Tim Schafer Talks Psychonauts Originality, Dialog, Release 15
Thanks to GameSpot for its interview with Double Fine founder and Psychonauts creator Tim Schafer, following the game's split with Microsoft and subsequent re-signing with Majesco. Schafer, best known for "work on Day of The Tentacle, Full Throttle, and Grim Fandango" at LucasArts, discusses originality ("One of the good things about the state of the games industry right now is that it's incredibly easy to be original. I mean, if you released a game these days that didn't have any army guys in it people would freak out. 'Omg. Where did they get the idea to not use army guys? Are they taking drugs?'"), shaping Psychonauts' story ("I still write most of the dialog. I had some help this time around from Erik Wolpaw from Old Man Murray."), and the state of the game ("We've got a few levels at beta right now, some others at alpha, others somewhere in between, and a new level that we're doing now. We're looking at an early- to mid-2005 release.")
for those who don't know... (Score:2)
Psychonauts is also a nickname for those who are religiously following the band Motorpsycho [motorpsycho.fix.no]. The Greateful Dead had/has Deadheads, Motorpsycho has Psychonauts.
Yes, this is totally off topic, I just thought it'd be fun with a bit of useless trivia.
Re:for those who don't know... (Score:1)
Army guys? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone remember Bill Hatcher? Made by Sonic team, pushed eggs around, fight evil crows dressed in a chicken suit... yea thought now..
No one wants to take a risk any more because the industry is no longer about the games. It's about the money, if you get a format (FF, FPS games) you can make endeless sequals and be 99% sure of getting your money and a bit more back.
Just look at this year. Top two most wanted games are, Half-life 2, FFX whatever it is now and Doom 3. All three will sell millions and be called classic even if they suck.
Why risk money when you can have another sure fire "open my legs and ride me till dawn" sequal?
Re:Army guys? (Score:2)
The fact that it was picked up by Majesco should say something about the quality of the game. Possibly it is not all that it could have been?
Re:Army guys? (Score:1)
Re:Army guys? (Score:2)
If you've got a great game, then someone else could probably do a much better job getting the game out there for you.
Just like the stuff you buy off of television...QVC doesn't get exclusive rights to a product because it's good...the just have a direct link to the least discerning consumers. Majesco is the same thing- the SPECIALIZE in cheap discount-bin games.
Re:Army guys? (Score:1)
Re:Army guys? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the company's future publishing business.
That's like saying in 1997 "Microsoft, make games? Like what, Solitaire and Hearts?" And then they break out Ensemble Studios and corner the RTS market. Now they've got an undeniably strong PC game house and a half decent console business, too.
Majesco, like all companies, is looking to make money. They re-evaluate markets and business practices. And righ
Re:Army guys? (Score:2)
I wasn't judging it solely on the fact that Majesco will be the publisher.
I was also basing my judgment on the fact that another publisher dropped the game.
It went from a top-tier publisher on the Xbox (Microsoft) to a bottom-tier publisher.
To me, that says something.
Re:Army guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the originality that sunk that game - it's the fact that the game oozed with lameness.
Not that Billy Hatcher was "original" in any sense, except the "it's not a sequel" sense.
Plus, it's those big games that give publishers the money to make Billy Hatcher games. Complain about the big titles and make them go away, and you lose your Billy Hatchers too. It works that way in movies. It works that way in games. Every time someone makes a post like this, this fact has to be re-explained.
Re:Army guys? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you can refresh me of when, exactly, the industry was about the games, not the money. I'm pretty young, so my memory only goes back to the Atari 2600, but it was quite definitely about the money back then. Perhaps you're thinking about the glory days of Pong or the Magnavox Odyssey?
Re:Army guys? (Score:2)
I think the original poster meant that the primary focus shifted from making cool games to making large piles of money. The industry has always been about both games and money, but there's the question of where the primary focus is.
I'm a game developer that has tried to learn a lot about game development history. In my opinion, the early days of video games were mostly about making cool games more than about ma
Re:Army guys? (Score:1, Insightful)
Two words: Nintendo DS.
And you're still going to tell me nobody wants to take a risk or try anything new?
Re:Army guys? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's the irony of this reactionary shift to clones-- most games still lose money. Unless you're a sequel to a big IP, making a clone is often a sure-fire way to tank.
If you look at a lot of the sure-fire big hits this season, a lot of them are at least sequels to games that broke ground: Half-Life 2, Doom 3, GTA San Andreas. The Sims is EA's huge money maker; though it