|
Beyond Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks as a
publisher works with other developers, so you don't actually just have two or
three games across six years when dealing with retailers. Do you get a lot of
pitches from prospective studio partners, or do you seek them out?
PH: It's both. It's really just finding folks we think are doing
the kinds of stuff that we want to work with them on. We don't necessarily
focus on genres -- "We need two third-person shooters for 2010." It's
just, "What are you doing and does that fit with the kind of games we like
to make? How are you pushing the boundaries and what kind of new things are you
trying?"
It's getting a sense of how passionate are they about what
they're doing. Do you get a sense that when you're hearing them talk about what
they're doing, that they're genuinely excited?
Because you'd be surprised -- not everybody is like that. I meet
with a lot of developers. I end up getting pulled into a lot of meetings where
there are the guys making it, but it's not their passion.
They're doing it
because it's a project they picked up to pay the bills. But when you meet the
guys where you see the talent and you see the passion, they're the ones I get
excited about working with. I know how much they're driven to succeed and make
a great game.
I talk to a lot of developers, and they're used to going to other
publishers. They'll start coming up with the features for the back of box --
"What about multiplayer? How does that sound?"
I have a very
different approach, which is, "I just need to you sell one copy of the
game. I just need you to sell me on wanting to play it. If you do that, I'll
sell all the other copies. Don't worry about it."
Should we do multiplayer? Well, I don't know. Is it going to be
any good? If it's not, don't bother. I'm not looking for features just so they
can be bullets on a box. Then they say, "Everybody else tells us if it
doesn't have multiplayer, it's not saleable." Well, if it's multiplayer
and it sucks, what is it you're trying to do? What is it you want to be good
at?
Don't worry about ticking off boxes on a feature list. What are
you passionate about? What can you do that'll be great? Get all the other crap
out of the way. Don't add features if it's not core to what you're about.
That's the approach we try and take with our own stuff, and that's the approach
we take with what other people are doing: figure out what you really want to do
and what you can do great, and do that.

2K Games/Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
We make single-player role-playing games. That is not something
where you would inherently say, "Oh, yeah, those guys are just made to be
successful with that genre." But we execute it to a point where people go,
"Shit! Have you played that? Oh, my God."
I believe that philosophy can be applied to any game if it's good
enough, and if the people who are putting together are talented enough.
On that note, it was interesting to see you sign up Splash Damage.
That company also comes out of that early hardcore PC tradition, but the 100%
opposite end of it. It's so far from what Bethesda makes.
PH: Right. I agree with that. But look at those guys and where
they came from. It's a bunch of guys who got their start doing PC mods, and
just grew and kept doing stuff people would notice. Time after time, people
would say, "This is really well done, this is really good."
We took a look at some of the stuff that they're working on and
said, "These guys have that passion. They're crazily fanatical about what
it is they want to do. They'll make it great and move mountains to make it
happen."
You can look at what they're doing, and say, "By God, I
think they can pull it off. We should be talking to them and working with them
on this." And we are.
So they're sticking to the multiplayer thing, then.
PH: Yeah, I don't think we want to get into yet exactly what it is
they're doing, but obviously they've done shooters and they've done
multiplayer. So we're not having them do a Barbie horse-riding game.
Well, you should have them do that.
PH: I pitched them on it, but they were lukewarm. Square peg,
round hole.
|
There's another interesting point about the perception of product age, too. Excellent games from just ten years ago such as Deus Ex, The Longest Journey, or No One Lives Forever - game of the year caliber products or simply products that are excellent but did not get enough mainstream popularity - were not necessarily played by gamers who are now in their early to mid 20s due to their Mature ESRB rating. There are young adults today who have heard about various "awesome" games from the recent past but cannot necessarily find them in order to play them. I think the industry would be well served if companies started a practice of rereleasing various excellent titles every ten years or so. Heck, if we can do this in other media formats, why not games? Of course, it does happen somewhat already, but it would be very helpful for newer generations of adult gamers to always be able to count on rereleases of titles they were unable to experience when they were younger. Besides, it's another way to make money from a product by selling it to a new, now eligible market.
I think he meant to say "disappointed or upset that the game had a hackneyed ending that forced you to be either an unnecessary martyr or a pathetic coward."
He's not talking about the content of the ending he is talking about the ability to continue from that point on. That coupled with the level cap meant that once that point was reached many gamers would say "now what?" and quit playing as opposed to just continuing on with whatever they were doing previously throughout the game. I know I am guilty of this. I purposely didn't beat the game for a long time, but once I had reached that level cap of 20 the motivation to explore new areas kind of diminished.
It wasn't fully the fault of the cap or the ending though for me. It was also that there wasn't much worth finding in the wasteland for me. I was a melee character so all the ammo and guns I was finding really had no use to me yet I picked them up and converted them to bottle caps, even though there was nothing to buy. Even if I had used guns the only thing worth finding would have been bullets and duplicates to repair my weapon. The skill books were the only thing I had to look forward to while searching every nook and cranny of the wasteland, and the occasional bobbleheads. The skill books weren't enough to keep that motivation though because they were such a small impact on my character ability anyway. And the bobbleheads while nice to find were so few and far between. I also forgot to mention that I was motivated by finding quests even at level 20, but once I had gotten every quest trophy I knew there were no more main quest paths to find.
I think either allowing for no level cap somehow or allowing you to gain some kind of alternate exploration XP to get unique perks would have been a good motivating factor for me to continue searching the wasteland past the previously mentioned ending and level cap.
I second that and third it by my self. Support the PS3 users just like the rest of your loyal customers. I still play Oblivion on the PS3. I will play Fallout 3 as long most likely. Are we PS3 owners any less valuable than the 360 owners as a customers? It just seems unfair and unkind.
They really represented themselves poorly to the Playstation community and I can only assume the financial repurcussion of that will be felt longer than if they would've turned down a deal with MS. Myself and several people I know purchased it on the PS3 even though we have high end computers and Xbox 360s, all of us felt cheated. I, for one, will never buy a product from Bethesda again. I can only hope that Obsidian learns from Bethesda's mistakes.