|
When you work on a project for a long time, any developer will say
it's easy to lose perspective. Is it just through user testing and feedback
from the press playing early builds? How
do you become sure that you're reaching that quality bar that you've set for
yourself?
NE:
It's certainly a combination of several of the things you've
said. We continually test. We do not take for granted, even if we feel good
about a game, that we're achieving quality, so we look for a tremendous amount
of external validation.
The other thing -- again,
this is kind of an infrastructure EA thing -- is that EA is very self-critical
of the larger picture, so our marketing and sales partners and PR are very,
very honest with the studios about the quality of software.
These are people
that really understand what the market is looking for, what consumers are
looking for, and we take that feedback extremely seriously.
It's a very strong
collaboration of partnerships between the greater marketing and greater
development, that I think is really paying off now. So, we just continually
test. We look at it ourselves. We validate. And when we've got something that
looks like it's really hit the mark like Dead
Space, we really support it.
And we're going to see very
strong marketing programs for our major releases like you saw with Mass Effect and the ad in the NFC Championship
game, which is a two minute ad, and the Superbowl ad for Dante's Inferno. So, I think it's just part and parcel of
this strategy coming together.
Now, who makes those kinds of decisions on those huge ad spends? Is
that primarily something that's vested into your marketing department, or is
that a studio level, something that you also have input into?
NE:
The marketing department is integrated with the studio, so
ultimately, something like the Superbowl ad would be Frank's decision as president
of the games label. Of course, you wouldn't do that in a vacuum. John would be
very and was very involved in that.
Again, that's very
supportive of the initiatives that John's pursuing here, and that I really feel
are working and creating excitement. So it's very much a group of
people that get involved with a decision like that.
I guess what I would say is
that the label and even the studios, because marketing is so completely and
utterly integrated into the process... We start talking about the
marketing program and how we want to expose our products very early on.
It's tied
into how we build products, and when demos are ready, and how they're going to
be ready for trade shows and beyond. It's a very tight process
that has taken years to cultivate and perfect. It seems like we're
really hitting our stride now.

Dead Space
You know, something that's been talked about recently is that the
casual consumers are a little more fickle or a little more hesitant, whereas the
Xbox 360/PS3 consumers are more willing to spend more frequently on
titles. Does that influence the direction that Visceral goes, or is that just a
natural alignment? Is that the foundation of your business?
NE:
It's pretty much the foundation of our business. We're making games
for that customer. We've got divisions, whether it's the mobile group or the Play
label or EA Interactive -- which is sort of an umbrella name for a lot of
different efforts in the more casual area.
Our express purpose is to
make the sort of AAA hits that are just naturally found on 360 and PS3. We also
do some PC work as well. That's not to say that we don't have smaller efforts
under way and direct-to-consumer efforts on XBLA and PSN. But, you know, the
real crux of the studio, and the real effort, is to create these big games that
sort of align more naturally with that kind of gamer.
You just referred to the potentiality of Xbox Live Arcade or PlayStation
Network games. Can you make those work given the overhead of an organization of
Visceral, even just that unit of EA?
NE:
Yeah. We had really, really strong results with Battlefield 1943, which was created in a studio even bigger than
Visceral and had to pay for its share of infrastructure. We've had great
results for that. That is showing the opportunity there.
Just like the packaged
goods space and the big AAA space, it comes down to quality and innovation and
being able to bring something that's interesting to the gamer. But yes,
absolutely. I think we'll have some interesting offerings over this year and
next that show our confidence in the space.
We spoke about how Dante's
Inferno came out of a pitch. The creative director coming off the Simpsons had this concept, it went into
a pitch process and prototyping.
Is there a point when you guys solicit prototypes from around the
studio, or should the more senior creative staff launch into their next project
as they come available?
NE:
It's actually both. What I mean by that is, you have a senior
creative staff, which is usually a creative director, an executive producer, a
senior producer, an art director, head of engineering, director of engineering.
You have that kind of caliber, that will ultimately champion and get behind a
project.
The concept can come from
them or it can come from more of a junior person on the team who has presented
something to them that they get behind and bring to the studio management, which
ultimately greenlights. I've seen both work, and I've also seen licenses that
were presented to the studio that we just felt were right. Simpsons was probably an example of that.
I think going forward,
Visceral feels like we've got a wealth of property, and future ideas and
concepts. And with that said, we'll never stop listening to ideas generated
from anyone inside the studio, from admin to executive producer.
We're always
looking for the next great idea. If we've got enough support that want to build
that game and it feels like it hits the strategy right and is the sort of thing
that we can do to quality, then we'll greenlight it. That's sort of what we're
seeing with Dead Space, Dante's, and
even works that are unannounced for the future.
|
I liked the menu in the demo, it really set a tone for a great adventure, and Dante's story.
However, when I was dropped into the game, I could double jump.
Now, I don't mind that, as long as it's explained.
After I got death's scythe, I could understand that.
But not as a regular man.
I also felt like the first "room" was just that. A "room" where mindless enemies stream out of the buildings in Jerusalem. And then a crappy looking ship crashed into the perfectly square room for no reason.
Another failure of consistency was the part after Dante gets home to see it in ruins, and finds Beatrice dead in the garden/cemetary. That was a really effective -cut scene-. I was ready to chase after her into the woods.
When I was dropped back in, I was in the cemetary like before, but now the Devil May Cry walls of "kill all these baddies" were up, ruining the immediacy and just suspending my disbelief.
Sorry, from what I've seen it's a God of War clone with poor team cohesion.
It does make be sad to say that.
The menu, like I said, gave a really different vibe than the actual game. (I guess I was hoping for something dark and scary, like Demon's Souls.)
As for Visceral's approach, while I agree that any developer should be looking at what's going on in their medium, the phrase "We have a really high respect for the the top ten games in all the categories, especially the action category" gives me pause for thought. Top ten by critical reception or sales performance? And shouldn't an innovative studio be looking beyond the top ten for inspiration?
I would also have liked him to indicate what "strong innovation" Dante's Inferno brings to the table. The only concrete thing he could say about Dante's was that it runs at 60hz. Running at 60fps doesn't mean a game can beat competition. Big Rigs runs at well over 100fps.
What I would like to see is more genuine innovation from Visceral. Dead Space was truly innovative with it's UI and dismemberment, and while these are pretty "safe" chances to take, it is still progress. I struggle to see many parallels between that and their latest title.
The 60 FPS thing is really relevant, though, in this genre, so I understand why he's proud of it. Particularly as it's hard to push through production and get buy-in on, in my understanding.
And I have the same exact reactions to the "top ten" comment. For some reason it didn't stick out at me when he said it, but when I was editing the piece...
Well, I was referring to the "Distinct Vision" that the game clearly lacks.
It's all over the place, you can see the failure for the separate teams to communicate.
I totally get what he's saying about "edgy end of the spectrum" though, because looking at the concept videos early on I was disturbed to see how far a developer would go to establish the extremity of a concept. Clearly, they are exploring the idea of Hell, which has every reason to be the 'edgiest' place for innovation, and the imagery depicts that they've done that well. Game play is a lot more than visual impact though and the visceral side of innovation is when the player starts cold-sweating to a raised heart rate from being suspended in constant anticipation. If players are picking out fourth-wall discrepancies, such as 60FPS and double-jumping, then I'd say the play testers are all too happy to be on the tester credits when an honest rant about GoW fever has gone wanting.
/nod
And I was honestly REALLY trying to get into it.
The whole concept is cool, just the ham fisting that happens more often than not is really pretty bad.