|
PlayStation 3
The PS3 is the platform that is catching up, and some interesting trends are emerging on it. Let's take a look at the top 10 sales in downloads in 2007 (revealed by Sony at GDC):
1. flOw
2. Mortal Kombat II
3. Tekken 5
4. Pain
5. Warhawk
6. High Velocity Bowling
7. Super Stardust HD
8. Calling All Cars
9. Aquatopia
10. Everyday Shooter
Many of the games in this list can be considered "indie". Does this mean that PS3 owners are more interested in original experiences? I'm not sure if we can claim that. Look at MK II and Tekken 5 up there in the list. If the PS3 would have had 100 more retro games, would this ranking be different? Time will tell.
One thing is for sure: there is less competition in PS3 right now (very few titles released per month), and if you hit it with a successful game there, you can get pretty good exposure. It seems that for now you still need to be individually picked by them as a first-party published indie game to get the most exposure. Also, if there isn't a group set up to take games worldwide, the submission process will be more cumbersome than in other platforms.
One problem that may arise in the future is the fact that Sony doesn't have plans to restrict the number of games they will release every Thursday. You'd better save some money for marketing, then. Offer a demo of the game (Sony encourages it). Use the web, create a blog, be smart in making awareness of your game before you release it.
One potentially good thing about PS3 development right now is that with Sony's development of the Phyre Engine, in theory you won't need a dev kit - as you can test things out on PCs and use the debug kits to test out your game in Sony's hardware.
At $1,200 for each debug kit, it's the cheapest development hardware you can get for a next-generation platform. I'm not that convinced of the "bring your own multiplayer platform" approach, though. If you are a small company, it's one additional component that you have to deal with.
WiiWare
Will Wright said the Wii was the only next-generation console, and he has a point. The platform that is bringing a new group of gamers of all ages may not be the most advanced technologically, but it's the simplest and the easiest to operate.
And with the fact that more than half of the Wii consoles connect to the internet every week, there will be a lot of users who can be potential buyers of WiiWare games.
XGen Studios' WiiWare title Defend Your Castle
As May 12th approaches, and with the launch of WiiWare in Japan a more than a month ago, there is a lot of excitement around this platform. One concern is that WiiWare games won't have trials, and many small studios would feel that's a deal breaker for them (as the trials is what put us on the map when we compete against something like EA's marketing budget).
But if Nintendo is right, and the games sales perform better because of that, then the better for all of us. If it doesn't work they can always backtrack, whereas the other way around would create a huge backlash among their users.
And frankly, the jury is out about what online features will matter the most. Again, this article may make you feel that the Wii can't compete. How many readers keep the mic on while playing on Xbox Live? If you want to regress your mind 10 to 20 years, then sure.
But frankly the most effective communications and leaderboard features in games right now are not available on any next-generation platform -- it's Facebook's. And WiiConnect24 is the closest thing to it.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
You seem to imply that marketing cannot possibly be a source of innovative ideas. I'm an engineer, but I think this is an unhealthy attitude to have. A smart company will have a marketing department that recognizes the importance of innovation for sustaining their business, and they will actively make innovative games a part of the company's portfolio.
Sure, more often than not, marketing will want developers to make "Post-Apocalyptic Shooter 3: A New Gimmick." But if they're smart, they will also promote risky, innovative ideas. These days, with digital distribution, small innovative games can make economic sense.
I guess all I'm saying is, innovative ideas _can_ come from marketing :)
What hurts the most to me are our fellow artists in other art fields. You ask a photographer about art he likes and he or she will gladly give you examples from film, painting, architecture, literature as well as photography. I'm looking forward to the day photographers, film-makers, architects, writers and painters will start looking at games and think about them as an art-form. And I'm pretty sure they would prefer something like Rez over an interactive tutorial.
The point I was making though is told through your second paragraph: there is a lack of a vocabulary, a common vocabulary, with which people from a variety of circles can talk and discuss a game about. And even if there were, this vocabulary may still be very distinct between two or more groups as video games are a multimedia form of ... well, whatever you want to call 'em.
When you ask a player to describe their time and to discuss playing GTA, they will describe it very differently than a designer would; the former describing their experience while the designer would describe the game/game mechanics, use of physics, pacing of missions, etc. This would be distinct again from an artist who would probably describe it through the art (technical and artistic) - texture, building layout, ability to minimize pop-in, etc. Even the way a QA tester plays and views the game is distinctly different than a normal player of the game. The way the QA tester, the designer, and the artist abstract the game are very different. Everyone sees Rez through different colored glasses. This is, perhaps, somewhat a result of the immaturity of video games, the highly technical aspect of it, as well as pure social conventions, and the varied intents among other things. To boot, someone making a game to make a point (a game about Darfur) has different goals and intents and vocabulary than someone making Warcraft 3 - the former may not be all that concerned about actual gameplay while the latter will be very concerned - both will describe what they want differently.
With that in mind, my point was that the sort of vocabulary a psychologist wants to use with a game to deal with in terms of what they want out of it is different than the sort of vocabulary that a game theorist will want. I suppose, then, the ultimate point I'm suggesting is that there first needs to be an internal vocabulary with which we can talk with as other mediums and sciences have (contrast, saturation, pacing, long shot, etc and rules of how to form a good, say, action sequence from other forms) - vocabulary that is shared, common, and accepted no matter who is talking or listening. So when discussing story versus gameplay, however you feel, you can talk about it in concrete and meaningful terms. So that talking about player experience is as meaningful an abstraction to anyone of any game discipline as phat loot.
Once we have that, then we can attempt to merge that vocabulary as developers of games with the vocabulary of other fields. We can have someone talk about why and how a game works and everyone can nods in agreement even if they don't personally like the piece.
She couldn't recreate the experience the previous player had because Rez is a game that you can truly enjoy if you had previous experience playing a shooter.
When I first brought a Wii console to my house, and as most people, she was able to have a really good skill level in Wii Tennis in minutes. She truly enjoyed the game, but she wouldn't qualify it as an artistic experience as the game is based in a popular sport.
More people will be able to talk about games once they truly experience them. If they just watch, they are just simply espectators and they may use the conventions of the audiovisual field to describe what they see, without exploring the concepts of gameplay.
But confusing "innovative" with "independant" leads to false views. Actually:
- not every indie developper wants to make innovative game
- not every "dependant" developer is unable to make innovative game.
If you draw a table exploring the different cases (indy+innov, indy+not(innov), not(indy)+innov, etc..) it's probable that each cell will be filled with many games. A more accurate survey, with real numbers, would be interesting here ;-)
I think independance and innovation are quite different in theory. But only in theory, because lower development cost allows self funding. It would be interesting to study if it is "self funding" (allowing the creative freedom of single author) or "lower cost" (allowing more risk taking), which is the most favouring innovation.
Inversely, big funding can also favor innovation (eg: Nintendo), but it seems quite rare.
It's possible that innovation is actually related to some "skill or culture of innovation", that must be explicitly cultivated, refined and improved within the company.
Interesting studies for academics !! ;-)
I don't see where can I be quoted that innovation can only happen at independent outlets, although I agree it will be an interesting article to look at what makes an innovative environment.
You have to realize too that at some point we have to draw the line. If we consider that every game clone out there made by a 15 year old can be considered an "independent" game then we are putting the independent label to a load of crap.
Try going at Gametunnel and IGSource and JayisGames and count how many games featured there have not tried to be different or innovative in something. That's going to be a small table for sure.
But to your point, we probably need to make a semantic change in my definition, so we are inclusive of those who like to make games just different in themes or stories instead of game mechanics:
"An independent game is above all trying to innovate OR provide a new experience for the player. It is not just filling a publisher's portfolio need. It has not been invented at a marketing department. And it has not been designed by a committee."
Cheers,
Juan