|
But any kid past a certain age can write prose, you know. There's still a technical barrier, even with the tools now available.
AH: Yeah, but I mean I'm talking about writers, you know? I'm talking about people for whom this is a passion...
MS: Yeah. What he is saying is, the paper and pen is much easier, and accessible as a tool for creating in this medium, than computer stuff.
AH: So what? I mean, that's part of the passion.
MS: That's true. That's true. You have to want it even more.
AH: But a writer's craft, it's like -- don't undersell that. I mean, to be a good writer is a lifetime of suffering, in a way. Yeah, there's the technology, but perhaps their technical hurdle is honing your mind, to be able to express something universal for people, that is going to be timeless, in a sense. That's not necessarily easy. I mean, I've known a lot of writers, a lot of musicians. There's a larger history to both of those media, but...
What I'm saying, actually, is I don't think the major hurdle to making video games is technical. I think that is what everybody will tell you. Even though I know it's damn hard to make a video game, the harder part is being able to get to the essence of what we're trying to make for people.
MS: Yeah, but doesn't it go hand-in-hand? That if you're more comfortable with your tool, it will be easier to shape yourself?
AH: I don't know. Perhaps we all make it too complicated for ourselves. I know that, essentially, I'm still naive about everything to do with video games, and I like that about it. But I do think that sometimes -- and we've known this for ourselves -- that game developers make it harder for themselves than is necessary.
Certainly the games that we're talking about, the BioShocks and the Alan Wakes, the technical hurdles there are tremendous.
MS: It's enormous.
AH: But they've created that shit for themselves. They created the technical hurdle. They're the ones saying that it has to be ultra realistic lighting and normal maps and all this shit, you know? You don't need that. That's something you want! Yeah, okay. You want to see technology go further. But it's not necessary.
To the detriment of the content! That's what I'm saying. They see the technical hurdle as being all-important, to the detriment of the meaning, and the content, that they're trying to express, in my opinion. So, all the money goes toward that, rather than going to good voice actors, or a writer who can write something other than Star Wars, or some copy of some Stephen King novel.
To the detriment of seeing that as your art form -- all of those aesthetic practices as part of the art form, and not just CryEngine 3, or whatever the fuck. That's my naive perspective, actually, is that it's a poor medium, because they pour all the money into all the wrong things, or they see it as about being pouring money into it at all.
What I find very interesting is that I can sense your passion for a medium that you're also tremendously frustrated with.
AH: I do this for a living. What I mean is, I do this full time. We make our projects, we spend months and months iterating, and prototyping, and whatever. I mean, there's been plenty of times where I've said, "I don't want to fucking work with this stuff anymore. I don't want to do it!" [laughs]
But I think all independent developers have those moments because, you know, you don't have that much money, you're spending all your time on something, and seeing little incremental rewards every day. The only real payoff, and the only reward, is at the end, when it's done, and that's when all the joy happens for you. Maybe I'm just moody today. I think I'm just moody today. [laughs]
MS: A lot of passion also comes from, I think, just being an artist. Being an artist is not something that you do. It's something that you are. Whatever we do, is what we are. So, hurt my game, and you're hurting me. [laughs]
AH: I just want to be able to make what we make, and not get the sort of criticism we often get. I want the criticism to be based on things other than "Oh, what you make is not a game," I guess. Or "What you make shouldn't be made. You shouldn't make things like that."
Isn't that easy to blow off that kind of criticism?
MS: No. [laughs]
AH: Not for me. It should be, perhaps. But I think that it's not, because I see it as being a failing of this as a creative medium... to not be able to have deeper criticism, or see a larger picture...
MS: It pains me, not so much personally -- I mean, yeah, it does. But it's an expression of a very deeply ingrained conservatism within gamers.
AH: Right. We've always called it conservatism, and people are like, "How can you say that?" We're like, "Well, because, you..." [laughs]
MS: I mean, it's always like whenever somebody tries to change something, it's like, "You're wrong!" It's like "Violence!" And that is supported by, indeed, narrowing down the niche and making everything more the same. But we also know that this is probably just a bunch of kids anyway, and maybe they don't mean it as extremely as they express it. Actually, we recently received an email apologizing!
AH: An apology. [laughs]
MS: A kid who grew up, and a few years later read his comments, and said, "Oh no. I'm sorry that I said that back then."
AH: Wow, the trolls grow up! How does this happen? [laughs] "I reread what I wrote in 2006 on your blog" -- or whatever it is -- "and I'm really sorry that I said it that way. I've changed my mind since." I'm like, "Whoa."
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I just love their perspective and agree with them. I want MORE. It's there... please, let's take it, let's write it, let's make it. Let's make FPS and RPG's and also all those games that we have been wanting for years.
Every time I imagine a new game, I always try to remember what I wanted as a kid and didn't get. And I see our present and all those things that I wanted to play back then haven't been done yet. I still want to see those games...
About the "bad" criticism they receive... I've been thinking a little about Nintendo. I'm a Nintendo fanboy so I'm very partial to them, but still, I feel like they get a lot of hate because they try to make some changes. And I feel like they got even more hate because they got a successful with something thy weren't supposed to (the Wii and the DS). I remember reading year after year "Nintendo is going down this year for sure" with some kind of ingrained resentment. Like they were angry that Nintendo tried something they didn't like and Nintendo proved that they were wrong about it not being possible and that you could actually make a great console without high-end graphics. And now we see all those articles of people thinking that Nintendo will go puff... finally. And that's talking about a huge company that takes some risks but it's still actually very conservative. So, my point is... there is so much hate and conservatism. Let's hope they grow up as well... it would be good it that happened.
I have 2 mentors with polar opposite opinions.
One believes games are money making machines and you shouldn't reinvent the wheel.
The other believes you should be in the games industry to create something amazing and would be crazy to make a game for money.
Thank you for this article which gives insight into both sides from experienced and informed opinions.
But I think the distinction needs to be made between interaction and interface. Interaction relates to how the player emulates the fictional world in their mind and in a sense affects it and how it affects them. Whereas what they were describing has more to do with interfacing. I think the problem with Heavy Rain is that the interface tries to be used as a literal and explicit aesthetic element. It shouldn't be about how the player presses buttons, it should be about how the player interacts with the world. Because the fictional world that the game aesthetically represents are where the ideas are transmitted and where the key concepts are explored, rather than the mechanical parts of the media itself.
Why design the aesthetic aspects of the interaction at the interface level? When it is approached that way, the aesthetics of interaction are consciously analyzed by the player, which simply drags them out of the experience.
Just love her saying that :)
That said, I respect the style of the article, because it really outlines the importance of narrative in video games.
And when you talk about expressing meaning, they often take that a little bit too literal. [laughs] As in language -- I have an idea, and I tell this idea to you. That's not really what happens in a lot of art. It's often a lot more intuitive, and artists play with the aesthetics. They don't know exactly what this message is."
Wow, Michaël Samyn defined myself! I love art, but I can't create it. I can do gameplay, game mechanics, I can design how the game works, how to challenge the player. But I can't portray art, I can't do a game make you feel anything other than "it's too easy, it's boring", "it's hard but I can win" or "this is impossible, I can't win".
About graphics and technical stuff: I see games have fallen into the "technology" trap, since they have "indulged" (for the lack of a better word) with the ideas of "graphics are everything." It takes but a small visit to Youtube to see how many self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" will argue about games based on which one has the better graphics, or which engine is better, based obviously exclusively on the graphics, since we don't have access to all the game engines out there (I recall an argument some youtubers were having about how the internal use only Frostbite 2 was better than UE3 purely based on the frostbite 2 demo reel DICE showed at E3).
My point here is how developers add too many complications to the technical side of the games (as they said on this interview) but I think this is a part of some sort of vicious circle where you do that because that's what gamers want. You want to pushthe technology, and gamers want tech to be pushed because "that makes games better" (which is completely false). I've experienced that with my just-released indie game SteroidS (developed using UDK), a lot of comments go into "how dated it looks and how it doesn't take advantage of Unreal Engine," this last comment meaning "it doesn't take advantage of the graphic capabilities to make it look as good as Gears of War 3" (little they know I did take advantage of UDK's features, I just happened to take advantage of Unreal Script and Kismet, and that doesn't show in the visuals).
This also relates to how gamers (as well as some developers) make claims on how we desperately need new consoles, while this sometimes can be translated as "we want better graphics." Then come those claims on "how the PC offers a better gaming experience," and the reasoning behind that is basically the latest graphic card can display better graphics than the current generation consoles. In the meantime, there's still a lot that can be tried with devices such as the Kinect to create different kind of experiences. Unfortunately many of those would end up being ignored or would become a part of a "niche" because Modern Warfare 3 looks so much better than *insert fictional very original kinect title here*
About games being able to be a narrative/storytelling medium: We all know the "videogames are art" argument. We can debate whether or not games are an artistic medium or not, what merits do they have (like storytelling). However, how much importance those elements have if games will most of the time be judged based on technical aspects? I for one like the FEAR series a lot (not because they are FPS, as I'm not into FPS, for example I've never played CoD, nor I plan to), but I couldn't help to be very upset when I read this quote on the IGN review: "In terms of aesthetics, F.E.A.R. 3 provides passable graphics that look slightly dated but still get the job done."
You never hear film critics say "In terms of aesthetics, Shutter Island provides passable visuals that look slightly dated but still get the job done." A filmmaker can decide to shoot in black and white and everything is fine because that was an "artistic choice." A game developer decides to use Final Fantasy VII style graphics, gamers and reviewers alike will yell "this looks too obsolete for current standards."
But then the same people start arguing about why games aren't considered art and why Rogert Ebert is wrong when he states videogames are not art.
I for one think developers should start looking into games in a more creative ways and not just focus on make the most photorealistic games possible, and also not just give gamers "the best graphics money can buy" but make them think of games as something different. That's what many indies are doing, but the truth is indies will not change the way the world perceives games.
About the state of the industry in general: I sometimes feel certain gamers (specially the so-called "hardcore gamers") are not into gaming for the love of gamers anymore but because they like top of the line technology, and they can even feel insulted if someone suggests an indie/social/casual game. It turns out that, while "hardcore gamers" should be those that crave for videogames for the love of videogames, they are in reality "big budget games gamers" that want pixel-perfect precision and visual realism (no wonder why CoD 8 sold so many million copies last week, even if it's pretty much the same game as the other 7).
The media doesn't help either, with so much attention given to big budget games because that's what's "hardcore" and smaller games are pretty much ignored. Again, I can talk about this based on my experience with SteroidS, being ignored by many gaming sites because right now MW3 and Skyrim are the only things worth talking about (as well as Minecraft, but for the sole reason that it has a huge user base, as it was completely ignored by the same sites during almost an entire year until it gained momentum... but many brilliant indie games will not get the chance of gaining momentum because they are simply ignored).
I think the clearest example of this could be EpicBattleAxe as they provide "Gaming news and features that cut through the crap..." Visit their site and what you'll see right now is Skyrim, MW3, Uncharted 3... I'd like to know their definition of "crap," maybe low-budget, social, casual, less-known indie games?
I think it's important for people to criticize junk games, junk science, junk food, junk products, junk anything, but I don't think we need to feel frustrated at anything the industry is doing or anything end users are doing. Just keep spreading awareness and eventually there will be a wholesale return to quality and values and honesty. There's growing opportunity to create the equivalent of organic sustainable free range pesticide free high nutrient games and earn a living.
n_Tale_Of_Tales_Dark_Journey.php
I do take issue with some of AH's comments generalizing the industry and what people want to make. It's a huge industry with many people, ma'am. And please, do not judge others for what they want to make either. You're lucky enough to be able to do what you do for a living, so let others do what they do for a living as well. If they want to make COD6 - Post-Modern Warfare, let them. It's less competition for you.