Top Japanese Designers Talk Development Problems

Thanks to GameSpot for their article covering a Tokyo computer graphics festival featuring noted Japanese game creators, as they discussed problems funding and developing innovative videogames. As ex-Sega developer Tetsuya Mizuguchi (also lecturing separately) explained: "The scenario may be good, the characters may be good, and the setting may be good [for a game]. But nobody will allocate 2 billion yen [$15 million, to bankroll development] just because of that. The graphics may turn out to be excellent, but it might be a crappy game." Yuske Naora of Square Enix explained the way that Final Fantasy games are developed, saying they "work from checking out successful examples in the past", but pointing out: "There's some sense of danger among the staff that the way we're heading [in not 'taking risks'], we may only be able to produce Final Fantasy games."

Comments

They don't know how to make games?

[Anonymous Coward]

They pretty much are the people with the money. They want more money. They have lots so they put out products, and we find one we like... they notice, and the consumption begins. Please lets not idolize these videogame companies or their makers. My 10 year old cousin could come up with better ideas and he's dumb as a rock. They hook you and reel you in. Sex and Violence. Lets just take over the internet and claim it our new homeland. Cyber space. No way to control it.. and if you try, we boycott its use all together... like really. Thats the only way to true happines, and a television station dedicated to just Family Guy.

Half life 27

[rhs98]

can't wait for half-life 27 to come out, its gonna be WAY better than Quake 30

i sense a parallel

[h0mer]

Where have we heard this before? I believe it's in that magical place called Hollywood. The problem is, you can't blame the developers for not taking more risks. Look at titles like Rez or Ico. Amazing games, great concepts, yet they didn't sell anything. Sega even discontinued Rez after only 4000 copies were released in the United States (I got one though woo!).

The problem is, the barrier for development on major consoles is very large. I don't think Nintendo will be giving a official devkit to a 2-man studio any time soon. This is where a lot of Hollywood's creativity comes from, from independent movies that get really popular.

Gaming companies will still make innovative games, but the lack of marketing and smaller budgets aren't going anywhere. Games still have a bit farther to go.

Re:i sense a parallel

[pmz]

This is where a lot of Hollywood's creativity comes from, from independent movies that get really popular.

IIRC, Apocalypse Now was basically paid for out of the pockets of the producers and actors. As in any industry, innovation comes from taking a risk. If Square are wise, they would have a tidy bank roll sitting somewhere to absorb the risks that don't pan out while profiting from the risks that do. If eventually they get crushed, then that's how business works (i.e., no hard feelings).

That's one thing I find very faulty with a lot of modern business and politics. Many people are very nostalgiac towards the status quo. Many people are afraid of change. Many people want to pass their responsibilities on to the government. This is the road to stagnation, BTW.

Re:i sense a parallel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure either of those are good examples. I own both of those games. Ico and Rez are truly brilliant games. And they are fun games to play--for about 10 hours and 4 hours respectively. To a lot of consumers, that's not worth 50 dollars.

Re:i sense a parallel

[h0mer]

Square did take a huge risk, it's called Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Just look at how that turned out.

You're completely right though, you need to take risks to come up with something fresh and new. I'd bet that the producers didn't think Matrix was going to be so huge, so that was probably viewed as a risk.

I'm not saying developers shouldn't take risks, that would be ignorant. I'm just saying that they shouldn't throw a ton of money at a project that might end up sucking. Movie studios can afford a bomb here and there, I doubt Capcom/Konami/etc. could take a $5 million loss on a failed project without some consequences.

Just to not be completely negative, let's give Capcom some props for taking a risk on Viewtiful Joe. They're being rewarded for that one.

Re:i sense a parallel

[Saige]

There are still occasional cases of small development teams getting the opportunity to work on games. Jeff Minter is working on Unity for the Gamecube, for example. And while he has the resources of Lionhead behind him, I don't believe there's a large dev team there - mainly him, with support from a few other people. Of course, it remains to be seen if the game goes anywhere - it might turn out just like Ico and Rez above.

I would have bought Rez - or at least tried to - if they had released it for the Gamecube. Perhaps Sega just picked the wrong platform? After all, a game for a console that's already packed with games is going to have a harder time standing out unless it gets hype from all teh gaming magazines.

Re:i sense a parallel

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget the biggest risk ever taken by square. The original final fantasy was a last attempt to make money for square. It was either that game or square bites the big one.

Re:i sense a parallel

[Ondo]

Look at titles like Rez or Ico. Amazing games, great concepts, yet they didn't sell anything.

At least in Ico's case, there's a good reason for that. The game is very short (maybe 10 hours) and has very little replay. It's a great rental, but not really worth $50.

Re:i sense a parallel

[pmz]

The original Final Fantasy was a great game. There was something about it that made it much more engaging and immersive than most of the later Final Fantasies and most other NES RPGs, even Dragon Warrior. (IMO, of course)

Re:i sense a parallel

[Rayonic]

The problem is, the barrier for development on major consoles is very large. I don't think Nintendo will be giving a official devkit to a 2-man studio any time soon. This is where a lot of Hollywood's creativity comes from, from independent movies that get really popular.

This is also why the PC is the best place to go for innovative, independant games. It's an open standard -- anyone with a computer can make a game. All it takes is some effort.

Re:i sense a parallel

[DeadScreenSky]

That is a very good point. I wish it would be acknowledged more in all of the endless "Why was Ico not accepted??? Gamers have no taste!!!" rants popping up on the major gaming sites with increasing frequency. Little replay, too (compared to Rez, say), and I thought it was a lot shorter even then 10 hours (more like 3, IIRC, though I am probably not :D).

$15 million?

[Meat Blaster]

I'd say the problem is not sinking the bulk of the cash into advertising. I played some pretty horrendous games and missed out on some great ones simply because of the degree of advertising and availability.

Nowadays, the Internet theoretically creates a more diverse information channel, but it just seems like there are 1000 recommendations for the same game instead of 50. Most of the sites that promote a low-visibility game are themselves not all that easy to find unless you're looking for them.

I'd rather play the good games, but nobody's making demos these days that you don't have to wait in line for an hour to start downloading. There's something wierd going on when pirated games are more available on the Internet than the demo. I miss the high-quality demo archives at ftp.cdrom.com.

Next Game eh...

[RancidLM]

i can see it now..
"SONIC: Hedgehog OF DEATH.."
Created by Sega Entertainment
And Produced by John Woo

the natural solution

[*weasel]

... don't make innovative games cost $15m to develop.

innovative games, like independent film -should- stay in the background and away from big money publishers whose sole goal is to make games that appeal to established genres.

the film/game metaphor is also appropriate because the current economics of getting a game onto the shelf at Best Buy or Wal Mart are comparable to getting a film on a reel at an AMC or Lowes cineplex. The primary difference being of course - games don't have to be limited in distribution channels.

Should online distribution take off, it's just a matter of word of mouth. the key of course, is online distribution. if you want innovative games to be 'popular' that is. Which personally, i don't think is even necessary for gaming culture to remain healthy.

Lets face it, most of the independent films that are out there don't appeal to all your family or friends like Pirates of the Carribean. They can't. They're edgy and quirky on purpose, whereas Pirates was designed ground-up to appeal to anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean that mass market games or films are less-good, just that they're not innovative by design. If an independent film hits a chord in the hardcore audience, it influences mainstream film.

Similarly, if the hardcore gaming audience downloads an innovative game and talks it up - it will doubtlessly influence mainstream gaming. the shareware days of id pretty much -created- the first person shooter genre through word of mouth. and rise of the triad and wolfenstein were certainly not mainstream. (of course, nothing really was)

but it's simple economics. why -should- publishers take risks on unproven designs? why throw a full budget behind a game that may not appeal to -anyone-? risks should be taken on small scales, and capitalized on when successful.

I mean, innovation and originality isn't vindicated solely by mass appeal, so why demand that?

All you need is an established 'independent' gaming forum and distribution channel. the IGF is good, but it needs to partner with a news/review source that can pay some lip service to more than just the 5 'best' games. combine that with an online distribution mechanism to let these games get purchased for reasonable prices (think $5-10) and lets get on with the game playing.

of course once you do that I think you'll find out what many of us already know. There isn't an independent gaming culture, because there aren't enough independent games. and this is entirely the fault of the current crop of independent developers.

most independent game developers need to realize that they can't compete with carmack and sweeney on glitz. they don't have the budgets or the QA resources to make sure their shader programs work properly on every machine. similarly, independents can never make more maps than ritual or more zones than sony. and they really can't demand top-of-the-line system requirements, as most innovative game enthusiasts aren't hardware enthusiasts. they get what they need to play games, and certainly don't rush out to buy a p4 or gf4 just to play the latest big budget fps.

look at puzzle games: 'independent' is an unnecessary clause because of the extremely broad array of producers. the simplistic scope of such games makes it a fertile genre - precisely because no-one is trying to push the graphics envelope or the 'content' envelope. just as independent films can't show up big studio effects, or number of exotic locations.

Re:the natural solution

[mausmalone]

PaRappa, Mojib Ribbon, Vib Ribbon ... there are plenty other cheaply made innovative games. But... getting a liscence for a console is painfully expensive, as is production and distribution. You have to convince the suits to buy your game if you're gonna make something independently, 'cause you're not gonna make any money off it otherwise.

Re:the natural solution

[*weasel]

This is precisely the problem.
Do independent, innovative games -need- to make any money?
I mean, doubtlessly even mild success in a download environment can manage to sustain a dedicated game maker. and sustenance is about all one can hope for.

But i don't believe consoles will ever be open to independent game makers. the companies demand too much trust between themselves and the developer (to avoid supplying a digital certificate to someone who is only going to release a solder-less hack of their hardware). They're more the big market cineplex - whereas independents need to focus on the PC, which by sales, is more like the art house cinemas. sure they run hits - but they're the only place you'll find independent work.

in short, i think the quest to find money for a 'professional' development of any insanely great new innovative game idea is unlikely to ever succeed, and based on a false premise.

innovation is not tied to commercial success. if you innovate, you -can- create, define and dominate a genre that goes mainstream. but you don't have to have 'EA' on the label, or make piles of money to do so (wolfenstein and triad being modest successes at best) but the odds are even greater that you won't - and overwhelmingly against you being able to offset a $15m budget.

even if one innovative game makes its money back, all it takes is one more to fail, to make the whole concept a business loss to a suit. and like it or not, they run the companies - because they have good business sense. do you really want someone gambling on ideas with the jobs of 100+ employees in the balance?

parappa and other 'innovative' mainstream titles are almost always created due to the track record of the designers behind them. even EA thought 'the Sims' was a bomb waiting to happen, but because it was will wright, they gave him a modest budget. Similarly with games like Pikmin.

And Parappa was not made on the cheap. It was -relatively- cheap, because it didn't require the numerous models and maps of a typical console sports/fps/racer game. It was more puzzle-game-ish in scope. but it got mainstream funding because of Masaya Matsuura.

If you want a big budget to innovate you first have to -prove- yourself. And that means that somewhere along the line, you have to bite the bullet and accept that your first innovative game can not and perhaps should not be a big budget endeavor.

Slightly opposing goals

[LordZardoz]

One of the primary problems with game development is that in most cases, the financial backer of the game and the developer of the game have slightly opposing goals.

The Developer wants to make the best game they possibly can. This improves the developers crediblity, and makes it easier to get backing for future games.

The Developer wants to make the most profitiable game they possibly can. This allows them to back more projects, attract further investment, and insure that they can eat.

The goals do mostly work together, but it can cause problems. Some developers end up spending years developing a game at great expense until the game can not hope to recoup the cost. Other developers try to churn out a quick game to make a quick buck.

Often, only one of the goals is met. Big Game Hunters is a great selling game, but no one will say it is a great game. Capcom tends to come out with one excellent idea every 6 years or so, and then proceeds to make 18 or so games on it (Megaman, Street Fighter, Resident Evil).

The trick is to realize two things.

1) A Bug budget does not guarantee a great game.
2) A great game does not necessarily need to be original, meerly different enough to stand apart.

END COMMUNICATION

Styles

[Anonymous Coward]

First let me just say that its a no brainer when I say that making up an innovative game is not something that you can pull off 'the shelf of unused badass video game ideas.'
Resident Evil 1 was a piece of trash when it first came out on the PS1 (bad graphics even for its time, voice acting that a bunch of 13 year olds coulda outdone, and the same long load times for entering a closet as with a room full of water and sharks.)

Now I think game developers are acceptable for 'recycling' and 'rehashing' the same ideas over and over. What I don't think is acceptable is not -evolving- those same ideas over and over. When Contra Shattered Soldier came out, it was barely changed from the old formula, in fact it was changed in a bad way (only 3 guns and areas which could be run through in 20 seconds?). The Final Fantasy series seems to be doing 'ok' with their changes but for the most part its the same ol "save the world" storyline and the same "leveling up." Sure FFX had the Sphere system but, that was unbalanced and not much to behold (I won't even get into Blitzball).

What I'd like to see is either a seriously gutsy move (Half-Life 2 and Doom 3) or some slow but noticable changes through games (Final Fantasy series). Either way, both people are happy. Developers get to try out new things and producers get to market a tried and true formula while gambling for a little extra with something new.

The biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They fail to mention the biggest problem they have to face: it's tough for the Japs to see out of those squinty little eyes of theirs!

Reduce the cost

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do these games cost so much? There must be inefficiency. Look at the cost of licencing a major title/character. Now invent your own. People used to develop entire *series* of games for less than the cost of the name 'Matrix'* or 'Frodo'*. What about graphics - look at Eve - beautiful graphics, reportedly crap gameplay. Think priorities. Get the gameplay right, layer the graphics on afterwards. It doesn't have to cost a fortune!
* Please note all copyrighted or trademarked names are owned by their respective owners.

Square-Enix

[mausmalone]

"we may only be able to produce Final Fantasy games."

Since when has Square been able to do anything else (with any competence)? Ergheiz? Tobal? Racing Emotion S? They're not game makers, they're a bomb factory.

Re:Square-Enix

[Anonymous Coward]

2 words: Vagrant Story.

Re:Square-Enix

[DeadScreenSky]

To be fair, Einhander was pretty freaking cool. Some awesome shmup boss battles in that game, along with great production values, a cool story, and some pretty good general gameplay (not DoDonPachi or Battle Garegga level, but it does have better boss battles!).

Re:Square-Enix

[ElleyKitten]

Threads of Fate, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story...

Yeah, Square can't make anything good but Final Fantasy! Oh, wait...

A little OT

[DeadScreenSky]

I would actually not be surprised if PaRappa was a little pricey to make. I doubt some of the major talent involved with the music are all that cheap - neither is the designer, right? :D