Top Japanese Designers Talk Development Problems 26
Thanks to GameSpot for their article covering a Tokyo computer graphics festival featuring noted Japanese game creators, as they discussed problems funding and developing innovative videogames. As ex-Sega developer Tetsuya Mizuguchi (also lecturing separately) explained: "The scenario may be good, the characters may be good, and the setting may be good [for a game]. But nobody will allocate 2 billion yen [$15 million, to bankroll development] just because of that. The graphics may turn out to be excellent, but it might be a crappy game." Yuske Naora of Square Enix explained the way that Final Fantasy games are developed, saying they "work from checking out successful examples in the past", but pointing out: "There's some sense of danger among the staff that the way we're heading [in not 'taking risks'], we may only be able to produce Final Fantasy games."
Half life 27 (Score:2, Funny)
i sense a parallel (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, the barrier for development on major consoles is very large. I don't think Nintendo will be giving a official devkit to a 2-man studio any time soon. This is where a lot of Hollywood's creativity comes from, from independent movies that get really popular.
Gaming companies will still make innovative games, but the lack of marketing and smaller budgets aren't going anywhere. Games still have a bit farther to go.
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:2)
This is where a lot of Hollywood's creativity comes from, from independent movies that get really popular.
IIRC, Apocalypse Now was basically paid for out of the pockets of the producers and actors. As in any industry, innovation comes from taking a risk. If Square are wise, they would have a tidy bank roll sitting somewhere to absorb the risks that don't pan out while profiting from the risks that do. If eventually they get crushed, then that's how business works (i.e., no hard feelings).
That's one t
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:1)
You're completely right though, you need to take risks to come up with something fresh and new. I'd bet that the producers didn't think Matrix was going to be so huge, so that was probably viewed as a risk.
I'm not saying developers shouldn't take risks, that would be ignorant. I'm just saying that they shouldn't throw a ton of money at a project that might end up sucking. Movie studios can afford a
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:1)
The original Final Fantasy was a great game. There was something about it that made it much more engaging and immersive than most of the later Final Fantasies and most other NES RPGs, even Dragon Warrior. (IMO, of course)
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:1)
I would have bought Rez - or at least tried to - if they had released it for the G
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:2)
At least in Ico's case, there's a good reason for that. The game is very short (maybe 10 hours) and has very little replay. It's a great rental, but not really worth $50.
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:2)
Re:i sense a parallel (Score:2)
This is also why the PC is the best place to go for innovative, independant games. It's an open standard -- anyone with a computer can make a game. All it takes is some effort.
$15 million? (Score:2)
Nowadays, the Internet theoretically creates a more diverse information channel, but it just seems like there are 1000 recommendations for the same game instead of 50. Most of the sites that promote a low-visibility game are themselves not all that easy to find unless you're looking for them.
I'd ra
Next Game eh... (Score:1)
"SONIC: Hedgehog OF DEATH.."
Created by Sega Entertainment
And Produced by John Woo
the natural solution (Score:5, Insightful)
innovative games, like independent film -should- stay in the background and away from big money publishers whose sole goal is to make games that appeal to established genres.
the film/game metaphor is also appropriate because the current economics of getting a game onto the shelf at Best Buy or Wal Mart are comparable to getting a film on a reel at an AMC or Lowes cineplex. The primary difference being of course - games don't have to be limited in distribution channels.
Should online distribution take off, it's just a matter of word of mouth. the key of course, is online distribution. if you want innovative games to be 'popular' that is. Which personally, i don't think is even necessary for gaming culture to remain healthy.
Lets face it, most of the independent films that are out there don't appeal to all your family or friends like Pirates of the Carribean. They can't. They're edgy and quirky on purpose, whereas Pirates was designed ground-up to appeal to anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean that mass market games or films are less-good, just that they're not innovative by design. If an independent film hits a chord in the hardcore audience, it influences mainstream film.
Similarly, if the hardcore gaming audience downloads an innovative game and talks it up - it will doubtlessly influence mainstream gaming. the shareware days of id pretty much -created- the first person shooter genre through word of mouth. and rise of the triad and wolfenstein were certainly not mainstream. (of course, nothing really was)
but it's simple economics. why -should- publishers take risks on unproven designs? why throw a full budget behind a game that may not appeal to -anyone-? risks should be taken on small scales, and capitalized on when successful.
I mean, innovation and originality isn't vindicated solely by mass appeal, so why demand that?
All you need is an established 'independent' gaming forum and distribution channel. the IGF is good, but it needs to partner with a news/review source that can pay some lip service to more than just the 5 'best' games. combine that with an online distribution mechanism to let these games get purchased for reasonable prices (think $5-10) and lets get on with the game playing.
of course once you do that I think you'll find out what many of us already know. There isn't an independent gaming culture, because there aren't enough independent games. and this is entirely the fault of the current crop of independent developers.
most independent game developers need to realize that they can't compete with carmack and sweeney on glitz. they don't have the budgets or the QA resources to make sure their shader programs work properly on every machine. similarly, independents can never make more maps than ritual or more zones than sony. and they really can't demand top-of-the-line system requirements, as most innovative game enthusiasts aren't hardware enthusiasts. they get what they need to play games, and certainly don't rush out to buy a p4 or gf4 just to play the latest big budget fps.
look at puzzle games: 'independent' is an unnecessary clause because of the extremely broad array of producers. the simplistic scope of such games makes it a fertile genre - precisely because no-one is trying to push the graphics envelope or the 'content' envelope. just as independent films can't show up big studio effects, or number of exotic locations.
Re:the natural solution (Score:2)
A little OT (Score:2)
Re:the natural solution (Score:2)
Do independent, innovative games -need- to make any money?
I mean, doubtlessly even mild success in a download environment can manage to sustain a dedicated game maker. and sustenance is about all one can hope for.
But i don't believe consoles will ever be open to independent game makers. the companies demand too much trust between themselves and the developer (to avoid supplying a digital certificate to someone who is only going to release a solder-less hack of their hardware).
Slightly opposing goals (Score:2)
The Developer wants to make the best game they possibly can. This improves the developers crediblity, and makes it easier to get backing for future games.
The Developer wants to make the most profitiable game they possibly can. This allows them to back more projects, attract further investment, and insure that they can eat.
The goals do mostl
Square-Enix (Score:2)
Re:Square-Enix (Score:2)
Re:Square-Enix (Score:1)
Yeah, Square can't make anything good but Final Fantasy! Oh, wait...