Creative persons expressing themselves for the entertainment of public and betterment of their imaginations?!
Corporate Interference Leads to Bad Games, Says THQ Exec
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I've said this in like every single post about DLC and stuff like that, When you put an Economist or some related trader type of guy as CEO instead of a passionate gamemaker, the result will always be the same.
this always sounds good in THEORY, but in practice it ends up with you ending up with games like they were in the NES days, where you had a bazillion shitty games and maybe one or two gems every once in awhile.
also in practice, you scare the general public with your "artistic vision" so they wont buy your game in favor of purchasing something like "Cash-In of Duty: Black Ops".
also in practice, you scare the general public with your "artistic vision" so they wont buy your game in favor of purchasing something like "Cash-In of Duty: Black Ops".
I don't think he was talking about the long standing idea of concept pitching to the publishing types, just that once developers and the publisher have got down a good idea that'll sell well, let the developers do as damn well with that concept as they can by their own merits and limitations, without mucking about with pointless demonstrations and out of place changes.albino boo said:
While I agree with Bilson, the problem aren't just the "suits". The developers themselves are also partially responsible for such a state of affairs.
The fact is, most developers lack any sort of business know-how and also lack the desire to learn. Yet, in order to run a company at all (let alone a successful one), it is important to keep in touch with market realities and steer development into games that will end up actually selling and turning a profit. Basically, it is important to curtail creativity so it can be focused into what is important. Since most developers lack the ability and willingness to do so, they entrust creative control to people that do...or, as we like to call them, the "suits".
And that is where the problem arises. Since creative control is in the hands of people who are entirely unfamilair with games, they end up making decisions without the challenges of game development in mind, resulting in many rushed and failed projects. But since game developers usually lack the business know-how to keep development focused, such a state of affairs persists. The fact is, if you are a game developer and don't want the "suits" to get in the way, then you have to (in a sense) become a "suit" yourself. If you don't want others to control your creativity, then you have to learn to control it yourself.
The fact is, most developers lack any sort of business know-how and also lack the desire to learn. Yet, in order to run a company at all (let alone a successful one), it is important to keep in touch with market realities and steer development into games that will end up actually selling and turning a profit. Basically, it is important to curtail creativity so it can be focused into what is important. Since most developers lack the ability and willingness to do so, they entrust creative control to people that do...or, as we like to call them, the "suits".
And that is where the problem arises. Since creative control is in the hands of people who are entirely unfamilair with games, they end up making decisions without the challenges of game development in mind, resulting in many rushed and failed projects. But since game developers usually lack the business know-how to keep development focused, such a state of affairs persists. The fact is, if you are a game developer and don't want the "suits" to get in the way, then you have to (in a sense) become a "suit" yourself. If you don't want others to control your creativity, then you have to learn to control it yourself.
This is pretty much the consensus of every game designer or member of the industry I've ever met.
This is why it's the indie side I have in my sights.
This is why it's the indie side I have in my sights.
Its kinda like the Pot calling the Kettle black since he's saying that, but I hope people do something and let developers do more of thier ideas without so much helicopter judgementing.
And that's the problem with your argument, here. Sure, there's the "tried and true" method, but that doesn't work all the time either (see: the decline of Tony Hawk - a series that actually suffered from both problems). Basically, we may know what sells today but what sells tomorrow may be something very different.Tom Phoenix said:
But you are right, it is a give-and-take affair. Still, I think it's one thing to impose creative control on a project ("recent research says this would sell better if we were to change the lead to a space marine") and another to provide outside pressure to complete development (which, when lacking, just leads to Duke Nukem Forever), although the latter is honestly just part of proper management which is solving a problem not unique to game development.
Good old THQ. I fully agree with this movement, I hope it catches on.
There are other benefits too, mainly motivation from the team.
If the team comes up with an awesome idea they all want to do but the publisher tells them it's too risky, the act of denial takes a psychological toll on the team. It's like telling a kid he can't go down the waterslide while your in the damn water park.
There are other benefits too, mainly motivation from the team.
If the team comes up with an awesome idea they all want to do but the publisher tells them it's too risky, the act of denial takes a psychological toll on the team. It's like telling a kid he can't go down the waterslide while your in the damn water park.
Hell yeah! Corporate messes up sooooooooo much stuff it's un-freak'n believeable. Senior Directors want to END every successful book, game, movie, TV show, product, because if you kill it...the people will just have to buy the next new thing. 
THQ is a good company. They make good stuff. If they'll let the artists do their thing, they'll have enough money to figure out the end of life on the planet another day. Leave the 'good' people alone please.
THQ is a good company. They make good stuff. If they'll let the artists do their thing, they'll have enough money to figure out the end of life on the planet another day. Leave the 'good' people alone please.
What else do you think going to happen? Look at the movie industry, how much money is spent on the average dumb Hollywood summer blockbuster versus how much is spent on French art house movie. In the real world risk/reward comes into play, you not going to get any sane person to spend $25 million on game about gay French soldiers because you never going to sell enough to get your money back. When there is no creative control imposed you end up with films like Battlefield Earth and Heaven's Gate. Both those films bankrupted the company that made them and real people lost their jobs.eels05 said:
