|
This
is always a really potentially dire question, but - what are your thoughts on
the industry as it stands now, and the way everything is going? You're known as
a fairly curmudgeonly guy; you run a blog called Grumpy Gamer. You've also got
your project here set up, and maybe that's a new avenue that's opening up. What
do you think about the industry in general? How's it doing, and where's it
going?
RG: Well I think, generally, the industry
is doing pretty well. I think it's on a really good financial setting, which I
think is really positive. I think that as the industry can make more money, and
be more successful, I think its reach will grow. And I think that, ultimately,
will help indie games, and help games that want to be different.
You know, the movie industry certainly has
its share of space marine movies as well. There are big blockbusters that are
shallow, but they make hundreds of millions of dollars, and I think the movie
industry is pretty good at taking that money and funding a lot of more indie
movies, and smaller movies, and movies for niche audiences. And I think the
game industry needs to move into that model.
There's certainly nothing wrong with Halos and Half-Lifes, and all these other things being out there. But I would
like to see companies like Microsoft, and EA, and all these people take some of
that, and really start to support different levels of titles. And I think if
the industry continues to be financially successful, we will eventually start
to see that; so I think that's actually a very positive thing.
And you know, when I started out in the
industry, it was very, very niche. If you were not a hardcore game player, you
knew nothing about games. But today, pretty much everybody you run into plays
games at some level, and I think that's a very positive thing.
That's
true. And that situation you described with the movie industry, that's an - I
think we actually honestly may have talked about that, like three or four years
ago, when we spoke for a little bit.
RG: Yeah, I think we did.
But
it's something that I still harp on a lot, because I think it's so crucial in
reaching this last group of people, you know, this fairly sizable group of
people who aren't into games, per se; and I think it's finding that medium
between the ultra experimental indie games - which I love - and the big
triple-A, big-budget titles.
I
feel like there's that space in the middle where you can still make reasonably
ambitious, character-based, world-based games, but you aren't necessarily being
held to the profit expectations that a Halo
or a GTA or something is. And I feel
like there should be fertile ground in the middle, and that's where so many
great films come out of, and I feel like games could be the same way.
RG: Yeah. Total, total agreement with that.
I think publishers, I think every single game that they sign, they're looking
for it to be a home run. It's like every time they go to the play, they swing
for the fences. And being able to hit like a single or a double is just beyond
their comprehension, in a way. And I think they have to understand that that's
important.
And I think that Hollywood
does that, for a couple of reasons. I think one of the reasons is Hollywood
sometimes funds these movies because they're cultivating talent. You know, they
can see something in a director, or maybe in some actors, and they can put them
in these films because they want to be able to help grow them.
And this is
another area that I think the game industry is completely blind to; being able
to take talent and give them games that are, you know, going to be profitable,
but they don't have to be home runs, because they really want to cultivate that
talent, and work with them in the future. And I just don't think that happens
very much.
|
You definitely need to give other designers, or level designers, scripters ownership for their part too and the lead designer needs to recognize that. Otherwise team members can get frustrated and you might lose some talent.
Basically I am trying to say its very complicated these days and amazing that situations like I describe ever produce something decent. I think it would be a great idea to have clear definitions of responsibilities and I think the old adventure genre is still ahead of the curve in these respects.
Sergey Eisenstein would not have to re-learn the mechanics of how to shoot a film if he suddenly were reincarnated and put on a brand-new film.
In contrast in games, we're reinventing the platforms and basic tools every 3-5 years, or upgrading them so drastically that the tools themselves wind up re-engineering the way games are made. On top of that, most studios have their own in-house tools and engines, with varying design and user-friendliness.
Sure, there's a bit more standardization happening these days with engines like Unreal and middleware like Bink and Havok, but even with that, there's no "one toolset fits all" solution. Most games require custom programming within the engine, which means the toolset changes, which can mean steep learning curves for the production staff at inconvenient times.
So we can't just go over to Studio Systems and rent 2 Panavisions and 3 Arris, buy 5,000 feet of film stock and "shoot a game" in 3 weeks, then take it over to a post house and cut it together, like filmmakers have been able to do since what, the 1930s? '40s, maybe?
Using their basic standardized toolset, it's still possible for filmmakers to make a *distinctive*, high-quality film. Using a generic game toolset, it's extremely difficult if not impossible for a game studio to make a distinctive game.
We're always going to have a problem to some extent with our constantly-evolving tech and tools.
Take the first-person shooter. Nothing really fundamentally innovative has happened to that genre in years. Why? Too much focus on making it prettier - better graphics. But the fundamental elements - the fact you see out a single-perspective, you move, fire, have a use key, etc - have remained static. Except for minor incremental improvements, the gameplay has remained static.
That's the issue. We can't innovate on the gameplay because everyone thinks it's about tools.
If film people ran the film industry the way game people run games, we wouldn't have Method Acting yet, we wouldn't have New Wave, we wouldn't have Cinema Verite, we wouldn't have Film Noir. We just have a lot of awesome colour 3D cameras, but boring stories and wooden acting.