Slashdot Mirror
The Path to AAA Games
Gamasutra has up a feature discussing an E3 discussion session haunted by some illustrious names in game design. The topic of the panel was The Path to Creating AAA Games. Hosted by Carly Staehlin, the panel featured Matt Firor, Todd Howard, Tetsuya Mizuguchi, Tim Willits, and Will Wright. From the article: "'My biggest failure was Quake 3,' Willits said. 'The game offered perfect multiplayer for hardcore players. In fact, they're still playing it. But the more casual gamers, and other people who actually have money, found playing next to impossible.'"
The first step on that path is to admit you have a problem. Oh, sorry thought you ment "AA Games"...
Quake 3 still stands out in my mind as the ultimate example of why it's a bad idea to develop any game (except possibly a MMORPG) with the hard-core in mind. I remember the consultation phase ID went through while developing it, where they talked to a lot of the "top" hardcore players from Quake and Quake 2 to get their input into game mechanics and map design. I also remember how most of these people then turned around and savaged the game after its release.
There's simply no gain to be had in pitching your product at this market.
First, Compared to the "casual" market (which includes a lot of people who definitely count as gamers, but don't focus on one title or genre exclusively), the number of potential buyers is tiny. They're also extremely vocal, on forums, message boards, IRC and at industry events. This can give the impression that they're a larger group than they are.
Second, this group knows no gratitude. I've never seen a developer go as far as ID did during the Quake 3 development process and I've never seen a developer take such (unwarrented) flak after release for dumbing-down, selling-out, or whatever the term of the day at the time was. Everything about the game was slated; the physics, the maps, even the fact that it had pretty graphics.
Third, this group is insanely conservative in terms of its gaming habits. I was part of the "hardcore" fps gaming scene for a while and one of the most disgusting thing about it was the palpable fear with which the people at the top of the game would approach anything that proposed even mild changes to the game as they knew it. This was extremely noticable every time Counter-Strike approached a new version release. With new iterations of the Quake and Unreal Tournament series, it was even worse. The top players were petrified that any changes to the game might diminish the little tricks they were using to stay on top and force them to adapt or even, god forbid, lose their place and the reputation that went with it. When Quake 3 came out, I remember how terrified a lot of the top Quake/Quake 2 players were of the prospect that they might have to fight to regain their prestige. The result was a lot of trash-talk about the game and a very slow adoption rate.
Finally, this group of players is the most insular and cliquey around. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen newbies in hardcore games (both MMORPGs and fpses) subjected to a barrage of obscenities within moments of connecting. With a primarily online game, a developer is investing a lot of their reputation in the behaviour of their players. What I saw in Quake 3 was a long way from being impressive.
I think it's more about marketing and intended sales than it is about quality these days. My understanding of an "AAA" title is one that takes centre-place on a platform's lineup, is used as a tool for pushing that platform and is expected to (and indeed does) produce vast sales.
Examples of "AAA" titles from the last year would be:
PC: Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Rome: Total War
PS2: GTA San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Metal Gear Solid 3
X-Box: Halo 2, Forza Motorsport, Jade Empire
Gamecube: Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4
You've probably also got a few big cross-platform titles that qualify because they're promoted heavily for other reasons, like the (apparently dismal) Revenge of the Sith tie-in.
The sad truth is that any game that relies on multiplayer is going to have a limited audience.
Take you average RTS game. Don't even try to find a game with strangers - you'll end up dealing with rude, cheating juveniles that think it's fun to join your team to make you lose to their friends.
FPS games are worse. Near the top of some ranking? Expect kiddies on your team to frag you or throw flash grenades in your face... simply so that you'll lose your ranking.
The truth is that multiplayer games depend upon some semblance of good sportsmanship, but are typically diminished by mean-spirited assholes. There's a reason why Spore won't have actual multiplayer functionality - too much concern that someone would just come along and snuff you.
jh
Having recently worked at SCEA, the term is commonly used at Sony to indicate how many copies they sell or intend to sell. If a game sells over a million copies, it is an "A" game. If it sells two million, it's "AA" and so on. With the sales of the latest GTA, Rockstar raised the bar, so now we have "AAAA" games (over four million sold). Granted, as of March 2005, GTA: San Andreas has sold over 12 million.
I've actually had more fun recently with games that aren't AAA titles than I have with the Latest and Greatest. Sure, I loved HL2, but that's basically the only one. La Pucelle and Disgaea have been some of the best games I've played recently, and the three Ratchet & Clank games were excellent. Last year's Chris Sawyer's Locomotion was flawed, but fun. Depending on how you differentiate between the "top tier" and other games, the Silent Hill series might also count. I think these games succeed by worrying more about the game mechanics and storyline than the graphics and "innovations" like physics. Those are basically black holes for money and development time, and I think designers need to remember that more people play chess, go, and checkers/draughts than any video game...
To me, the most interesting tidbits in this article are about women in gaming, and the implication that their influence on design will bring about new styles of gameplay. There's some interesting literature out there about how women play games:
Killing Like a Girl (PDF)
The Norrathian Scrolls: A Study of Everquest (PDF)
I get the impression that this is one area where independent studios really have a chance to innovate. But given how conservative we can be, maybe the larger studios will figure it out first.
___________________________________________
Epidemic Groove - Our casual/action/real-time strategy hybrid about curing a worldwide epidemic by constructing nanomechanical defenses. You know, the usual stuff.
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.