Wired - "What's New In Video Games
by Axel Cushing · in General Discussion · 03/28/2004 (12:09 pm) · 7 replies
www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,62838,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
After reading through this article a few times, I'm moved to ask a few very important questions.
1. Has anybody heard of the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics?"
2. Have any publishers or developers actually ASKED their fans what they would like to see? (I ask because every product registration card I've ever seen has only ever had checkboxes for genres, not if there is a preference for sequels or original material)
3. Have any publishers or developers looked into WHY their development costs are sky high and clawing their way into low Earth orbit? (Screaming "software piracy" right out of the gate will not be considered a viable initial argument.)
4. Have any publishers or developers looked into HOW they can cut development costs while at least maintaining current quality standards? (Hey, I drool over the shiny new effects in Half-Life 2 as much as the next guy, but the original game has been running on a descendant of the Quake II engine for years now with no signs of slowing down.)
After reading through this article a few times, I'm moved to ask a few very important questions.
1. Has anybody heard of the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics?"
2. Have any publishers or developers actually ASKED their fans what they would like to see? (I ask because every product registration card I've ever seen has only ever had checkboxes for genres, not if there is a preference for sequels or original material)
3. Have any publishers or developers looked into WHY their development costs are sky high and clawing their way into low Earth orbit? (Screaming "software piracy" right out of the gate will not be considered a viable initial argument.)
4. Have any publishers or developers looked into HOW they can cut development costs while at least maintaining current quality standards? (Hey, I drool over the shiny new effects in Half-Life 2 as much as the next guy, but the original game has been running on a descendant of the Quake II engine for years now with no signs of slowing down.)
About the author
Axel Cushing currently writes for the game site The Armchair Empire, when he's not working on game designs, novels, or screenplays.
#2
In response to Axel's questions, I think that the solution for innovative games is not going to be new tech, but rather, people doing more with the tech they have. Games, in a way, are plateauing, just like, for instance, text editors have done. The question is no longer going to be what _can_ we do, but what _should_ we do.
And this means that some things are gonna be come commoditized. Just like in the film industry...
I don't have a whole lot to add to this thread. It's got some really interesting insights already. Nice job, guys. ;)
03/28/2004 (1:35 pm)
@Brad: Maybe you just haven't noticed the tendencies... bicycles are sly that way... ;)In response to Axel's questions, I think that the solution for innovative games is not going to be new tech, but rather, people doing more with the tech they have. Games, in a way, are plateauing, just like, for instance, text editors have done. The question is no longer going to be what _can_ we do, but what _should_ we do.
And this means that some things are gonna be come commoditized. Just like in the film industry...
I don't have a whole lot to add to this thread. It's got some really interesting insights already. Nice job, guys. ;)
#3
When film was new the camera was pointed at a stage and plays acted out with the camera as audience. A moving camera was an astounding artistic innovation; we take dolly shots, pans, closeups, and colour for granted, but they were the shaders of their day. Amateurs are victims of cliche, while masters play with conventions whimsically; poseurs believe genius lies in breaking rules, masters transcend the rules without effort.
I think game developers need to stop looking to technology for solutions and start looking in their own imaginations. Gaming needs to be rescued from the technophiles, and the medium needs to discover its own voice. The technology is already at least as media rich as film or television.
The modern AAA games industry is a virtual Star Wars action figure, and naught more.
03/28/2004 (2:02 pm)
@Ben: Fortunately I got rid of that Communist bike (it had a tendency to steer left) and bought a Trek (rigid mountain) and Specialized (road).When film was new the camera was pointed at a stage and plays acted out with the camera as audience. A moving camera was an astounding artistic innovation; we take dolly shots, pans, closeups, and colour for granted, but they were the shaders of their day. Amateurs are victims of cliche, while masters play with conventions whimsically; poseurs believe genius lies in breaking rules, masters transcend the rules without effort.
I think game developers need to stop looking to technology for solutions and start looking in their own imaginations. Gaming needs to be rescued from the technophiles, and the medium needs to discover its own voice. The technology is already at least as media rich as film or television.
The modern AAA games industry is a virtual Star Wars action figure, and naught more.
#4
Not really a game, more a community space/entertainment environment (ala There.com) there are some WWII squads doing team planning sessions in full on 3D chat with charts and maps and stuff up on the walls... etc.
I think we continue to think in well known patterns, but at times I see more creativity in what the writers of Star Trek: Next Generation did in the halo deck simulations than in new games coming out (and this isn't a thread about adding more story). There are so many ideas and so little time... does anyone else read Fantasy / Sci-Fi or write it here? Not just space opera (although I confess a fondness for it). Dragonriders of Pern or the Ship that Sang from Anne McCaffery all have inspiration for gameplay highbreds.
All I could think of was the gameplay in David Weber's book March Upcountry series when I read them.
I've been a Tolkien fan since 1974 and what Peter did with the books was inspiring and I believe deserving of the awards for everyone in New Zealand. Life is too short not to innovate in our games.
03/28/2004 (2:23 pm)
How many people have been on Second Life?Not really a game, more a community space/entertainment environment (ala There.com) there are some WWII squads doing team planning sessions in full on 3D chat with charts and maps and stuff up on the walls... etc.
I think we continue to think in well known patterns, but at times I see more creativity in what the writers of Star Trek: Next Generation did in the halo deck simulations than in new games coming out (and this isn't a thread about adding more story). There are so many ideas and so little time... does anyone else read Fantasy / Sci-Fi or write it here? Not just space opera (although I confess a fondness for it). Dragonriders of Pern or the Ship that Sang from Anne McCaffery all have inspiration for gameplay highbreds.
All I could think of was the gameplay in David Weber's book March Upcountry series when I read them.
I've been a Tolkien fan since 1974 and what Peter did with the books was inspiring and I believe deserving of the awards for everyone in New Zealand. Life is too short not to innovate in our games.
#5
That is, until I join in.
One of the answers to "Why are development cost so high?" is plastered everywhere in that article. Licensing engines, licensing IPs and licensing console rights is not cheap. Even on the lowend, those alone would start you at well over $100K before you even wrote one line of code.
I really don't have a single problem with sequels, as long as they are well done. Look at the difference between GTA and GTA3, and how well that franchise has grown. Now look at Tomb Raider- this is basically an exercise in how NOT to beat a franchise into the ground.
Sometimes sequels are done because the developers weren't able to cram all their wild ideas into the first game. Creating a new world and new characters is difficult and risky in the first place, but then you have to place them into an intriguing game environment as well. Sly Cooper is such a game, with brilliant character design and great environments. But the designers knew the original had its flaws. You never really got the feeling that Sly Cooper really was a thief. The levels were linear and the AI was dumb as a box of rocks. Sucker Punch is working hard to fix all that by: Giving Sly Cooper the ability to pick pockets, Opening the world to be less linear, and giving the AI the intelligence to chase you ANYWHERE on the map.
Statistics are a funny thing. They can be read a variety of ways.
That statement doesn't make sense to me. If half the games on the market are sequels, doesn't it make sense that half the top sellers would be sequels? The last 10 PS2 games I rented were ALL sequels. But then it goes on to say:
Is that really a problem? I'm terribly sorry for growing older. Has anyone actually considered that those of us who played games on our C64, TI/99, and Atari2600 are probably still avid gameplayers. And we probably always will be. So be prepared for the average age of gamers to hit 32. Or 36. Or 40.
I'm stunned that Sony hopes to prolong the life of the PS2 to 10 years or more. There must be more to that.
03/28/2004 (2:46 pm)
Quote: don't have a whole lot to add to this thread. It's got some really interesting insights already. Nice job, guys. ;)
That is, until I join in.
One of the answers to "Why are development cost so high?" is plastered everywhere in that article. Licensing engines, licensing IPs and licensing console rights is not cheap. Even on the lowend, those alone would start you at well over $100K before you even wrote one line of code.
I really don't have a single problem with sequels, as long as they are well done. Look at the difference between GTA and GTA3, and how well that franchise has grown. Now look at Tomb Raider- this is basically an exercise in how NOT to beat a franchise into the ground.
Sometimes sequels are done because the developers weren't able to cram all their wild ideas into the first game. Creating a new world and new characters is difficult and risky in the first place, but then you have to place them into an intriguing game environment as well. Sly Cooper is such a game, with brilliant character design and great environments. But the designers knew the original had its flaws. You never really got the feeling that Sly Cooper really was a thief. The levels were linear and the AI was dumb as a box of rocks. Sucker Punch is working hard to fix all that by: Giving Sly Cooper the ability to pick pockets, Opening the world to be less linear, and giving the AI the intelligence to chase you ANYWHERE on the map.
Statistics are a funny thing. They can be read a variety of ways.
Quote:Things are little better in the United States, where last December, according to the NPD Group, more than half of the 20 best-selling games on all platforms were sequels or derivatives of existing properties.
That statement doesn't make sense to me. If half the games on the market are sequels, doesn't it make sense that half the top sellers would be sequels? The last 10 PS2 games I rented were ALL sequels. But then it goes on to say:
Quote:Part of the problem is the advancing average age of gamers, which is rising as the industry matures. Last summer, the Entertainment Software Association, an industry trade group, found that the average age of gamers had risen to 29 years old, dispelling the view that gamers consist mainly of teenagers.
Is that really a problem? I'm terribly sorry for growing older. Has anyone actually considered that those of us who played games on our C64, TI/99, and Atari2600 are probably still avid gameplayers. And we probably always will be. So be prepared for the average age of gamers to hit 32. Or 36. Or 40.
I'm stunned that Sony hopes to prolong the life of the PS2 to 10 years or more. There must be more to that.
#6
It's like they are saying that there aren't very many young gamers coming in. Have they ever been on a computer gaming bulletin board? The mistake they are making is to assume that every game needs to appeal to the whole market.
Secondly, the notion that using a well known license automatically increases your market is a fallacy. You could just as easily make the argument that you exclude a large group of people who don't like that particular property. Like I wouldn't buy a Harry Potter game if it cost 1 dollar. So paying big bucks for an IP is a mixed blessing.
03/28/2004 (5:25 pm)
The premise of the article is a bit bizarre. Basically they are saying that there's a significant group of old time gamers, getting more and more conserative and thereby dragging the market down. A couple of years ago it was always "we've got to expand our market by allowing older people to enjoy gaming". Now it's happening by itself, and it's suddenly a problem?It's like they are saying that there aren't very many young gamers coming in. Have they ever been on a computer gaming bulletin board? The mistake they are making is to assume that every game needs to appeal to the whole market.
Secondly, the notion that using a well known license automatically increases your market is a fallacy. You could just as easily make the argument that you exclude a large group of people who don't like that particular property. Like I wouldn't buy a Harry Potter game if it cost 1 dollar. So paying big bucks for an IP is a mixed blessing.
#7
* The "sequelitis" thing is hardly unique to gaming. Look at how many of this summer's crop of "major" releases were sequels! People like familiarity with characters, settings, and situations. A sequel / series doesn't HAVE to be creatively bankrupt. There have been some excellent TV series (yes, they do exist!) that have gone over 100 episodes and retained strong creativity and character, and continued audience interest. The problem is when you have a network / studio / publisher that is paralyzed into doing nothing BUT sequels... when their cash cows finally run dry, they'll have nothing left, and are going to go toes-up. The series thing *also* allows companies to amortize costs of initial development and marketing across multiple titles... if it's a successful title, the sequel will sell better than the original, and *ideally* (in the minds of the bean-counters) the development costs of the sequel will be less than the original, due to re-use of content and code. This is more like the TV industry than movies (where a sequel usually costs MORE because the original cast & production team know they can demand higher salaries... and a higher budget for SFX or whatnot).
* Older gamers = more conservative = must do uncreative rehashes of established product? Yeah, right. Can you say, "scapegoat?" If anything, the older games have a lower tolerance for things like repetitive gameplay and tedious memorization of levels - things that the old publishers relied upon to stretch the gameplay during the days when they could focus on pre-adolescents with plenty of time and patience as their audience. Give a grown-up 20-30 hours of gameplay with real, unique, fascinating content instead of 60 hours of tedious repetition, please.
* The major problem with budgets is escallation. What was once considered a "hit" title's numbers is now beneath the notice of the major publishers. A game that only has a sales potential of something marginally north of 100,000 is going to get cancelled. They are going for bigger audiences... they all want a quarter-million minimum of first-run sales. In order to achieve this, they are throwing lots of money at the problem - which means that games get such a big budget that they need to achieve those minimum sales just to break even. The result is that their profit margins are going to continue to diminish... the market is growing, but not as fast as their budgets. I guess I'm not upset about this... they are leaving the market wide-open behind them for people who know how to make a game on a tighter budget to match lower projected sales.
* "The Gaming Industry will shrink unless we start seeing newer games." Ummm... yeah. There are plenty of new, fresh games hitting the market each year. Probably more than back in the rose-colored "old days." But they don't get the media attention, and the mainstream gamer is probably unaware that they exist. No difference between this and the film industry, really. But every once in a while something fresh and different breaks into the mainstream consciousness and makes way more money than anyone expected. Like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (or, it seems, "The Passion of Christ") in film, or "Roller Coaster Tycoon" in games. I don't see the expected crisis taking place on the consumer side.
03/29/2004 (9:50 am)
* The "aging gamer" demographic is OLD NEWS. This little "surprise" was discovered YEARS ago. About 6 years ago the average age was 28. So here's the thing... since the average age is only progressing about 1 year every six, what does that mean? That means there's a lot of new, younger gamers skewing the average over the core players who keep playing (and moving the demographic up +1 year every year...)* The "sequelitis" thing is hardly unique to gaming. Look at how many of this summer's crop of "major" releases were sequels! People like familiarity with characters, settings, and situations. A sequel / series doesn't HAVE to be creatively bankrupt. There have been some excellent TV series (yes, they do exist!) that have gone over 100 episodes and retained strong creativity and character, and continued audience interest. The problem is when you have a network / studio / publisher that is paralyzed into doing nothing BUT sequels... when their cash cows finally run dry, they'll have nothing left, and are going to go toes-up. The series thing *also* allows companies to amortize costs of initial development and marketing across multiple titles... if it's a successful title, the sequel will sell better than the original, and *ideally* (in the minds of the bean-counters) the development costs of the sequel will be less than the original, due to re-use of content and code. This is more like the TV industry than movies (where a sequel usually costs MORE because the original cast & production team know they can demand higher salaries... and a higher budget for SFX or whatnot).
* Older gamers = more conservative = must do uncreative rehashes of established product? Yeah, right. Can you say, "scapegoat?" If anything, the older games have a lower tolerance for things like repetitive gameplay and tedious memorization of levels - things that the old publishers relied upon to stretch the gameplay during the days when they could focus on pre-adolescents with plenty of time and patience as their audience. Give a grown-up 20-30 hours of gameplay with real, unique, fascinating content instead of 60 hours of tedious repetition, please.
* The major problem with budgets is escallation. What was once considered a "hit" title's numbers is now beneath the notice of the major publishers. A game that only has a sales potential of something marginally north of 100,000 is going to get cancelled. They are going for bigger audiences... they all want a quarter-million minimum of first-run sales. In order to achieve this, they are throwing lots of money at the problem - which means that games get such a big budget that they need to achieve those minimum sales just to break even. The result is that their profit margins are going to continue to diminish... the market is growing, but not as fast as their budgets. I guess I'm not upset about this... they are leaving the market wide-open behind them for people who know how to make a game on a tighter budget to match lower projected sales.
* "The Gaming Industry will shrink unless we start seeing newer games." Ummm... yeah. There are plenty of new, fresh games hitting the market each year. Probably more than back in the rose-colored "old days." But they don't get the media attention, and the mainstream gamer is probably unaware that they exist. No difference between this and the film industry, really. But every once in a while something fresh and different breaks into the mainstream consciousness and makes way more money than anyone expected. Like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (or, it seems, "The Passion of Christ") in film, or "Roller Coaster Tycoon" in games. I don't see the expected crisis taking place on the consumer side.
Torque Owner Brad Shapcott
Actually, as I've grown older I've become more discerning and jealous of my time, even for entertainment purposes, exactly the opposite of the Wired article's premise. I never did pay much attention to Wired, especially after reading Bruce Sterling's credulous article concerning the inability of computers (a Western invention) to democratize Chinese politics, because I was struck by the fact that my bicycle (which was made in China) created in me absolutely no Communist tendencies.
Iwatani's comments about an innovation cycle were interesting, though 2-3 years seems far too short. I'm thinking that computer games are ripe for an expansion phase, but I'm no expert. Just a bored and disgruntled player.