|
Lately, with indie games, there's been a resurgence of that flat-shaded, high-FPS, low-polygon look. Have you noticed this trend at all?
YS: Really? I'm not familiar with that. I do like, though, how DirectX has gotten so easy to use that all sorts of people are making games now.
In the case of this stuff, I think it's people who have a nostalgia for how that looks, who think there's a sort of beauty to its simplicity.
YS: That primitive kind of look makes things easier to grasp, I suppose.
You mentioned that you're doing what you want to do now; is that Shenmue Town, or some other thing?
YS: Well, you could say that Shenmue Town is a step toward what comes next. I still want to make something with more of a fantasy/fantastic flavor. There are a lot of ideas I have in that area.
Do you still do any programming yourself?
YS: I hadn't done any in a while, but I've been going just a little with it just recently, for the first time in 15 years -- mainly simulation and algorithm checking and stuff. It's surprising how easy it is to pick up again.
You did most of your programming before C++ became a big thing, when assembly was still the main language. Do you feel the coding environment has changed much since the old days?
YS: In the past, we had things like assembly, Fortran, Pascal, Forth... We still had a lot of languages to work with, and I worked with all of those at one point or another. I never really had much resistance to learning new languages. I learned BASIC in the very beginning, though, and I still love BASIC as a language.
The latest BASICs, like Visual Basic, have a lot of C-like aspects to them. From my personal standpoint, though, I don't have much need to write final production code any longer; instead I can concentrate on logic and algorithms and other things like that. As a result, I never feel constrained by changes in language.
For a long time, we've had game directors that are seen as "famous," such as yourself. If the name is on a project, people get excited about it. That has always been about big games, and it seems like games are kind of getting smaller and more spread out with Facebook and iPhone games and things like that. Do you think there might be a next generation of directors of that nature, and where might they fit in to the new landscape?
YS: I think there will be a new generation, sure. Lately, the big makers pretty much make nothing but big franchise titles, right? Small companies can't compete with that sort of thing; projects with 4 billion [$50 million] or 6 billion yen [$75 million] budgets competing against those with 300 million yen [$3.7 million] budgets.
However, if you make nothing but these big titles, the game industry's going to falter because of it. So I think it's great that small developers can get into these new platforms and compete on there on a more level basis. It takes up less of their money, and if they get a hit, I think that'll lead to the directors getting attention from the media.
I've been thinking about that because -- everyone plays Angry Birds in the West, but does anyone know the designer of the game?
YS: Well, even at most Japanese companies back then, they told developers that they couldn't put their names into the game in the first place, because they were afraid some other company would headhunt us. So the industry kind of got off on a bad start from the beginning that way, didn't it? I suppose it's just a matter of people going out and publicizing themselves.
Even on a larger scale, a lot of Japanese companies still don't send their employees to GDC because they don't want them to be influenced by other people or talking to other people.
YS: That's one thing about the industry I really don't like at all, yeah. With the music industry, you see the composers and singers show up in the media constantly, after all. Everyone knows the directors and the screenwriters for films, too. Video games have become just as big as both of those industries, and yet there's still this drive to hide things from each other. It makes you realize how shallow the culture of gaming still is. They're all creative fields, right?
How much rein do you have to work on Sega products at the moment -- your old series?
YS: I pretty much have to negotiate with Sega on a one-by-one basis with that sort of thing.
When do you think we can expect to see something -- a new original IP from you and your company?
YS: There are lots of projects in the works, but until I can get a budget for them... [laughs]
The financing is always the hardest part.
YS: But, you know, if one of them becomes a hit, then again, that becomes the step up to the next level. I have a lot of original ideas in the works.
|
Sega showed us that skateboards could actually be used to play games. It gave us glimpses into the future, where our controllers interacted with us as much as we with them. Now their only 'innovative' arcade game in the last few years is a generic on rails shooter with a glasses free 3d screen.
Suzuki used to care, Sega used to care. Nintendo even cared (surprising enough), addressing the massive controller-software evolution discrepancy with the Wii. Noone speaks about controllers, but
Gaming companies dont care about pushing innovation at the risk of financial ruin, even though their expensive marketing and subpar products might bring about just as much financial ruin. They should have pushed into video eyewear and head trackers a long time ago, and our motion controls should be intertial.
But ours is a fashion industry, not a video game industry. Its an industry that idolizes film and literature at the expensive of hard science and engineering. Who will take the mantle next generation, or should we all be making games for Kinect and Razer?
a gaming vest with haptic feedback for only $139.... yet no compatibility with gaming consoles as of yet (launched Nov 2007).
Why is Hollywood Cinema still considered the "Master Medium" when in so many ways games are a superior art form? Don't get me wrong, film is an amazing medium and has it's own special charm and storytelling capabilities native to it's format, just like novels, comic books, music, live theater etc.
I just feel it's a bit foolish, and really shows a lack of faith in the medium that here we are 30 years later and we're still locked in this mindset of making chintzy action movies that can be controlled with a gamepad.
It's like Alan Moore said about comics that try to emulate film; at best they end up being movies that do not move... and I think this observation can apply to games in a lateral manner. As long as we hero-worship and emulate films in development of interactive entertainment, at best they will be movies that move at the pace of the player...
So instead this generation the needed growth had to come from elsewhere which was the large pool of people who do not play games. Because movies are such a universal part of modern culture everyone can get behind the concept of not only watching a movie, but controlling one too, being in the middle of it deciding how things progress.
That is the motivation at the heart of the movement really, and it is also at a heart of a lot of movement in the medium which has moved away from its core competency toward trying to ape the alien and incompatible functions of other mediums, such as cinema.
The cinematography/graphics have become a big part of gaming and the mechanics have taken a back seat or we would have first person shooters with mechanics better then UT2004. UT2004 is pretty much near the pinnacle of first person shooter game mechanics.
Id see the "better mechanics" in mw as a way to act a bit more realistic within its "army" setting, but also a way to slow the pace of the game to an unrealistic level so its more accessible to average gamers.
The UT series is based on things that are concepts from the future.
We wont likely need any guns with iron sights in 50-100 years in the future so its appropriate thinking of future science, not a lack of "better mechanics".
WW2 fps games have shittier mechanics by trying to tie their games to realism, so that naturally constrains the possibilities. The iron sights is not a step forward but a giant step back by catering to gun nut culture of the US.
The reason why FPS games are so popular is because get get those gun luvvin murricans. Most WW2 fanatics wouldn't know a good FPS if it hit them in the face given how much they sheepishly buy military shooters.
As much as i admire the imagination of science fiction, when a video game doesn't make its control scheme sci fi, then its just lost in translation. Thats why i regard Vanquish as more of a Sci Fi game than Halo. You're looking at the surface details, but i'm looking at the actual mechanics. Sting would have us all firing from the hip, but i'd rather the dynamic option of either thank you very much.
Thats the most intresting sentence in the interview to me. Wisdom, it's a good thing.
My question ends up being a bit rhetorical I suppose ;)