Contents
Spanking Death: Ron Gilbert Goes Episodic... And Loves It
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [10]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Spanking Death: Ron Gilbert Goes Episodic... And Loves It
by Chris Remo
9 comments
Share RSS
 
 
June 30, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 5 of 7 Next
 

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.

Advertisement

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.

 
Article Start Previous Page 5 of 7 Next
 
Comments

Dean Gebert
profile image
Coming from the movie industry, I still don't understand why games wants to move into the Hollywood model. It's exclusive, fragmented, and rarely innovative. On top of that, it's financially obese at every step of the supply chain. None of these things are good for consumers. Why do we want to follow this model again?

Tim Carter
profile image
Film is rarely innovative? What planet did you come from? Also if film being "obese" means that the creators get a cut that reflects the fact that they... um... actually created the work (as opposed to the suits and the shareholders getting it all, and the creators getting a mere wage), then I'll take "obese" any day.

Luke Rymarz
profile image
Disregarding the money aspect, Gilbert does make some other interesting points about the movie industry. Clear job titles would be very useful, proper standardization (movie scripts all look the same, why not game design specs?), and more focus on cultivating talent by publishing games that are in the middle ground. As it is now, it seems like you either already have a big studio to make your game, or you build it in the garage as an experiment. Something in between, like a lot of indie movies, does sound like it would bring a lot of talent to the surface.

Philipp Kolhoff
profile image
Comparing the game and movie industry i always like to see episodic games like TV Series because it is so obvious. Episodic games should tell some small stories with recurrent characters and elements and maybe a larger storyline over all episodes of a season. By doing that, the gamer has the chance to get to know his characters in a much deeper way. For example, the game designer has the chance to take a whole episode just to introduce one character. And i think taking the time to slowly build up a story would pay off. At least it does in TV series. Following a Season of Lost or Heroes is by no means less attractive than watchnig a blockbuster movie. It is just different and for some people exactly what they are looking for. So is episodic gaming.

Anonymous
profile image
Concerning his comments about a bunch of people designing something. I think think the disadvantages outweigh any advantages. There always needs to be one person in charge of the final design. For us it seems like its the lead designer but there are too many people above him on the chain that can come in and change things. It might be someone who is remotely attached to the game but they can come in and ruin ideas.

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.

Jeff Zugale
profile image
The movie industry has a distinct advantage over the game industry - they only have one basic "platform" that's been essentially the same for roughly a hundred years, the motion picture camera and photographic motion picture film. Even though the technology has recently changed a great deal with the introduction of digital filmmaking and processing, the basic hardware used to shoot a film is essentially the same, and functions the same way. You have a camera, it has lenses and some kind of recording medium, you have lights and sound recording equipment, and all that other stuff.

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.

Trace o'Connor
profile image
This interview really got me thinking about target audience and how they like to play games -- not just age, gender, and what entertains them short-term. The section on p. 4 talking about Valve, Portal, and "hard core" gamers who like to play to the end really intrigued me. Emailed a link and the topic to a few friends whom I thought would also find this tasty food for thought. Thanks for the inspiration! -- And I'm looking forward to Deathspank!

Tim Carter
profile image
Jeff Zugale, you have it backwards. Film has been a constantly evolving language. Eisenstein wasn't "trained". He was an inventor. The thing in film, though, is that because the technology is more constant the aesthetics and forms can be innovated on. In games, a huge issue is because the foundational technology keeps shifting under us, we can't get down to the business of innovating games.

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.

Steven An
profile image
Total agreement with the "lapsed gamer" market. There have been other names, like mid-core and ex-core gamer, but I can say I'm definitely in this market. I have other responsibilities these days, so I can't dedicate myself as much to games, but I still want to play "full" games. I have no interest in Bejeweled, but no time for Mass Effect either. "Portal" was great for me. Looking forward to "DeathSpank"!


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment