Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter the Videogame Industry

[Liquidize105]

Game designer David A. Rodriguez wants people to know that he likes to equate his day-job to the customer service industry (http://popcultureshock.com/features.php?id=1402). Day in and day out, he and compatriots alike take it up the Hershey highway from 7 different "levels of approval," each one more removed from the project than the last but all of whom have more authority than the people directly involved.

This is the reality of a post-millennial industry in a bid to capture the mainstream dollars.

Damn it, where's the HBO of this industry?

Thank you GameSetWatch (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/)

[Royal Fool]

For the curious, here is Dave's resume according to MobyGames:

Design - gameography
Hunter: The Reckoning: Redeemer (2003), Vivendi Universal Games, Inc.
Hunter: The Reckoning: Wayward (2003), Vivendi Universal Games, Inc.
Hunter: The Reckoning (2002), Interplay Entertainment Corp., White Wolf Game Studio
Ground Control: Dark Conspiracy (2000), Sierra On-Line, Inc.

Sound - gameography
Duel Masters Limited Edition (2004), Atari, Inc.
Hunter: The Reckoning (2002), Interplay Entertainment Corp., White Wolf Game Studio

Video - gameography
Hunter: The Reckoning (2002), Interplay Entertainment Corp., White Wolf Game Studio

[Zanzibar]

The key to any successful game is showing off a gameplay idea in its playable state. If the mechanics are fun, then the suits will play it and/or do some testing with a playable version, and make a decision based on that.

That's why you need toolsets that are easy to work with and flexible enough to accomodate any kind of prototype - from an action-platformer or a racing game to a FPS or realtime-strategy idea. We're continuing development an internal set of tools that can literally do anything. We're even talking about tasking a small team to prototype Xbox Live Arcade-style games.

If you walk in with this epic game design and an incredible story, unless you are able to convince the suits that it will be fun to play and has mass-market potential, they're really not going to go for it.

Look at Psychonauts. Freaking GREAT game with all kinds of style, but nobody bought it. Microsoft abandoned the game as an Xbox-exclusive because certain segments weren't playing very well and they just didn't think the art style would catch the public's interest. For whatever reason, it didn't sell. So who's right? Microsoft or Majesco?

[Returner]

I worked with Dave, the man is totally right.

[Zanzibar]

Honestly, the Xbox Live Arcade style of gameplay ideas is just what the doctor ordered. Low-overhead, high-return, fast turnaround between prototype and finished product.

[Liquidize105]

What was it that they said about Psychonauts?

"Wow, this is creative. Too bad people don't go for creative these days."

[PacoTaco]

I dunno... it sounds to me like he's just tired of working on crappy projects. I'm not sure about the whole client/architect analogy. A publisher wants a game in a particular genre (and sometimes a license) that will sell an assload of copies. The developers primary job is to take these constraints and use their expertise to create a game that will sell an assload of copies... a publisher that forces the developer to do things that don't logically make sense to the mass market isn't going to stay in business very long.

The fact that developers ultimately work for the end-user means that games often get "dumbed down"... for instance, if a group of focus testers (random people off the street) can't figure out a puzzle, the puzzle gets changed. Publishers don't generally ask for some random change to make their dicks feel bigger, they ask for changes based on what the random idiot off the street can or can't do in the game. They also force the developers to work on crappy game licenses (ie - fifty cent) because there's a market of consumers who don't care how bad the game is as long as it's about their favorite rapper.

So I would argue that game developers are indeed artists, but they're creating commercial art instead of "fine art". They still use their expertise to make a product that they can be proud of (ideally), but they're working within constraints that the publisher feels will help sell the game to the largest chunk of the target market. If the people in charge of the development studio feel that this won't help sell the product to the largest chunk of the target market, it's their job to speak up and make the publisher understand this. If, however, the developer feels that the change might cause the game to sell fewer copies but will help preserve their artistic integrity, they may be less "in the right" but they still have a case about gamers expecting a certain level of quality from your developers products... if the publisher refuses to listen to that then it may be time to leave as a group and form your own development house.

I think falling into the trap of feeling like you're a production line worker instead of somebody that needs to work creatively is the first step to contributing bad work to a game. Part of thinking creatively is thinking of creative ways to work with very strict constraints that will work for the publisher and allow you to feel proud of your own work at the same time.

[Doctor Setebos]

But the month finally comes when I call you in and tell you I’ve been going over the plans and I’ve decided that I want no right angles in my home. It’s some Feng Shui thing that will calm my very wealthy mind. Now you have already spent time and money on getting the work started on the plans you’ve already drawn, you’ve poured a foundation that has right angles all over the place and there is no room in the schedule for you to take out all of the damn right angles. Rightfully so, you attempt to talk me out of it.

“You know Mr. Rodriguez, if there aren’t any right angles in your home you might find it difficult to hang pictures.”

“I see where you’re coming from Mr. Architect. It’s a valid point. So make sure when you take out all the right angles you invent something that allows me to hang pictures.”

“But…I….”

“And I have Better Homes and Gardens scheduled to come out and photograph this house in 2 weeks. So you need to have something showable by then.”

“Two weeks! But if you want me to take out the right angles and re-pour the foundation…there’s no way…”

“Mr. Architect, it’s very important these pictures get taken. I’m not asking you to add things, I’m removing things. I’m saving you time by taking out these walls. Let’s pull together and get this done. There is no “I” in team. But there is an “m” and an “e”. And “me” is holding all of the money. If you want to get paid, get it done.”This has to be the most frightening article I've ever read. I have absolutely no desire to work in the game design industry now. Not that I ever did in the first place. :D

[fahrvergnugen]

This isn't just games, this is any kind of work-for-spec engineering project. Sucks, but there ya go.

[Wonka]

This article is accurate.

People who review games NEED to read this.

[Hellstorm]

For the curious, here is Dave's resume according to MobyGames:

Looks to be between meh and average.

[Mr. Lake]

I have absolutely no desire to work in the game design industry now. Not that I ever did in the first place. :D

When I first started, it was pretty transparent. But after the second, and even third iteration of the project, it was much clearer who was turning the gears. Now, this may just be part of working on an established IP. I can imagine that on a new IP things are much more under the control of the developer to shape how that IP performs in the marketplace. It's easy for some suit who's played (for example) MOH, and every sequel since, to play a newer version of MOH in development and say "this isn't like the MOH I know", and demand changes tha reflect the stale similarities or audatious differences to previous titles that they think will make a great game. It's far tougher for the same suit to make those demands when the game you're working on has no precedent. It's not "purely" subjective based on the liscenced material, but there is a lot to do with it.

[Heretic Machine]

The key to making this guy happy probably has a lot to do with removing publishers from the industry. The key to this is digital distribution, and oddly enough, the key to digital distribution is secure DRM.

[Returner]

The key to making this guy happy probably has a lot to do with removing publishers from the industry. The key to this is digital distribution, and oddly enough, the key to digital distribution is secure DRM.

Digital distribution does nothing but help the publisher. The publisher won't have to spend money on manuals or boxes and they will still charge the same amount. Like I said before a publisher just doesn't distribute game for most devs they fund the project and handle the marketing.

[Heretic Machine]

Digital distribution does nothing but help the publisher. The publisher won't have to spend money on manuals or boxes and they will still charge the same amount. Like I said before a publisher just doesn't distribute game for most devs they fund the project and handle the marketing.

Dude, there are other ways to get funding, most industries don't operate by one company producing a product on another company's money. Give an easy distribution method to developers, and they'll find an alternative funding method, one that doesn't involve a dozen backseat drivers.

[Returner]

Dude, there are other ways to get funding, most industries don't operate by one company producing a product on another company's money. Give an easy distribution method to developers, and they'll find an alternative funding method, one that doesn't involve a dozen backseat drivers.

For the most part the video game industry does operate by another company's money. Most the time it's worst to have independent funding from an outside source who knows nothing of the industry. Publishers are here to stay no matter how a game gets distributed.

[Draft]

What was it that they said about Psychonauts?

"Wow, this is creative. Too bad people don't go for creative these days."Actually, they probably said something along the lines of, "Jesus christ, it took you 5 years to make a platforming game with funny dialogue?!"

[Draft]

by the way it looks like I was right all along about Psychonauts. Hilarious dialogue, solid gameplay, should have been a hit, right? WRONG. Characters way too hideous for a platform game.

[motor]

The key to any successful game is showing off a gameplay idea in its playable state. If the mechanics are fun, then the suits will play it and/or do some testing with a playable version, and make a decision based on that.

Zanzibar is right. It is very rare that the guy with the money is going to take your word for it. We want to come up with an innovative new game play idea. Make it something they can play! Clever talk and docs only get you so far (and it isn't very far), you want to come up with something innovative then make a prototype.

[Zeal]

The key is to become your own boss.

[Kelegacy]

by the way it looks like I was right all along about Psychonauts. Hilarious dialogue, solid gameplay, should have been a hit, right? WRONG. Characters way too hideous for a platform game.
G'ak! I hate it when you use that argument. The characters were beautiful, just morbidly so. Like some twisted campground. Loved the design, and I'm surprised more children didn't. I mean, have you seen the weird shit they watch these days?

Still, I think it was geared at a slightly more mature audience.

[Returner]

Psychonauts is so tamed compared to some of the shit that's on tv.

[Heretic Machine]

Psychonaughts didn't become a hit because it had really crappy distribution and advertising. I never once saw a copy of the XBOX version of the game in Wal-mart, only the PS2 and PC versions. So, I never got around to buying it. Still interested, and I'm still hoping I'll come across a copy of the XBOX version.

[Achilles]

What was it that they said about Psychonauts?

"Wow, this is creative. Too bad people don't go for creative these days."Last time I checked they said:

"Four years in production and this thing still doesn't have a fun gameplay hook? How much did we spend on it? Good god. Let’s shop it around and see if we can make some of that money back."

It's not that you can't be creative, but you do have to make something that people want. And you do have to make it on a schedule and budget that is appropriate to the market that the game will reach.

On the face of it I hope everyone knew psychonauts would only appeal to a certain core of gamers (not just the hardcore, but a very small group of gamers). Because of art style, play style, humor, and for any number of other reasons. You take the basic idea of going into people's dreams to solve puzzles that relate to their psychosis and put it in a different sort of creative environment and you'd be able to sell more copies. (essentially Silent Hill has always been this idea, except with the character exploring their own psychosis).

[RMan]

I think the biggest problems we have are related to the cost of projects, and more importantly, the fact that they’re retail. Most people, however, feel that the big problem with retail is the overhead, and although it’s certainly an issue, I think the biggest problem is a product’s shelf life. The shelf life for a retail game is extremely short unless it’s selling, and the only way to get a new release selling is by having interest in the game before it’s released, in short, it needs to be a sequel and/or heavily marketed. So positive reviews or word of mouth won’t really help a game, it’ll be off the shelf before it matters (and it won’t get good placement anyway without lots of marketing).

Digital distribution, beyond normal cost reductions, allows far longer gestation periods for games, since stocking and placement is far less of an issue. This will naturally result in a game’s quality being a larger factor in it’s success, which is a good thing for consumers. I look at newer products being sold on the net and just can’t wait for that kind of quality integration in games. I mean, I’ve bought products from Newegg that were made by companies I’ve never heard of, basing my opinions on user reviews at the point of sale (they didn’t need TV commercials to get my attention, just a great product). That’s what we need, relatively unbiased, easily accessible reviews, combine that with digital distribution and you’ve got some superior gaming that will trash our current, broken system.

[Draft]

G'ak! I hate it when you use that argument. The characters were beautiful, just morbidly so. Like some twisted campground. Loved the design, and I'm surprised more children didn't. I mean, have you seen the weird shit they watch these days?

Still, I think it was geared at a slightly more mature audience.You can hate the arguement, but clearly it's the correct arguement.

[Royal Fool]

Psychonaughts didn't become a hit because it had really crappy distribution and advertising. I never once saw a copy of the XBOX version of the game in Wal-mart, only the PS2 and PC versions. So, I never got around to buying it. Still interested, and I'm still hoping I'll come across a copy of the XBOX version.

http://shop.doublefine.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=25

This method goes perfectly with your mantra of "Removing the publisher", too; everybody wins! Only $50!

[Draft]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007PIEAQ/qid=1150767297/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-7551064-0224834?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=468642

Amazon has it for $30.

PC version is $22 if you have a gamepad.

[Demo_Boy]

Actually he describes the results well but misses the real issue by a hair.

It isn't that the suits dont know how to make a good game.
Actually if they were spending their whole time making a game it would be pretty good. But they have bigger matters to attend to, like marketing.

So the designer is left to work out the details of how it is going to work in the end. ie figure out the loose mechanics and how to tighten it up in the resources he is allocated. So usually he'll come up with a clever non obvious solution,

...because after all obvious solutions are not a game they are a mechanic. aka Who actually wants to pay 60 bux for tic tac toe?

The meta game of playing a game is learning the system by postulating and exploring. Once you have learned the system, that's usually it for the game. (excluding for the moment these lures: MMO addiction, grinding for status, and completionism)

OK now the vetting process takes place.
And perhaps the designer has to prove his idea to 5 people to get it authorized - lessee theres peers, production, creative director, then marketing and external money men.
One on one you might be able to prove the merits of your idea.
But no sophisticated idea can survive the groupthink of 5 people with 10-20 minutes of briefing whom mostly have the intent to make sure the goal of the game is mainstream==obvious.

In many cases this drives the game towards a test of reflex and hand eye coordination, it feels a bit flat, but shippable and whose got time to worry anyway?

In the case of getting a clever idea through, that is a win... But change requests can come down the pipe many weeks after that, perhaps the reason it was clever has been forgotten and gosh doesn't that seem a bit counterintuitive anyway?

So really the reason there are so many vanilla games is because the evolution of game development requires the effort of supersized teams, carrying with it the need to earn buyin from ever more personnell for every idea. This defeats itself. Customer expectations for scope is a big part of this.

A craft example for this might be say... Unreal 2 XMP multiplayer vs. UT2004 Onslaught. I think XMP could not be made by a bigger team because it is just too sophisticated and would not survive vetting. This also limits content scope and perhaps some polish as well as the doozy marketing.

Look for the gems. Shout them from the rooftops. This will hopefully breed more superdesigners by earning them sequels -- Superdesigners are those whom get "free" vetting on their word alone. And maybe you will get some good games if you are lucky.

Long live Savage The Battle for Newerth.

[Heretic Machine]

http://shop.doublefine.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=25

This method goes perfectly with your mantra of "Removing the publisher", too; everybody wins! Only $50!

Wondeful! Like I couldn't do that before. Maybe I just prefer to pick up a game in a store rather than buying it from an online retailer because of numerous bad experiences with online shopping?

Naa, couldn't be.

EDIT: Oh, and here is a news flash for you, MOST PEOPLE DON'T SHOP ONLINE.

[Draft]

^^^lol what? How do you get to the Walmart, horse and buggy?

[Johan]

Honestly, the Xbox Live Arcade style of gameplay ideas is just what the doctor ordered. Low-overhead, high-return, fast turnaround between prototype and finished product.

I agree...if anything has the potential to allow for creative risks which won't cost 10-20 million dollars to see to fruition, it's XBLA and, hopefully, the Wii VIrtual Console and PS3 online service. I hope they all succeed.

[Heretic Machine]

^^^lol what? How do you get to the Walmart, horse and buggy?

I've purchased items online with something like a 50% success rate. Amazon screwed me over on three seperate purchases in a row, basically because I was using a gift certificate that I won rather than cash. Gamestop screwed up my DS pre-order, and I had to go out the morning it launched and pick up the last one in the area. I've had a couple of bad experiences with ebay, and a terrible experience with Dell having to do with shipping addresses.

This sort of thing doesn't happen in a store. I go get what I want, I take it to the counter, I give them money or my debt card. I walk out with the item I went in for. I don't have to worry about it being passed around a dozen times before it gets to me, with the chance of it being lost or stolen in the mean time.

I used to be an advocate of online shopping, but not anymore. Too many online stores act in the most unproffessional ways because they know that you can't beat the shit out of them for screwing with you. You really have no recourse at all if they screw up an order. Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll correct the mistake, maybe they won't, it is entirely up to them.

So yes, I prefer the simplicity of a store.

[Wasson_]

You can hate the arguement, but clearly it's the correct arguement.

Those (arguments) were exactly what I was saying in the recent Psychonauts thread several days ago....

..whatever.

[Hellstorm]

Last time I checked they said:

"Four years in production and this thing still doesn't have a fun gameplay hook? How much did we spend on it? Good god. Let’s shop it around and see if we can make some of that money back."


I know a few people at MS that were working on the game that would say you are 100% correct.

[Royal Fool]

Wondeful! Like I couldn't do that before. Maybe I just prefer to pick up a game in a store rather than buying it from an online retailer because of numerous bad experiences with online shopping?

Naa, couldn't be.

EDIT: Oh, and here is a news flash for you, MOST PEOPLE DON'T SHOP ONLINE.

BUT THEN MUCH OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE STORE. DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU WANTED TO CUT THE PUBLISHER (And by extension, the retailer) OUT OF THE LOOP?

Guess not.