less costly and faster.
For coding the games, I know code is complicated, but can't some of it, particularly for games sharing the same engine, be modularized and techniques shared? Or does optimizing each game for maximum frame rate make this impossible? It just seems like there must be some things that can speed up coding.
Re:Smaller developers need to share code and model (Score:1)
Someone send out a clue (Score:1)
Yea..so. (Score:2)
Tetris (Score:2)
Wing Commander IV (Score:2)
Don't be pesimistic (Score:1)
Why are there so many people out there play Nethack? or say any other games from 10 years ago.
That should get you started.