You almost understood my point. Let's start by asking this question:
Why didn't Matt get a publishing deal, while Don did?
Here is what Matt did wrong: 1) The name of his game didn't evoke a strong image in the mind of the publisher, as you said. 2) He tried to explain his game, rather than show it. 3) He failed to stay on track and dominate the conversation. 4) The content he was trying to show was too deep for a pitch situation. 5) Matt failed to show his strongest material first, i.e. his concept art.
Here is what Don did right: 1) He had a good name for his game, as you stated. 2) He showed his game, rather than explain it. 3) His presentation was shallow, and showed usable selling points. The audience could instantly understand what his game was about, even if it was morally reprehensible. 4) His presentation, being a 2-minute movie, didn't allow for interruption, and thus commanded the attention of the audience. It also showed the strength of Don's art team.
How does this correlate to the topic "Why Games Lack Artistry"?
This little morality play's basic message is this: depth is hard to pitch. You can't pitch a 200-page design doc that details a rich storyline and meaningful content. It's also very difficult to sell a game that takes a good while before the player actually feels entertained, as in a novel or movie. Both publishers and customers, when booting up the game, expect to be entertained immediately, and not halfway through the game. In the morality play, Matt makes the fundamental error of thinking that the depth of his design doc and the concept art that design doc inspired was a selling point. Obviously, he was wrong.
So, why do games lack artistry? I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that something as ephemeral as "art" (especially in a story sense, rather than a visual one) isn't an obvious selling point, and it is especially difficult to illustrate before the game is actually done. There aren't a lot of people out there that can command the funds necessary to make an artistic game, and, even if they did, they would be selling to a niche audience, much like art-house movies do now.
The scene: Several businessmen wearing khakis and polo shirts sit around a large conference table. A large screen, ready to show game demos, dominates one side of the room.
Chairman: Ok guys, we're here to decide which games our company, Publisher X, will fund, and which we won't. We don't have a lot of time, Fred over there needs to fly to Japan to give an interview to Famitsu and Joe has a conference call with the Wal-mart guys. Because of this, we're restrained to only seeing each game for about 5 minutes.
Chairman: Our first demo is from the guys at GameDev Studios. Matt, here, will be showing us his game, uh...
Matt: "Hills of Aeden", sir.
Chairman: Tell us about your game, Matt.
Matt pops up a powerpoint slideshow on the big screen, and begins his pitch.
Matt: Hills of Aeden is a third person action-adventure game with rpg influences. Like the Square game, Final Fantasy X...
Fred: Excuse me, Matt, but have you considered changing the name of your game?
Matt: (knocked off balance by the interruption) Um...uh... well, not really. The name is pretty important, as it ties into the answer to the big mystery...
Fred: Because this, "Hills of Eden" thing sounds like a soap opera. Joe, what were the stats on soap opera games?
Joe: (pulling statistics out of his ass) our marketing research says that 7 out of 12 males aged 12 to 27 won't buy soap opera games unless there's nudity involved. However, Wal-Mart and EB refuse to sell games with nudity in them, so they're a no-go.
Fred: Right. That's what I thought. No go on the soap opera name, Matt. How about something with some spark to it. Something that we can use to create a strong IP around. How about something like "Dark Fury", or "Mayhem".
Chairman: Good point, Fred. Matt, we'll need a new name for your game. Now, you've had 3 months of pre-production. What have you got to show us?
Matt: (even further off balance) Well, as I was saying, this is a very story-oriented game, so we hired a professional writer to come in, and together, we've put together a 200 page outline of the game. We've also got together some really good concept art that I think really shows off the style... (furiously clicks through powerpoint slides until he gets to art).
Fred: I like this look, but it seems kinda pretty, to me. Kinda pastel-y.
Chairman: I agree. Pastels are a no go.
Matt: Well, we have some, uh, more bold images, over here. (more slides go by)
Fred: Hey! That looks like that World War 2 game that came out last week. What were the numbers on that game, Joe?
Joe: (more number pulling) NPD has it as the best selling game for last Tuesday in the 21-32 year old bracket, Fred.
Fred: I thought so! You know, we could use another WW2 game in our portfolio. Which battle does your game take place in, Matt? Normandy? Uh, Guam?
Matt: "Hills of Aeden"...
Fred: You mean "Mayhem".
Matt: Right, "Mayhem" doesn't take place during WW2. It's a futuristic game that takes place on another planet where racial tensions between 5 different factions...
Fred: Hmmm... well maybe you can change it to a WW2 game. Those sell pretty well, and we only have two others in development right now.
Chairman: So, Matt, you only have a design doc and some screenshots? No prototype?
Matt: We really wanted the art direction and the story to take precedence...
Chairman: Matt, have you ever heard of John Romero? Daikatana? Designers first?
Matt: Uh...
Chairman: We'll give you our decision later, when you can't actually physically attack us. Thanks for coming by and showing us "Mayhem"!
Fred: Yeah, thanks Matt! Hey, next time, try to focus more on the WW2 aspects of your game.
Matt: Uh...thanks.
Chairman: Ok, guys, next game is called "Police State". Don is here to show us this game.
Don: Hi guys. We've been working hard for the past
In order to make fps games more enjoyable, many engines have the player's run speed faster than a world-class sprinter could achieve, not to mention putting in jumps and obstacles that no normal paintball fanatic could hope to overcome. Many levels, if made in real life, would seem incredibly big, hard to navigate, and slow to get around. Also, lava pits are very hard to maintain, and you can't rocket jump with a paintball gun.
All that's needed now is a backpack named Bagman and a helmet named Helm, and you, too, can wander the wastes of Nu Earth, listening to audiobooks like "A Brave New World" or a favorite mp3, such as "Veteran of the Psychic Wars" while evading the grasp of the Traitor General.
There is no substitute for a good game design doc. In the games that I have been a part of making, the ones with a ill-defined 20 page doc suffered greatly from feature creep, indecision and miscommunication. The hashing out period resembled a firefighting crew cutting down an entire forest to protect one tree.
However, the projects with a good doc, that had a dedicated "vision keeper" (in this case, a game designer) and kept the doc "live" to adapt to the inevitable give and take were and are a great pleasure to work on, and inevitably birthed excellent games.
As for the comment between the difference between a great designer and reasonably competent amateurs, I think this is pretty off-base. Considering the huge amount of details that go into a game, it takes a great game designer to know what is realistic to ask their team to accomplish, what is unrealistic but doable, and what is plain impossible. It takes a great game designer to either write or recognize good story, plot and dialogue, to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the development team, and, most importantly, to have a strong mental grasp of the vision of the game. Although I don't disagree that there are many amateurs out there that have a great amount of creativity, they would be hard pressed to come up with a game that had a minimum of reworking, in-process research and a resistance to the ever-present disolution that a concept suffers under when interpreted by even a minimal team of artists, programmers, mission builders, producers and business people.
Slashdot Mirror
You almost understood my point. Let's start by asking this question:
Why didn't Matt get a publishing deal, while Don did?
Here is what Matt did wrong:
1) The name of his game didn't evoke a strong image in the mind of the publisher, as you said.
2) He tried to explain his game, rather than show it.
3) He failed to stay on track and dominate the conversation.
4) The content he was trying to show was too deep for a pitch situation.
5) Matt failed to show his strongest material first, i.e. his concept art.
Here is what Don did right:
1) He had a good name for his game, as you stated.
2) He showed his game, rather than explain it.
3) His presentation was shallow, and showed usable selling points. The audience could instantly understand what his game was about, even if it was morally reprehensible.
4) His presentation, being a 2-minute movie, didn't allow for interruption, and thus commanded the attention of the audience. It also showed the strength of Don's art team.
How does this correlate to the topic "Why Games Lack Artistry"?
This little morality play's basic message is this: depth is hard to pitch. You can't pitch a 200-page design doc that details a rich storyline and meaningful content. It's also very difficult to sell a game that takes a good while before the player actually feels entertained, as in a novel or movie. Both publishers and customers, when booting up the game, expect to be entertained immediately, and not halfway through the game. In the morality play, Matt makes the fundamental error of thinking that the depth of his design doc and the concept art that design doc inspired was a selling point. Obviously, he was wrong.
So, why do games lack artistry? I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that something as ephemeral as "art" (especially in a story sense, rather than a visual one) isn't an obvious selling point, and it is especially difficult to illustrate before the game is actually done. There aren't a lot of people out there that can command the funds necessary to make an artistic game, and, even if they did, they would be selling to a niche audience, much like art-house movies do now.
The pitch meeting: a play in one act.
The scene: Several businessmen wearing khakis and polo shirts sit around a large conference table. A large screen, ready to show game demos, dominates one side of the room.
Chairman: Ok guys, we're here to decide which games our company, Publisher X, will fund, and which we won't. We don't have a lot of time, Fred over there needs to fly to Japan to give an interview to Famitsu and Joe has a conference call with the Wal-mart guys. Because of this, we're restrained to only seeing each game for about 5 minutes.
Chairman: Our first demo is from the guys at GameDev Studios. Matt, here, will be showing us his game, uh...
Matt: "Hills of Aeden", sir.
Chairman: Tell us about your game, Matt.
Matt pops up a powerpoint slideshow on the big screen, and begins his pitch.
Matt: Hills of Aeden is a third person action-adventure game with rpg influences. Like the Square game, Final Fantasy X...
Fred: Excuse me, Matt, but have you considered changing the name of your game?
Matt: (knocked off balance by the interruption) Um...uh... well, not really. The name is pretty important, as it ties into the answer to the big mystery...
Fred: Because this, "Hills of Eden" thing sounds like a soap opera. Joe, what were the stats on soap opera games?
Joe: (pulling statistics out of his ass) our marketing research says that 7 out of 12 males aged 12 to 27 won't buy soap opera games unless there's nudity involved. However, Wal-Mart and EB refuse to sell games with nudity in them, so they're a no-go.
Fred: Right. That's what I thought. No go on the soap opera name, Matt. How about something with some spark to it. Something that we can use to create a strong IP around. How about something like "Dark Fury", or "Mayhem".
Chairman: Good point, Fred. Matt, we'll need a new name for your game. Now, you've had 3 months of pre-production. What have you got to show us?
Matt: (even further off balance) Well, as I was saying, this is a very story-oriented game, so we hired a professional writer to come in, and together, we've put together a 200 page outline of the game. We've also got together some really good concept art that I think really shows off the style... (furiously clicks through powerpoint slides until he gets to art).
Fred: I like this look, but it seems kinda pretty, to me. Kinda pastel-y.
Chairman: I agree. Pastels are a no go.
Matt: Well, we have some, uh, more bold images, over here. (more slides go by)
Fred: Hey! That looks like that World War 2 game that came out last week. What were the numbers on that game, Joe?
Joe: (more number pulling) NPD has it as the best selling game for last Tuesday in the 21-32 year old bracket, Fred.
Fred: I thought so! You know, we could use another WW2 game in our portfolio. Which battle does your game take place in, Matt? Normandy? Uh, Guam?
Matt: "Hills of Aeden"...
Fred: You mean "Mayhem".
Matt: Right, "Mayhem" doesn't take place during WW2. It's a futuristic game that takes place on another planet where racial tensions between 5 different factions...
Fred: Hmmm... well maybe you can change it to a WW2 game. Those sell pretty well, and we only have two others in development right now.
Chairman: So, Matt, you only have a design doc and some screenshots? No prototype?
Matt: We really wanted the art direction and the story to take precedence...
Chairman: Matt, have you ever heard of John Romero? Daikatana? Designers first?
Matt: Uh...
Chairman: We'll give you our decision later, when you can't actually physically attack us. Thanks for coming by and showing us "Mayhem"!
Fred: Yeah, thanks Matt! Hey, next time, try to focus more on the WW2 aspects of your game.
Matt: Uh...thanks.
Chairman: Ok, guys, next game is called "Police State". Don is here to show us this game.
Don: Hi guys. We've been working hard for the past
In order to make fps games more enjoyable, many engines have the player's run speed faster than a world-class sprinter could achieve, not to mention putting in jumps and obstacles that no normal paintball fanatic could hope to overcome. Many levels, if made in real life, would seem incredibly big, hard to navigate, and slow to get around. Also, lava pits are very hard to maintain, and you can't rocket jump with a paintball gun.
All that's needed now is a backpack named Bagman and a helmet named Helm, and you, too, can wander the wastes of Nu Earth, listening to audiobooks like "A Brave New World" or a favorite mp3, such as "Veteran of the Psychic Wars" while evading the grasp of the Traitor General.
Looks like Trolls are the leading cause of "anxieties", "anger" and "aggression" from where I'm sitting.
There is no substitute for a good game design doc. In the games that I have been a part of making, the ones with a ill-defined 20 page doc suffered greatly from feature creep, indecision and miscommunication. The hashing out period resembled a firefighting crew cutting down an entire forest to protect one tree.
However, the projects with a good doc, that had a dedicated "vision keeper" (in this case, a game designer) and kept the doc "live" to adapt to the inevitable give and take were and are a great pleasure to work on, and inevitably birthed excellent games.
As for the comment between the difference between a great designer and reasonably competent amateurs, I think this is pretty off-base. Considering the huge amount of details that go into a game, it takes a great game designer to know what is realistic to ask their team to accomplish, what is unrealistic but doable, and what is plain impossible. It takes a great game designer to either write or recognize good story, plot and dialogue, to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the development team, and, most importantly, to have a strong mental grasp of the vision of the game. Although I don't disagree that there are many amateurs out there that have a great amount of creativity, they would be hard pressed to come up with a game that had a minimum of reworking, in-process research and a resistance to the ever-present disolution that a concept suffers under when interpreted by even a minimal team of artists, programmers, mission builders, producers and business people.