|
What's your sense of what it's like in the market now, not only for
being an independent developer, which I know can be challenging, but also one
that's pretty focused on one genre of games?
FU: Well, I think the thing
is focusing on a genre is a good thing, because I think it's a problem if you're
a generic game developer. Like, you're on no one's list. If you're on someone's
list, at least, like, "Hey, we want to make an RPG. Who are we going to
call?"
Yeah, you know you're on that list.
FU: I know I'm on that
list. And so, I think that aspect makes it better. I think the other aspect of
it, and I think you even wrote some of our troubles... (laughs)
I think the hard thing is
that when a company externally gives another company 15 to 20 million dollars
to make a game, the risk is so large that I think everyone has a hard time
keeping their wits about them.
I am the person who will
never blame publishers for everything. I think it's a joint thing. It's so easy
to lose a lot of money just by blinking, when you have 60 to 70 people working
on a team. I think that aspect of game development, for an independent game
developer, when you tie that to the economy and when you tie that to publishers
being scared -- and I'm not saying "risk-averse" -- about these
investments...
A lot of relationship and
communication and a lot of stuff that the industry has never had to deal with
have really become big challenges. And I think my reaction to that in a lot of
ways is that -- and this going to sound... not bad, but I don't mean it as
horrible as it's going to sound -- to look at it as if we're contractors.
It doesn't mean that we're
not creative, and it's not that we're not amazing at what we do, it's that at
the end of the day, we're a contractor, and so we have to run our businesses
that way. And we have to run our businesses in a way that, "Yes, we have a
relationship with our publishers. But at the end of the day, we have to protect
our business." I want to keep on making games. I don't want to close the
doors tomorrow.
You want to make Sega happy, for instance, at the moment, but
ultimately, your job is making Obsidian work.
FU: Right. If I make Sega
happy, or whatever publisher happy at the expense of my company, well great,
they're happy, and then I go out of business. What's that good for anybody? And
that's a hypothetical, of course.
But that's a great way to
look at it. And I think that before these budgets got to the 10, 15, 20 million
dollar range, mistakes could get swallowed up easier. Like, "Ah, throw
another million dollars at the game, whatever," You know what I mean? The
accountants don't even care.
But throw another six
million dollars at the game? Well, how many units do we have to recoup? What do
we all feel about this? It was like easy three, five, six years ago when
publishers came in and would say, "You know, we don't like that interface.
We'd like you to change it." Well, we could almost absorb that within what
was going on, and we wouldn't have to do anything.
My mistake, as the guy
running a business, has been that the publisher will come in -- the interface
is perfectly fine. Yeah, we can talk about little tweaks and all that kind of
stuff. And now we get into these kind of complicated, subjective things. "Okay,
you want to change it entirely. Well, we've already made one. If you'd like
another one, well that's going to be $300,000."
The problem is that the
industry hasn't gone through that process before in which, "It's not my
job to absorb it. This is a work for hire. I'm the guy putting in your pool."
That sounds like I don't care about games -- I love making games.
No, it seems like you care, but you care about your budget; you care
about your company.
FU: Right, because I don't
want to go out of business. And that's really where independent developers have
to go. Independent developers have to go to the point where, either you're making
games that have no risk -- there are games out there like that --
Like a movie license, maybe?
FU: A movie license, or a
sequel where you're reusing the technology, like KOTOR II for us. Not a lot of risk because we get in and we did
well at it.
But when there are these
projects that have risk, you have to manage it like a business.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
And it's a huge pile of crap.
Why is it that the RPG can be raped liked this? What other genre have the media allowed to be 'any damn thing you want it to be'?! How can RPG be a genre when so many other genres can be fit into it and it's still called an RPG?
Let's get things straight: Diablo is a hack'n'slash RPG, Planescape Torment is an RPG, Fallout 3 is an RPG, but Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Alpha Protocol are NOT RPG's - they are 'action-adventures'!!!!
What makes an RPG is character stats. Are you able to choose stats for the character you are going to play,and then have game options that take that character into account? Planescape and Fallout 3 are the only titles that fall into that category.
If having a inventory for weapons and armour and a conversation system means it's an RPG, then Crysis and STALKER and Far Cry 2 are all RPG's! In fact every 'shooter' released in the future will be able to be called an RPG!
It's funny how, when you look at what developers were saying about their RPG's like KOTOR and Baldur's Gate, they were pointing out that same things as I have above, to show their titles were proper RPG's!
Your final paragraph therefore, is a total cop-out, and will, just like Flight Sims and Adventures before will help kill the hardcore RPG market.
Gamers want REAL RPG's. It's why Oblivion and Fallout 3 have sold in the numbers they have, it's why the Fallout compilation of Fallout 1,2 and Tactics re-appeared in the charts last month, it's why The Witcher has sold twice as many copies as Mass Effect on PC!
Alpha Protocol is a game with all genre for all gamers, but it's stats are based around NPC attitudes and weapon and tech stats. There will be little in the way of character stats or gameplay that takes account of that, it will go the way of most 'games written for all genres', in that it will appeal to no gamers and sell very few copies.
There's no dispute that Mass Effect sold well, especially on console. But a conversation engine tied to a third person linear tactical shooter engine does not make an RPG. AN RPG has you able to create a character through stats and then have a gameworld that reacts to those stats. Ie., as a strong fighter you have a front door with guards to go through, as a stealthy type character there is a back door to sneak into. In Mass Effect everything led to that linear third person shooter quest. That is not an RPG, lite or otherwise.