Slashdot Mirror
Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic
Raiford writes "A Reuters feature story describes how the computer gaming industry is shedding its geek persona in an attempt to attract Hollywood's best visual effects, sound, lighting and animation experts into the gaming fold. The story quotes the executive vice president of Electronic Arts on how rapidly advancing processor technology is demanding an expanded skill set and that Hollywood provides the ready source to meet the demand."
Yeah, like the Drama club geeks are going to work with the CS geeks.
"Best step off, this be technical theater territory."
"Eat it, lighting nerd! The Computer Club rules!"
produce better games were they to attract some top-notch game designers? Like some of those crazy designers from japan. It's nice to have realistic lighting and animation, but in the long run, playability is key. If gamers wanted reality, they would step outside
Come now, EA has been on this path for over a decade. They used to publish tons of games, from the great to the crappy, all of which were at least great fun for someone. Now they just publish the super mainstream "Safe" games like Madden and Sim* while taking VERY VERY few risks.
Um, Tony Hawk is a real preson. Where are the editors?
* The FPS and RTS genre's games are MUCH easier to play with mice. The dreamcast could accept a mouse -- can any others, and do the games work with it?
* 640x480 just isn't good enough anymore (and your TV set can't even do that well.) Consoles will have to be able to display to SVGA monitors just like the computers do. HDTV is another option, but how many people have HDTV now? Not very many.
* And last, but not least, you can't justify an Xbox to do your taxes. People are going to buy PCs for `productive' things, and when that's done, they'll want to play a game.
(Now, if a console can run Turbo Tax, that might be what's needed to drive the final nail into the PC game coffin. Of course, if that happens, then that console you're using ... is basically just a PC!)
Like it or not, but certain genres of games are still dominated by PC games -- in particular, I'm thinking of FPS and RTS games. Maybe this will change in the future ... we shall see.
Why are Slashdot reprinting it? (Oh right, it's supposedly a games story, so up to
Thought provoking? Hardly. Perhaps a mention of the growing number of classic developers EA have bought and sucked dry (Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, next stop Westwood) that have paid for these fancy offices would be in order?
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
While there are still some great games, many of them with "cinematic" effects, the Hollywood-ization of the game industries are causing us to see lots of crappy games that are flashy, but also lack gameplay depth and especially challenge.
The Sega CD bombed back in the 90s, not because of the lack of system capabilities, but because Sega focused on crappy FMV-based games and hyped them as "interactive movies" rather than good games.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I loved this paragraph: The studios have sacrificed office space for a vast reception area with a cozy coffee corner and couches. Cubicles for programmers are squeezed high into the corners of the building, almost as an afterthought.
Meaning, the programmers are just unimportant people that they can "squeeze" away into cubicles, while tons of space is wasted in the fucking lobby. What a shitty company.
If I worked there, I'd organize all of the programmers to go work downstairs in the posh lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.
That's really all I can equate this too.
For the last 5 years game makers have been sacrificing game play to graphics in an attempt to bring in more customers.
EA is a great example of doing this. I can remember a time when Maxis produced or distributed interesting, technical games. Titles like sim ant, sim city, or a-train.
Those days are gone. The sim city franchise (once considered their 'flag ship' title) actually lost many of its technical features in the last release, and the next release has been delayed not by programming, but because EA's marketing people have decided to hold off on the next release due to yet another version of the sims.
Don't get me wrong, 'The Sims' is a neat game, but the novelty (for me) wears off quickly after the AI becomes so woefully predictable. But Maxis (EA) beats the quick fad like a dead horse. 'Look, now your sim can have a puppy! That'll be $35' Meanwhile more technical and thought provoking games get better graphics and less gameplay. "We want to make the game more accessable to childern and novices" was a justification in the last Sim City game. Read: We want to dumb it down and have pretty colors.
So, if chic means computer games are reaching a new more sophisticated level where art and game play are merged together, they are wrong. If Chic means the game industry is going more Holywood insofar as artistic quality and new or unique innovation is sacrificed to the gods of safe, rehashed ideas to maximise profits... then ok, yeah.
The Internet is generally stupid
Flash and dazzle is nice, but not lasting. The biggest boost that the gaming industry is getting from Hollywood is from the writers.
Games are now being scripted like movies. No more "ok so you run this guy around and shoot the red guys and save the blue guys", game storylines are becoming more and more intricate, the characters more interesting.
Alot of script-writers are pitching games, as they would pitch a movie. I'm also seeing alot more talent being enlisted for voiceovers, etc. Personally, I see this as a good trend. Others mileage may vary.
Though, with the gaming industry pulling in more coin than the movie industry, it's a no-brainer that they'd be recruiting a good chunk of their talent, both technical and non-technical.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Several years ago, we heard this same "party line" from such software developers as Origin. They promised us a merger between PC gaming and Hollywood. We got such things as Wing Commander III. (Most people I know loved the original Wing Commander, but by its 3rd. incarnation, just got boring to play. It felt like you were just running through repetitious missions so you could view a few more minutes of the movie afterwards.)
Now, EA is telling us that "more Hollywood" is just the thing for their sports simulations?
Great... So what'll it get us this time? Games that feel just like watching the real thing on TV, complete with commercial breaks featuring real actors and actresses?
The fact is, many industries find themselves getting closer together via computer technology advances. Still, it doesn't mean the relationship equally benefits both parties. (EG. Engineering folks are rapidly becoming forced to work more and more with computers, to the point where they're learning programming languages and becoming software developers in things directly related to their field. Does this mean traditional computer developers and/or I.T. staff are becoming more of engineers than they used to be? Nope....)
I think computer programmers and I.T. have provided a number of new tools to Hollywood, and certainly, Hollywood f/x teams have been forced to become much more computer-savvy than they used to be. Does it mean game developers need to bring "Hollywood" to their table, to improve their products? I think not.
The *core* problem,as I see it, is this. Hollywood specializes in creating passive entertainment. (Sit down and watch us act for 2 hours and you'll love it.) Gaming is all about sucking people in, actively.
If it helps, think of that trend as the result of computers becoming popular with the Masses. Electronic Arts and the rest already know that they can get "us" to buy games. Hardcore gamers are a given. So like any smart company, they wont spend much effort to keep us attracted to their games. At this point, they want to get Jocks, Women, Artsy types, Beurocrats, Lawyers, and the rest to buy games also. In short, they are going after the AOL demographic.
Most people from that group are just not likely to spend much time playing the sort of games that geeks typically play. However, even they can appreciate a cool looking explosion or light show.
It is easier to sell a pretty looking game because any idiot can look at a picture and say "Ooh, thats pretty.". The same cannot be said for the gameplay.
END COMMUNICATION
From "Pac-man" to "The Legend of Zelda"? "The Legend of Zelda" was for the 8-bit NES -- not all that much of an improvement compared to more recent systems. While I agree with the article's author that it's at least equal to GTA3, I question whether it's worthy of the term "quantum leap"...
:)
Seriously, this guy knows as much about games and programming as EA does about, well, games and programming... All game companies out there right now, and EA in particular, need to stop hiring special effects people and get some real game designers -- i.e. on a level with Miyamoto.
They're out there, I don't doubt; without some real improvements, PC gaming will die entirely and be replaced with consoles, which can do the junk sports games and FPSes currently popular much better than a PC.
Let's see all this new technology actually improve the gaming experience... I say we go back to 80286's and DOS, or maybe the Apple II; they at least had innovative, entertaining games.
"Games still lack one element of the Hollywood lure: glamour. Unlike famous actors, video games stars like Lara Croft and Tony Hawk do not get $10 million signing fees. And because they don't drink and date, they never make the gossip columns of Hello magazine." You _know_ they're working on this...
Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic
Most of our ex-girlfriends pretty much made a similar transition in tastes.
Table-ized A.I.
PC games are dying
He might be right, here's why:
About 2 years ago I played Diablo for the first time on the PS(play-station 1). I was addicted immediately, and played 4 or 5 hours at a sitting. For whatever reason I decided to buy the PC version(it was like 10$ in the bargain bin or something) and I tried it on the old PC. What I noticed was that for the most part, it was the same game. The controls were equally playable, the graphics were just about the same quality, etc. The strage thing was, after a day or so...I decided to stop developing my character on the PC, and went back to the Playstation.
So to recap, I tried the PS version and liked it...then I tried the PC version and liked it the same...then I decided to stop playing the PC version and went back to the PS version. Why?
Furniture.
I have a very warm and cozy living room, and I sit in a nice comfy lazy-boy adjustable chair while I play on the Playstation. After a long work/school day of sitting in a straight-back chair...you most likely just want to lay back and relax. Playing 4 hours on the lazy-boy is much more appealing than 4 more hours of sitting in front of a PC.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
NTSC TV resolution is 525 lines. What we see is 640x480. There should be enough resolution that from my viewing distance ~8 feet, that I can not see the individual pixels anymore. If the image looks like a window into another world, then I'll be satisfied for resolution. Granted if I had a 13inch set and not 26 from 8 feet I couldn't see the pixels anymore. I'm just saying the resolution isn't high enough yet for most big TVs.
EA has been singing this song for at least 15 years. Why do you think they are called Electronic Arts? When Trip Hawkins founded EA in 1982, it was with artistic aspirations. Their box design and advertising glorified the programmers, and attempted to give them rock star street cred.
It worked, to a large extent. Does anyone else remember the glamour shots of Bill Budge on the packaging for Pinball Construction Set? Does anyone remember the fantasy chess game Archon? Look at this picture of the programmers from 1984.
Electronic Arts used to be a great company. Then they started franchising popular and safe games, and produced the long but dull series of sports games for which they are now famous. EA classics include: Music Construction Set, Articfox, Marble Madness, Ferrari Formula One, the Bard's Tale series, Seven Cities of Gold. Seven Cities of Gold was designed by the amazing Bill Bunten (AKA Danielle Berry), who has a tribute page here.
Here is another EA publicity photo.
Here is a publicity shot for MULE, which EA produced, and should demonstrate their aspirations at the time.
And they weren't the only game company from that era with artistic aspirations: Lucasfilm Games was also in on the act. They produced The Eidolon and Koronis Rift, and Rescue On Fractalus, which, though they would be laugable now, were amazing then, and the packaging (as I recall, I may be mis-remembering) also emphasised the programmers.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
In case anyone didn't notice, the whole article was just BS promotion for EA (I'm surprised there wasn't a paid advertisement notice at the end of it.) This, incidentally, reminds me of another gaming company *cough*Ionstormdallas*cough* that had nice posh offices and lots of BS press coverage, and not too long afterwards closed (thank god Eidos kept Ion Storm Austin, though), which is what I am hoping EA will do not too long after this (you can only release boring games for so long before everyone realises they are boring.)
Everyone remembers John Romero, right? The guy had to sell off his Hummer after Daikatana flopped, remember? You want the same thing to happen to those horrible people that decide to publish 100 identical, yet somehow subtly different (can it be the box art?) Sims expansions, don't you?
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
Video games have been made mostly to satisfy gamers of a certain demographic, middle class teenaged boys. We agree that the Sims is a great game. It seems to me that the continued success of Sims games and expansions is that there is a significant number of people out there that just don't care for the incremental innovations in gameplay we call 'FPS' or 'RTS.' Probably the last game before sims to see an even gender balance was Tetris, and that was 10 years ago. The sims was a game style long overdue. Not that EA should focus all its efforts on beating all the money out of the game.
I'd also argue that good game design appeals to a larger audience than the boys who like seeing gibbed corpses. It should scale nicely in difficulty so that casual players can pick it up and have fun, but not bore the obsessed. If by "more thought provoking games" you mean Sim City, Sim City has said all its going to say. Just like every successful game out there, the sequals are incrementally working their way towards a different game. Evolutionary, not revoltionary. If you're gonna bitch, bitch that they're diverting too much money to a single source rather than branching into gameplay concepts I haven't thougt of before, not the same damn game with an extra layer of civil architeture to worry about, please.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
They have a interdisciplinary class which is immensely popular called Building Virtual Worlds. You grab a programmer, a musician, a modeler, and someone to script (rough outline, as tasks move around a bit and aren't very formalized), and make a virtual world. You get to play with neat VR hardware like headsets. In the past, notable efforts have included a Godzilla game with a breath input (a flap in front if your mouth), an Akira game, and so on. Modeling software that's cutting edge research stuff used for fast prototyping and building with some neat UI work is available, since it's produced at the university.
May we never see th
Small OT note on Baldur's Gate (Dark Alliance) for consoles: It is not a port of Baldur's Gate but rather an extremely simplified Diablo-like game (thought not nearly as fun as Diablo) - the only thing Dark Alliance has to do with Baldur's Gate is the title and the D&D setting. Anyone who bought Dark Alliance because they thought it would be anything like the original PC game would have to be very disappointed.
"It's just a weak PC."
"Why would I buy a console if I already have a PC."
"Why do I keep starting/participating in arguments about PC vs. console gaming?" (Yes, this last apparently applies to me as well.)
Here's something that so many people here (and elsewhere) don't get and are often too zealous to acknowledge: Right now, both PC and console gaming have their places.
Can we get better resolution for gaming on the PC? Of course we can. Then again, I would note that there still isn't, for example, a football game on console OR PC that looks as "good" (read realistic) as what I see on good old NTSC television. This tells me that, potentially, 480 (or 500, or 525, depending on the signal, set, etc.) lines of interlaced resolution could be enough. I certainly haven't played any console games where I shook my head and said to myself "this sucks because it's not 1024x768 or higher." -- by the by, it's worth noting here that I own all three current consoles and a competent, though not uber, gaming PC.
Do mouse and keyboard work better in some games than a console controller? Possibly, though I consider this a matter of taste. The only game genre where I see this argument being near-absolute is in the area of RTS games, simply because of the current scale of the battles that go on and the micromanagement required. FPS games, on the other hand, can be played quite well on the current console controllers - most people are just ACCUSTOMED to mouse/keyboard and refuse to consider getting used to, or even trying, any other configuration. It seems relevant to note here as well that one of the reasons FPS fans prefer their mouse and keyboard is that it allows them to control their "avatars" in ways which are fundamentally unrealistic (if a flesh-type human turned as fast as people do in shooters, their neck would snap).
And finally, one of the more common arguments is "I can do so much more with my PC than just games." This is, without a doubt, true. However, you then have to consider what MOST non-industry people need to do on their computer. Word processing, spreadsheets, tax preparation, etc. can all be done quite efficiently on a computer with 10% of the power of current gaming rigs. Given the right operating system, any of us could do our daily work in these areas plus web browsing on a 300-MHz computer (probably even lower) with a 2D graphics card and a PC speaker.
All of these items in my mind conspire to make the PC an endangered species in the world of gaming as consoles continue to improve. Already, the only PC title that can compete with the most popular console titles is The Sims (with its multitude of expansions). Think about it: A game like Halo or GTA3 could potentially have 75% penetration amongst gamers on a particular console - and those are games that have actually generated revenues without the massive PC piracy that goes on which is another factor that I think assures the eventual mostly-dead status of PC gaming.
Bah, I'm as dumb as anyone. I keep feeling baited into these discussions despite the fact that I'm exactly the guy who doesn't care either way...a gamer. :)