Where Have All The Game Gods Gone?
GameDailyBiz's media coverage article examines the absence of newly-minted 'game gods' from modern design. The article stems from PC Gamer's look back on the occasion of their 150th issue. One of the covers they show off is one proclaiming 'the game gods', well-known designers such as Will Wright or John Carmack. Modern game design, often with large teams, would seem to preclude elevating many new designers to such lofty heights. From the article: "Aside from a smattering of recognizable names like Naughty Dog's Jason Rubin and David Jaffe of God of War, renowned developers don't spring to mind like they once did. Even worse, Media Coverage would have trouble recognizing these two 'game celebs' if they showed up wearing matching shirts that said 'I'm with Jason Rubin' and 'I'm with David Jaffe'."
First off, I'd like to say that I think the managing of games has come a long way from the beginning. In the beginning, it seemed like you needed one key inventor/genius player on a team to make a great game. It had to be someone's child. That's what would make great games. Nowadays, people know how to manage a team and have more experience. I think that this would lead the way to great games being made without the need of one star player. A solid team with mediocre people can make a great game.
Try this out, search the web for "creator of doom" and then search for "creator of world of warcraft" or "creator of oblivion." And I think you'll find that one person (John Carmack) is attributed with Doom while the topic isn't even addressed when talking about WoW or Oblivion.
I would also say that we, as consumers, are guilty of buying the same old crap over and over (Madden Football, anyone?). The producers know we'll do this and they cater to our needs with mediocre games. I would wager that today's games are a immensely more complex than games of yore, thus making it nearly impossible for a game to be entirely concieved in one person's head.
There are so many things working against a solo developer to get a game going. Aside from developing licenses for platforms skyrocketing, there are things like console wars that only compound the different platforms they made need to support it for. I know you probably know of a thousand good indie games for the computer, but any for a console? As far as computer games go, the customer base is often very demanding (we're nerds, what would you expect) and I think companies rely on people with specialized skills to put a product out at every step of the way. Is this bad? Not necessarily, there are still good games being produced--just not in the same fashion as before.
Along with the above contributing factors, great game developers today might not seem so great because innovation of years past is much more nostalgic to us. That's right, the same reason that we know Van Gogh & Picasso but can't name one contemporary artist says a lot about how nostalgia rules the art world. I look back on Kubrick's movies and say, "Christ, where have all the good directors gone?" when in reality I'll probably be worshipping Darren Aronofsky after he's dead just as much as Kubrick. Note, that was an example of my opinion--please do not hijack this thread with speculations of who's the better director. Unfortunately, the media won't cover someone until they're dead (Stanislaw Lem, anyone?) or at least that's how the American media seems to work.
Wait until these men age & die (or leave the business) then nostalgia kicks in and they are remembered as a "Game God."
My work here is dung.
So long as Will Wright is around, who needs other Game Gods?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What about Sid Meier?
When all the biggest selling games tend to be licences and/or sports games developed with the intention of making a quick buck rather than being memorable, of course you're not going to remember the people behind it. It's another parallel to hollywood. You may be able to remember who directed Saving private ryan but can you name the director of American Pie 2 without using IMDB? We remember names when a person has specifically crafted a good game and it bears his trademarks. We don't remember mass produced stuff that could've been made by any number of software houses around the globe
Electronic Arts seems to own them now, about 70 % of my games have their logo on which is the scary thing. They bought Maxis, asimulated Westwood Studies which made the best title of the 20th century, Command and Conquer.
Also they were around at an oppertune time when there were HUGE steps being make (Carmack made DEATHMATCH, took mods to the mainstream, put graphics in games that were cool/fast enough to make my mom say "wow" - so many things we take for granted).
Where Have All The Game Gods Gone?
Well, I'm right here. Have you seen me play frozen bubble lately? My friends call me a "God!"
Gears of War creator CliffyB seems to be making a name for himself. Other than that the field seems pretty dry.
Most franchises these days are associated with the developing company. The Price of Persia: Sands of Time trilogy, Jak and Daxter, and even Grand Theft Auto -- everyone knows the companies behind the games but people don't really know the individuals. In the end it's probably a better way for the company to operate.
we associate games with publishing houses, which is just as the pubs intended. That way, when the guy who writes Madden for a living gets uppity and wants a piece of the billions being made off his hard work, he gets replaced. Hell, before too long expect to see most of EA's line up being coded in Malaysian sweatshops (Indian sweatshops cost too much).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The defintion of a 'god' has changed somewhat. With an army of programmers/designers behind games now, it would be more like the creative director than the programmer, assuming they were able to generate a lot of interesting and unique game ideas.
I still think that at any time, however, a genius individual can produce a tetris-like game (i.e. Tetris), and completely either create a new genre, and/or dismantle or change the direction of the gaming world. With so many games on the market, it may be harder to hear that "voice of reason" than in years past.
stuff |
They either drowned in a sea of sequels that didn't quite live up to the original (Carmack) or choked on their own hype (Molyneux).
Yeah, just saw a preview trailer (long) from EA for E3, which had Sims 2: Pets clips, and the Command and Conquer title looked nice. But Spore rules over all!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most established game houses don't give credit to the people who really do the design and the work. Instead, credit goes to the owners, and this helps to make it harder for the really creative people to break away and do their own thing. As one of the more glaring examples, you might note that it's not called 'Soren Johnson's Civilization IV'.
And he gets more credit than most of the people I'm thinking of.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
So someone developed some cheats and patches and "trainers" and the like for RCT. Several people, actually, a variety of things you could do... But Chris Sawyer didn't like people cheating, apparently (never mind that this is a single-player game of a fairly open-ended nature)... so what does he do? There was some code, either in the original game or an expansion pack, that would sit and watch for some obvious signs of cheating (I think the main one was that if you had researched ALL the rides and stalls and such in the game). If it caught you cheating, the game would crash. Intentionally. And not just that! The game would create a secret little data file so that it would crash again, next time you started, whether or not you were trying to cheat this time around. Eventually some people provided a patch, but with the next expansion pack and such things were changed so you would need a DIFFERENT patch, and this time it would check if there, like, weren't enough trees (did you clear the land so you could have your own little sandbox world? HORRORS! You're not allowed to do that!)
Roller Coaster Tycoon was great. Transport Tycoon was a gem as well. But I don't like getting bossed around by the God of my Game. If these multi-programmer teams can realize things like this better, and let people cheat at their single-player games (at least) if they want to cheat, please, why stop them? (Heck, you can cheat until the cows come home in a game like Morrowind/Oblivion or Half-Life (2 or otherwise) by using the console, and the Sims 2 takes codes as well...)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Try searching "Creator of Vanguard" ... you will find Brad McQuaid in the top 5.
Brad has the Vision(TM)(C).
Should hit stores end of this year. Brad originally was a designer for 989 studios (original Everquest) and is now rolling his own MMO. While you are right about Oblivion and Warcraft I think Vanguard is a good example of a "game god" leading the way.
Keita Takahashi - Katamari Damacy
Tetsuya Mizuguchi - Rez, Lumines
Shigeru Miyamoto - Donkey Kong, Mario, Legend of Zelda, Nintendogs...
Masahiro Sakurai - Super Smash Bros, Kirby, Meteos (Produced by Tetsuya Mizuguchi)
Or, rather, anyone in the Sonic Team or Nintendo's HAL, EAD, and Intelligent Systems...
Hey, don't forget George Broussard, producer of Duke Nukem Forever. Now there's a way to make a name for yourself.
Remember, Gods don't have to become Gods by doing happy, fluffy things for the good of humanity. Hades and Aries come to mind along with just about every other act carried out by Hera.
In thousands of years, mythology will cause Broussard to be remembered as the son of and (Chaos and Chronos), combining the powers of eternal time and the nothingness from which all else could have sprung but ultimately was delayed.
What about Sid Meier?
As the TFA points out, the names that have dominated for the last ten years haven't changed; it's speculating on why no-one else has recently joined the pantheon.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Honestly, I think the 80s platforms (C64, Nintendo, et all) had the highest ratio of original addictive games to crap. Nowadays I go through the game store and its almost all crap.
Carmack is far more famous for his code (game engines) than his design work. Infact he is probably the only Engine Codin' (TM) Game God. Romero was the Design Game God at ID.
The lack of Game Gods has nothing to do with a lack of talent. Its an attitude. The difference between a great rock musician and a Rock Star, is attitude.
John Romero had great design talent, but it was his style and attitude that elevated him to a Game God status.
God mode on: IDDQD
I can't believe no one has said this yet.
The answer is quite simple.
Everybody forgot the iddqd code.
There was a time where companies namely EA tried to establish a stardom over the game designers, this period went from 1982-around 1993 or so, since then no new designer names have been pushed although lots of talented designers still live there. But game creation is a team effort, so is game design. The list of game designers still comes from the game design stardom era, although excellent new designers and their teams have pushed excellent new games, they simply have not been brought to fame anymore. (questionable fame anyway, since most buyers dont even know who a Dani Bunten was or a Sid Meyer is)
Chris Taylor of Total Annihilation fame (1998) soon coming back with Supreme Commander, and Will Wright (SimCity, The Sims) with Spore
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
The reason we don't have new superstars is that there just hasn't been time for them to become known. Wright, Carmack, Miyamoto, etc. did not become minor celebrities after releasing their first games, or even after releasing their first hit games. Given time and more titles, the new guys will get just as much attention as the old ones. A great example of this is Hideo Kojima, designer of the Metal Gear solid games. By the time MGS3 had come out (eight years ago), everyone who followed console gaming knew his name. If some of the other hot new devs out there stick with managing hot games, they'll make names for themselves, but it takes more than one or two hits for it to happen.
It used to be that to have a successful game you had to focus on gameplay -- not just pretty graphics and sound. There are some games these days that have good gameplay but years ago when the hardware could only pump out low-res bitmaps and every cycle mattered you truly had to think about how to make the game fun. And in the arcade business you had to make it fun on the first quarter otherwise no more got pumped in.
Eugene Jarvis, Larry DeMar, Ed Logg, Bob Flanagan, Owen Rubin just to name a few.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
If you still have the art files for Transport Tycoon, check out openttd.org. Very fun, with rules expansions, patches, bugfixes, and (yes) cheats.
;)
Many people think it's more fun than Sawyer's own followup Locomotion. And you can't beat the price or the platform availability (Win32, Linux, OS X, MorphOS)..
(just wish there were a Symbian or Palm version
ANYONE can make a game for the PC. Just look at the Barnett College guys and their Indy fan-game.
And here we find a forgotten element in game developers: DEMO VERSIONS. You can always download demo versions for PC games. But demo versions for console games can't be downloaded - you'd have to purchase a game magazine which includes whole CD or DVD with the demo of *ONE* videogame.
No demo versions, no public to impress. No public, no purchases. No purchases, no money.
That, and the fact that most (if not all) console games today depend on specialized 3D engines. Not only you have to make a good game, you have to make a good game with awesome 3D graphics. And guess what, this isn't always available for the "little guy".
In other words, there can't be new "game gods" until better development tools are available for EVEYRONE. And the industry is, again, in the hands of a few rich men.
while i agree with the other people opinion that this lack of gods is mainly due to better team-managment and the fact that no single person plays that big a part in the development of a game as before, i am kind of surprised that the team-leaders responsible for the overall project don't get more credit - for movies, everybody markets the director or the producer of the movie, because that info gives you a rough idea what style or quality that movie will have - but i have rarely seen this in games (Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Will Wright and Ron Gilbert [what happened to him, anyhow?] come to my mind).
but which single person was the 'director' or driving force of e.g. Halo? Command & Conquer? Grim Fandango? Why do those people not get more credit?
Matthew Smith
LOL
Seriously. Look at the by far most dominating MMORPG and who's behind it. Then see how the same devs made the most successful PC RTS series in gaming history. Not to count reinventing the Action RPG genre previously mostly just found in Roguelikes.
How can the article miss this? If there was some "game gods" of today, why shouldn't it be a group of designers that have conquered a major part of the PC game industry today? Other "game gods" can be found in Maxis who made that silly game The Sims I guess no-one heard of.
I think this article cropped up because the author had an easier time seeing yesterday than seeing today. A bit like how it can be easier to identify past historical events than current ones. But believe me, there are VERY influental forces in the game industry today.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Let's see:
Lately, I've been playing: Civ4, Homm5, quake3 (yeah, I still do), and Elder scrolls IV. My wife plays sims 2 and is looking forward to Caesar 4.
How about "Where have all the New Games gone?"
So long as Hideo Kojima is around, who needs other Game Gods?
FIX'd
They're all playing poker now.
Jeff Minter is still going strong.
The question is a very valid one. Where are the modern designers worthy of fame?
But the examples, such as Jaffe and Rubin? Not exactly good examples. While God of War was a great game, it did nothing as innovative as the works of Miyamoto, Mier, Wright, Carmack, Molyneux, etc.
The problem is that the innovations are few and far between, and those that do see retails shelves, well, they were designed by the afformentioned people!
There are still game gods (or Great Implementors, as us oldies like to call them). The problem is, you kids expect a creative new smash hit every week, and it takes years+ to come up with a true stroke of genius. If you look at the cadence of gamers from Crowther and Woods, to Blanc and Lebling, to Roberta Woods and Richard Garriot, Rand Miller, Romero and Carmack, ... you see that the cadence for a new game god is one every 3-6 years. We just had Katamari, so I guess we're still in the ebb of the ebb & flo.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Now there's a title I haven't heard in a long time.
Time to fire up DosEMU. God I loved that game...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It's really because of size and effort involved in doing a "good" game now...look at the origonal games by these developers...
John Carmack - Wolf3D
Will Wright - Sim City
Both "ground breaking" *IDEAS* in their time, and both have what would be considered lack-luster graphics now. The sad fact is that if Sim City or Wolf 3D were released today, they wouldn't be given the time of day. The big companies (Sony, EA, Atari, etc) have pushed us to the point that no one great person could come up with a new breakthough game...
Todays blockbuster games are developed by large teams of programmers, designers, sound artists, voice actors, 3D modelers, etc...
Of course, 2D graphics were much easier to hack together than 3D graphics...2-bit sound was easier to hack together than 16-bit CD quality surround sound...this is just the evolution of the gaming industry. Want to see where it's headed, look at film...we are about where film was back in the 60's...audiences are starting to demand more...story and gameplay have taken a back seat to better graphics and commercial crossovers (RIAA musicians, MPAA voice actors, etc)...
There will occasionaly be a few independent breakthroughs...but in general, these will be a thing of the past.
Where is video gaming's Kevin Smith or Quentin Tarantino? Open source is a good bet, but everyone knows open source are rarely the result of a single person's effort...Flash games show some promise...but just like independent film, fans are going to seek out these developers until they become a commercial success...
EA is a trip. They purchased Westwood. Released C&C Generals. Refused to fix any bugs until the game had been out at least two years. Then announced they were making Tiberium Wars. Of course everything about Tiberium would be changed and it would quickly depart from any of the storyline Westwood had worked with the game community developing that made C&C so popular in the first place. Tiberium isn't even Tiberium anymore? Screw the community we will just ask some guy at MiT to tell us what Tiberium is. Yeah...
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
and what have you done with the real Slashdotter's who don't admit a mistake even under pain of death. Sometimes, I don't either. Thanks.
Can a discussion of game gods really be complete without Bill Budge? Old testament!!
He has been killed by his studio.
We're lacking really "memorable" games. Everyone knows Civilisation. Everyone knows its creator. Everyone knows Leisure Suit Larry. Everyone knows its creator (provided he's old enough). Or think about Populous (ok, if you are close to becoming a fossil).
Who knows the creative head of any EA Sports game? Or the "Lord of the Rings" RTS game?
They're not memorable anymore they're a "line" of games, cookie-cutter style. We arrived at the fast food equivalent of games. Haute cuisine is so 80s.
And when you're cranking out games instead of really "making" them, you don't need good designers. The game design is something that doesn't need a lot of thought put behind. It's more or less set. You go for a genre, the player knows what to expect and you stuff it with a few more or less new features. That's it.
True "gods" that come up with new and exciting ideas are no longer needed. Or even wanted. New designs mean risk. When you come up with something really cool, new and funny, it might bomb because the player doesn't understand just why the game is supposedly so good. With a sequel, there's little you can really f..k up.
Also, the game industry has done something the music industry definitly envies them for: They don't have to pay an overpriced "artist" just because he has a fan group. I'm quite sure 99% of the music today could be done by literally ANYONE. Pop Idol (or whatever that crappy show is called) is maybe the most perfect example for this. And the game industry certainly managed to get this "problem" out of the way: People buy games based on the COMPANY that made it, not the ARTIST or team (in music terms, band).
I bet the music industry is really, really envious.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think I could have just said Hitchcock and that would be enough, but you see where I am going. In software development, there are a very small number of people that are masters of their art. In fact, in any area of human accomplishment, this is true. My area is martial arts, and history has shown the same pattern.
If games continue to be of interest to us, time will find genius in that art.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Kenta Cho yet. This guy has singlehandedly produced some of the purest, fastest, hardest shooters ever. Sure, they're simple, and don't have much in the way of game art. But the games themselves are fantastic.
Download a "1000 NES ROMS" pack (e.g. from a torrent site). Play some of the games. There are a few gems like SMB 3, but any NES collection with any aspiration to completism has tons of completely shit games.
See also somethingawful's ROM pit, dedicated to remembering the crap of yesteryear:
http://www.somethingawful.com/rompit/
Now I've broken your rose tinted spectacles you'll be able to see the sneaky pink elephants better.
I think it's the absence of innovation that's squelched the role of the game god in modern gaming. Look at the guys on the list- they were outstanding because they created their own game genres and made something spectacularly stand out from the competition and in the minds of gamers everywhere. Until a game developer manages to repeat that feat, no new gaming gods will be born. After all, every review of WoW say's its refining the formula rather than trying something new, hence, no gaming gods. Add that to the list of factors.
There are many reasons why you don't see "game gods" being loudly proclaimed anymore. The article does hit some of them, but they seem to have forgotten a few:
1. Burnout ruins many careers.
Will Wright wasn't always a high-flying game designer selling millions. He worked on a shooter-type game back in the day, and the development of that lead him to explore some concepts which lead to the development of the classic SimCity.
Now consider what would happen if Will were a programmer in today's environment. What if he had to sacrifice personal and family life to work 80 hours per week minimum at EA on a sequel of a sequel with no input in the game? Would he have burned out in that environment, left the industry, and turned his creativity full-time to robotics instead?
One of my colleagues described the industry's behavior as "eating their young" and I think that's very accurate. Many of the potential "gaming gods" likely burn out before they get a chance to shine, and many slink into relative obscurity making smaller games that are fun but a lot less headline-grabbing.
2. Expectations are much, much higher.
The article talks about this a bit, in that we have large teams creating these games instead of individuals or small teams. However, the article fails to consider why we have large teams: because expectations are higher.
Now, part of this is the fault of game developers and publishers who have been pushing technical advancement as "innovation" over the past few years. The "next generation" of games have to look pretty in order to prove that they're worth the wait and the cost. Some genres were/are defined almost entirely by technical advancements, such as FPSes, so small teams need not bother competing with the big boys with any hope for success. But, the point remains that the large developers and publishers have invested a lot in the concept that "pretty = quality" for gamers.
Of course, the market is still the one buying the pretty games in preference to the other games, even if it is at the bidding of the marketing of the larger companies. As I've ranted many times before, if the audience were more willing to buy indie games it would change the industry in a radical way and support true innovation. But, people are ignoring potentially great games by great designers because the graphics aren't cutting-edge. This means those great designers don't get the chance to be shown as "game gods" as referenced in the article.
3. Less risk means less notoriety.
With multiple millions of dollars on the line, publishers aren't willing to take risks. Look at what the article dubs the older "game gods", and you'll see they've made games that defined whole genres. Miyamoto's Mario games, Wright's Sim games, Molyneux's god games, etc. They may not have been the first person in the respective genre, but they made a game that shaped how many people think of that category of games.
You don't get that today. Even Will Wright, master game designer, had trouble convincing the EA managers to let him do The Sims and had to work on it covertly within the company. Even a grandmaster like Miyamoto has had his missteps in the past, making games that have went largely unnoticed by the North American market. Publishers are wary about trusting a large budget to the masters, let alone someone up-and-coming that hasn't been proven.
In the end, we get fairly modest games that will make an expected return on investment. We don't see the games that define (or re-define) a genre, because that's too risky. So, we don't really see any games that truly inspire us to label the new creators as "game gods".
4. Games are hit driven.
How many talented bands do you know of that had a smash first CD then followed up with something rather mediocre? Those bands often sink below notice and don
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
Alexander Seropian - Halo
Ingo Ruhnke/grumbel - A lot of open source games