PDA

View Full Version : EGW:Originality no longer reigns supreme in Games


RobertoOrtiz
08-10-2005, 02:41 AM
Quote:
"Movies and television suffer the same bereft emptiness of boiler-plated repeats that have zero imagination and no sense of creativity. Even worse, very few take risks, which in itself almost numbs the sense of novelty," says Richard 'Levelord' Gray, level designer at Ritual. "With episodic delivery, we will be able to take more risks and not have to wait so long, nor spend so much development money, to see if these risks are worthy and valid."
Let's assume the publisher's position that sequels are a necessary evil, and the blockbuster videogame industry we have today cannot exist without sequels to support its often great financial burdens for research and development, marketing, distribution, etc. So, what are sequels doing for the gamer who's not interested in keeping up with the sequel treadmill? The financial success reaped by sequels may be invested in more sequels, but follow-ups are inevitably cheaper to than original properties. The question is where the extra money's disappearing to."

>>Link<< (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3142545&did=1)

-R

laureato di arte
08-10-2005, 08:22 AM
that is why nintendo is needed....

tozz
08-10-2005, 10:17 AM
Not very strange when publishers like EA say (not quote) "We only do franchises". It was a year or so ago a big shot at EA said something similar in an interview. There's no money in creativity (for certain) and only huge risks, therefore not a good buisness choice. Really sad.

Nintendo is the mother of franchises, can't see why they'd help out. SEGA is the only company I can think of that does something new, while keeping it good. Just "new & fresh" doesn't cut it, there must be some experience in it too.

parallax
08-10-2005, 12:10 PM
What else is new.

Boone
08-10-2005, 05:54 PM
The industry dug its own hole and now they complain?

Too bad.

heavyness
08-10-2005, 08:31 PM
considering the majority of games are bought at WalMart by people who judge the game on cover art. people don't by fresh, new games, they by want what they are familiar with.

if the hardcore gamers were the majority of consumers, Madden wouldn't of never made it past NFL2k and we wouldn't have 10 Tomb Raider games.

JeroenDStout
08-10-2005, 08:45 PM
Now you reminded me of the good ol' days filled with Zork, Sam'n'Max and Rayman. Ahhh, those were the days. Gamers were elite, gamers were special. Programming you did in your basement and the graphical department prohibited from people parking the car in the garage.
All the extra money put in games lead to the games we have now. "Final Fantasy 38759xneBETA: Return of the monstery we showed last time".

It is in indy developers that we must place our trust.
Elrond: "Indy developers? Indy developers are weak. The race of Indies are failing."
Oh, don't be such a meany.

Solothores
08-10-2005, 08:53 PM
"With episodic delivery, we will be able to take more risks and not have to wait so long, nor spend so much development money, to see if these risks are worthy and valid."

hm, I don't get it, "episodes" didn't help tv to become more original or risky... why should it work out different in games? trends will still get cloned to death...

helicopterr
08-10-2005, 08:56 PM
I think its always easy to innovate in the begining and it gets harder and harder so people give up. (i.e music, films)

JeroenDStout
08-10-2005, 08:58 PM
I think its always easy to innovate in the begining and it gets harder and harder so people give up. (i.e music, films)
It just isn't good enough for games, I think. I remember the game Sacrifice, terribly original RTS by Shiny.

*sniff*

jipe
08-10-2005, 10:00 PM
hm, I don't get it, "episodes" didn't help tv to become more original or risky... why should it work out different in games? trends will still get cloned to death...

I would guess because the episodic delivery style allows shorter development time and quicker turnaround to the consumer. So instead of taking 3+ years and 10-15 million dollars to develop a "creative" game that turns out well but ultimately fails to move enough copies to even cover dev costs, a company like Ritual will be taking maybe 7-8 months (who knows how long, once their core stuff is in place) and considerably less money to create a new episode, where they can play around with stuff and not risk everything.

Neil
08-10-2005, 10:02 PM
This is "news"? :/

Hazdaz
08-11-2005, 02:34 AM
Games have become such a big industry that none of this is really surprising. Creativity/risk-taking is the antithesis of the modern corporation.... and with companies like EA just getting bigger and bigger, games are just going to turn more and more into the same recycled crap.... just like Hollywood and just like the music industry. :banghead:


From deep inside the offices of EA:
Corporate Flunky: "we need a new, creative game genre!"
Corporate Yes-man:"hmmm, how about making a sequel to last years sci-fi nuclear holocaust, robo versus man versus alien, nazi vampire shooter?"
Corporate Flunky:"no, that would need a pretty big budget... how about we just make another World War 2 FPS... and this time with 10% more Nazi's?!?"

Solothores
08-11-2005, 07:10 AM
I would guess because the episodic delivery style allows shorter development time and quicker turnaround to the consumer. So instead of taking 3+ years and 10-15 million dollars to develop a "creative" game that turns out well but ultimately fails to move enough copies to even cover dev costs, a company like Ritual will be taking maybe 7-8 months (who knows how long, once their core stuff is in place) and considerably less money to create a new episode, where they can play around with stuff and not risk everything.

Well, I don't doubt that it will make development easier, degressing the development cicle and ultimatively using less financial ressources - however I doubt that investors/publishers suddenly will take more risks and ultimatively games will become more original as a result from it, only because there is now less money to lose... lets face it - the problem in my opinion is that publishers/investors don't want to take any risk at all, if there is a safe path...

Speaky
08-11-2005, 07:43 AM
I think originality has to go the way of the dodo since the huge budgets, years-long development time, and relative difficulty of bringing a modern game out has to favour a game with some guarantee of success and mass-market acceptance.

Of course, there are excellent games available today like Halflife, Neverwinter Nights, The Sims. And I'm really looking forward to Spore since it really sounds like Wright had a completely free hand in its creation.

But I do miss the sheer variety and bizarreness of games available in the days of the C64 and the Amiga: ah, so I'm a pink duck who needs to free the sheep held captive by alien trees by digging underneath the ground with my spade and trying to create volcanic eruptions... great idea! This is what happens when enthusiasts and individuals can code their own games in a month or so and compete with what's already out there. My secret hope is that Nintendo are going to provide some kind of intuitive toolset (which lets you go as far as your ability allows) and allow non-coders to put together games on a PC or Mac for Revolution and then offer them for download via the web.

Now that would be see some interesting and original game content!

ThomasMahler
08-11-2005, 08:31 AM
that is why nintendo is needed....

Oh, come on.

Nintendo also has changed into something EA-like over the years. I don't wanna see a Mario Party 8, Super Mario Kart 4, Super Mario 8, WaveRace 3, Metroid 4, Zelda 7, whatever anymore.

Nintendo used to create innovative titles and - in the past - a "nintendo" brand on a title was always a seal of quality. But the only innovative game for this generation that nintendo came up with was Pikmin. And all the sequels were more or less mediocre. Compare Mario Sunshine to former Mario Episodes.

The problem is that game development has grown into such a risky thing, produce one flop and you're out. Also, games are published by only one publisher and he carries the financial risk - It's just logical that they want to take the "safer route". Maybe stuff like XNA will make game development less expensive, so that there'll be room for experiments.

JeroenDStout
08-11-2005, 09:17 AM
Well, I don't doubt that it will make development easier, degressing the development cicle and ultimatively using less financial ressources - however I doubt that investors/publishers suddenly will take more risks and ultimatively games will become more original as a result from it, only because there is now less money to lose... lets face it - the problem in my opinion is that publishers/investors don't want to take any risk at all, if there is a safe path...
Actually, I'd say that if a game got too risky after half a 'series' (0.5 game?) it may be discontinued and we'd be stuck with unfinished games.

No, I say the future is in downloadable games made by small groups. Half the graphics, twice the innovation. Or more. I'm quite optimistic at this, though.

JMcWilliams
08-11-2005, 11:09 AM
Better tools and better planning. Automate the mundane tasks... file naming, converting, unwrapping etc etc. Fully integrated tools that cooperate.
Oh, and design your game before you start programming it.

We can have pretty graphics and innovative gameplay.

n3o
08-11-2005, 11:23 AM
i agree with laureato di arte

that is definately why nintendo is needed. There is litle chance of sony or MS providing innovative games, while with nintendos limited hardware, and extremely easy to use developing software and thus much cheaper dveloping costs, puts nintendo as front runner for innovative games.... i say we wait and find out ;)

Boone
08-12-2005, 09:39 PM
Re: JMCWilliams.

Spoken like a true professional! I suspect you might be... :lightbulb

JMcWilliams
08-13-2005, 02:30 PM
Re: JMCWilliams.

Spoken like a true professional! I suspect you might be... :lightbulb

Oooh, I guess so :D

Just a grunt though ;)

CGTalk Moderation
08-13-2005, 02:30 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.