Do Developers Take Their Own Reputations for Granted?

[Saltyk]

So I was looking at the list of games that the Smithsonian will be exhibiting, and I noticed a few things. One, I noticed there are a lot of Zelda games on display. There's five different Zelda games! Two, World of Warcraft will be playable for a few minutes. Good luck with that. And, three, some developers seemed to sweep a whole platform. I'm not talking about Nintendo games sweeping Nintendo systems. That just seems obvious considering the platform.

Take a look at the Sony Playstation list.
Action: Metal Gear Solid
Adventure: Final Fantasy VII
Target (Shooter?): Einhander
Combat/Strategy: Final Fantasy Tactics

Do you notice the trend? Three of those four titles were from Square! There are a few other examples. Blizzard has two games representing DOS/Windows, Daiblo II and Starcraft. Konami has Gradius V and Metal Gear Solid 2 representing the Playstation 2.

So, Escapists, what do you think? Does this show that some developers have those periods of true talent that mark them as such excellent studios that it goes to their heads? Do they become overconfident, believe that they can do no wrong, and create horrors? Do we come to expect too much from them, and anything that is less than perfect or better than previous work is perceived as garbage? Do they shine brightly for a brief moment and then burn out?

Personally, I think it's a combination of all of those. Some developers become overconfident in their products, and lose sight of what made them so good to begin with. Sometimes, we gamers come to expect too much. And others might just lose whatever they had that made them so unique.

Oh, and I'm not saying that all the game listed are the best examples of their genre on their console. Or even good. I was just noticing a trend, and wondering if it shows a greater trend as a whole.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Take a look at the Sony Playstation list.
Action: Metal Gear Solid
Adventure: Final Fantasy VII
Target (Shooter?): Einhander
Combat/Strategy: Final Fantasy VII | FF Tactics, Actually

Ignore... misread... long day at work. made a correction though...

 

[Saltyk]

Take a look at the Sony Playstation list.
Action: Metal Gear Solid
Adventure: Final Fantasy VII
Target (Shooter?): Einhander
Combat/Strategy: Final Fantasy VII | FF Tactics, Actually

Ignore... misread... long day at work. made a correction though...

No problem. But you're right, I did make a mistake there. Sorry, I was writing this while suffering from insomnia. And I had a fairly long day/week at work myself, so I understand.

 

[Sixcess]

I think some developers suffer unfairly from the fact that once they make their masterpiece, we expect every future game to live up to those near impossibly high standards. Yahtzee's critique of Portal 2 is a good example of that - by any normal standard Portal 2 is a great game, but it might seem less so compared to its predecessor.

(Deus Ex: Human Revolution is at risk of taking an absolute beating from the reviewers because of this, regardless of how good it is. I suppose that's the downside of brand recognition.)

In other cases developers owe their success to a formula, and once you've played enough of their games to recognise that formula... well, it's just not the same anymore. The first Final Fantasy game I played was 7, and it was awesome, but neither 8 nor 9 recaptured that sense of the new for me and I lost interest in the series after that. I think Bioware might be suffering from that as well.

Finally, yeah there are some developers that do start phoning it in once they've got a good solid franchise going. Tomb Raider was an amazing game, but in retrospect I can see that they just didn't try hard enough to keep up with the competition - there's really very little innovation shown after the second game, and for a long term fan like myself it's been painful watching the series thrash around trying belatedly to reinvent itself every couple of years.

 

[Argonian alchemist]

*cough* PETER MOLYNEUX!!! *cough*

Is that even how you spell his last name...? Damn French culture...

 

[Saltyk]

I think some developers suffer unfairly from the fact that once they make their masterpiece, we expect every future game to live up to those near impossibly high standards. Yahtzee's critique of Portal 2 is a good example of that - by any normal standard Portal 2 is a great game, but it might seem less so compared to its predecessor.

(Deus Ex: Human Revolution is at risk of taking an absolute beating from the reviewers because of this, regardless of how good it is. I suppose that's the downside of brand recognition.)

In other cases developers owe their success to a formula, and once you've played enough of their games to recognise that formula... well, it's just not the same anymore. The first Final Fantasy game I played was 7, and it was awesome, but neither 8 nor 9 recaptured that sense of the new for me and I lost interest in the series after that. I think Bioware might be suffering from that as well.

Finally, yeah there are some developers that do start phoning it in once they've got a good solid franchise going. Tomb Raider was an amazing game, but in retrospect I can see that they just didn't try hard enough to keep up with the competition - there's really very little innovation shown after the second game, and for a long term fan like myself it's been painful watching the series thrash around trying belatedly to reinvent itself every couple of years.

Portal 2 is a perfect example. I'd almost say they were better off leaving it alone. There is no way that anything could live up to Portal. Because Portal is now basically a deity in terms of video games. Portal 2 could be a arguably better game, but because everyone will compare it to Portal (read: God) it pales in comparison. And didn't Yahtzee basically say that in his review? That if Portal never existed, Portal 2 would be perfect.

Formulas in games are another perfect example. Final Fantasy has to have some form of the Active Time Battle to be a Final Fantasy. That's one of the few things that tie the games together. But constantly playing the same system from 1991 begins to get old and show it's age. Square keeps trying to reinvent the system, but they have very little luck. In FFXII, I found myself watching TV while walking from place to place. This is partly due to Gambits being so easy to use effectively, the lack of control, the sheer numbers of monsters between each area, and the grind. There's a serious problem when I need something to entertain me while I play my video game. In my opinion, they need to rework the system from the ground up. Maybe throw away the ATB system or even go more old school like they did in FFX.

I think most sports games are bad about phoning it in year to year. More often that not, they are little more than a roster update with some tweaks that may or may not strengthen or weaken the game. Also, games in the venue of Dynasty Warriors do very little to innovate or even change their stories.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983]

 

[StriderShinryu]

So, Escapists, what do you think? Does this show that some developers have those periods of true talent that mark them as such excellent studios that it goes to their heads? Do they become overconfident, believe that they can do no wrong, and create horrors? Do we come to expect too much from them, and anything that is less than perfect or better than previous work is perceived as garbage? Do they shine brightly for a brief moment and then burn out?

Interesting question, though I'm not certain it's best to use the Smithsonian poll results as proof of anything. While I agree with many of the choices, you have to bear in mind that it, as is the case with most web based polls, was more a popularity contest than a real judge of quality or artistic merit.

It was also never made clear exactly what sort of criteria should be used to fuel voter choice. Were voters supposed to be choosing the most innovative game? The most artistic game purely in a visual deign sense? Most artistic in terms of actual game content? The best game regardless of it's actual artistic merit? Etc.

As to the question at hand, however, I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. Developers probably do get a little big headed when they receive many accolades, and they also receive more money and time to create.. which can be a double edged sword. As often as more time and money can help developers create a better product it can also lead to attempts at grandiousity that are never fulfilled.

There's also the issue of success often leading to publishing deals. As can often happen, once a developer becomes beholden to a publisher they have to immediately give up some control if their games. Even if the control comes not in the form of content management but in the form of funding and time restraints, it's not a surprise that the quality of a finished game can be compromised.

Either way, I'm glad you mentioned player expectation as well because in this current age that is truly the biggest problem. Gamers are becoming, quite simply, entitled brats. They expect every game to be built not to the desire of the developer but to their own selfish ideas of what should/must be in "their" game. They have the frankly absurd belief that just because they spent $60 and X number of hours on one game that it means they are now calling the shots on everything else that developer creates, especially if it shares a name with the game they did purchase. Instead of viewing their $60 as purchasing a single title, it gets viewed as a $60 down payment on every other title by that development studio.

 

[Vault101]

I actually think a good reputation (and therefore a crazy fanbase)can be a bad thing

Just look at people screaming and raging about Bioware ATM

I think some developers suffer unfairly from the fact that once they make their masterpiece, we expect every future game to live up to those near impossibly high standards. Yahtzee's critique of Portal 2 is a good example of that - by any normal standard Portal 2 is a great game, but it might seem less so compared to its predecessor.

(Deus Ex: Human Revolution is at risk of taking an absolute beating from the reviewers because of this, regardless of how good it is. I suppose that's the downside of brand recognition.)

In other cases developers owe their success to a formula, and once you've played enough of their games to recognise that formula... well, it's just not the same anymore. The first Final Fantasy game I played was 7, and it was awesome, but neither 8 nor 9 recaptured that sense of the new for me and I lost interest in the series after that. I think Bioware might be suffering from that as well.

Finally, yeah there are some developers that do start phoning it in once they've got a good solid franchise going. Tomb Raider was an amazing game, but in retrospect I can see that they just didn't try hard enough to keep up with the competition - there's really very little innovation shown after the second game, and for a long term fan like myself it's been painful watching the series thrash around trying belatedly to reinvent itself every couple of years.

Portal 2 is a perfect example. I'd almost say they were better off leaving it alone. There is no way that anything could live up to Portal. Because Portal is now basically a deity in terms of video games. Portal 2 could be a arguably better game, but because everyone will compare it to Portal (read: God) it pales in comparison. And didn't Yahtzee basically say that in his review? That if Portal never existed, Portal 2 would be perfect.

Formulas in games are another perfect example. Final Fantasy has to have some form of the Active Time Battle to be a Final Fantasy. That's one of the few things that tie the games together. But constantly playing the same system from 1991 begins to get old and show it's age. Square keeps trying to reinvent the system, but they have very little luck. In FFXII, I found myself watching TV while walking from place to place. This is partly due to Gambits being so easy to use effectively, the lack of control, the sheer numbers of monsters between each area, and the grind. There's a serious problem when I need something to entertain me while I play my video game. In my opinion, they need to rework the system from the ground up. Maybe throw away the ATB system or even go more old school like they did in FFX.

I think most sports games are bad about phoning it in year to year. More often that not, they are little more than a roster update with some tweaks that may or may not strengthen or weaken the game. Also, games in the venue of Dynasty Warriors do very little to innovate or even change their stories.

no way, crazy (idiotic) "fans" should not deny the rest of us who actually HAVE some perspective an awsome game like portal 2 (No I havnt played it but hell I dont need to to know its awsome

and to be honest hardly anyone is going "portal 2 sucks" anyway (and I mean not "eh I didnt like it" but "wahhhh it sucks!!!")

I mean take Bioshock, I knew that it couldnt live up to the "omg wow!" factor, and yeah the seaquel was completley redundant but I knew what to expect and it was a thoughly enjoyable game (and NOT a bad game itself) worst case scenario it could just be ignored

and a portal seaquel was VERY legitimate...a new concept...and cliffhanger ending no it was a good thing to expand on that

as for deus ex if its actually good I dont think it will be the ciritcs hating on it (Like DA2...critics didnt hate it) no it will be the fans..I net theres a whole legion of fans just wating to hate on it..(it looks awsome though I cant wait)

bottom line is developers should not be turned off by the wrath of "fandumb" who are usually a minority anyway

 

[Scrustle]

Either way, I'm glad you mentioned player expectation as well because in this current age that is truly the biggest problem. Gamers are becoming, quite simply, entitled brats. They expect every game to be built not to the desire of the developer but to their own selfish ideas of what should/must be in "their" game. They have the frankly absurd belief that just because they spent $60 and X number of hours on one game that it means they are now calling the shots on everything else that developer creates, especially if it shares a name with the game they did purchase. Instead of viewing their $60 as purchasing a single title, it gets viewed as a $60 down payment on every other title by that development studio.

First of all, that paragraph is win.

Secondly, I do think that some studios let success goes to their head. I get the feeling especially some of the large Japanese studios that have been around for a while (e.g. Polyphony and Square Enix) that they aren't really looking around them at the innovation that the medium is making. They seem to come across as having this attitude that they have made great games before, so therefore they don't have to listen to anyone else on how to make games. As a result their games tend to degrade in quality and don't seem to evolve enough. Whenever I play an FF game, or even other JRPGs from big studios, the games always tend to feel outdated to me in terms of design. When they try to innovate and try something new, it always seems a bit half hearted to me. They don't really seem to invest much effort in to it and only seem to be doing it because they feel like they're being made to, when what they would rather do is do what they have always done before.

Although I get a similar feeling that Polyphony have the same kind of attitude, it's led them to go in a different direction. Now although I've not played GT5 myself, I've seen it and have several friends who own it, and read plenty of articles and reviews. And although it doesn't necessarily seem to be a bad game, everyone seems to be saying that the game should be far better than it was for a game that's been in development for 6 years. I mean having the game released where 80%(ish) of the car models in the game were little more than ports from GT4 after 6 years development? That just screams laziness to me. And yes, there were a lot of cars to get through, and yes most (maybe all?) of those low poly count cars have now been updated, but why did it take until after the release for them to do it? If they had a huge amount of time to do it in, and the game was delayed so many times before it came out, AND it didn't take very long for them to fix the problem after the game came out, why was the game released in the state that it was? To me that just says the studio was being lazy and thought it could do what it wanted and still come out with a game that everyone would adore, despite them ignoring all that was going on in that genre since they last brought out a game.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I'm just glad FFT is being shown. It totally deserves it.

On another note, the way people talk about Portal really reminds me of my friend and I's opinions on No More Heroes 1 vs. No More Heroes 2.

 

[Saltyk]

I actually think a good reputation (and therefore a crazy fanbase)can be a bad thing

Just look at people screaming and raging about Bioware ATM

Portal 2 is a perfect example. I'd almost say they were better off leaving it alone. There is no way that anything could live up to Portal. Because Portal is now basically a deity in terms of video games. Portal 2 could be a arguably better game, but because everyone will compare it to Portal (read: God) it pales in comparison. And didn't Yahtzee basically say that in his review? That if Portal never existed, Portal 2 would be perfect.

Formulas in games are another perfect example. Final Fantasy has to have some form of the Active Time Battle to be a Final Fantasy. That's one of the few things that tie the games together. But constantly playing the same system from 1991 begins to get old and show it's age. Square keeps trying to reinvent the system, but they have very little luck. In FFXII, I found myself watching TV while walking from place to place. This is partly due to Gambits being so easy to use effectively, the lack of control, the sheer numbers of monsters between each area, and the grind. There's a serious problem when I need something to entertain me while I play my video game. In my opinion, they need to rework the system from the ground up. Maybe throw away the ATB system or even go more old school like they did in FFX.

I think most sports games are bad about phoning it in year to year. More often that not, they are little more than a roster update with some tweaks that may or may not strengthen or weaken the game. Also, games in the venue of Dynasty Warriors do very little to innovate or even change their stories.

no way, crazy (idiotic) "fans" should not deny the rest of us who actually HAVE some perspective an awsome game like portal 2 (No I havnt played it but hell I dont need to to know its awsome

and to be honest hardly anyone is going "portal 2 sucks" anyway (and I mean not "eh I didnt like it" but "wahhhh it sucks!!!")

I mean take Bioshock, I knew that it couldnt live up to the "omg wow!" factor, and yeah the seaquel was completley redundant but I knew what to expect and it was a thoughly enjoyable game (and NOT a bad game itself) worst case scenario it could just be ignored

and a portal seaquel was VERY legitimate...a new concept...and cliffhanger ending no it was a good thing to expand on that

as for deus ex if its actually good I dont think it will be the ciritcs hating on it (Like DA2...critics didnt hate it) no it will be the fans..I net theres a whole legion of fans just wating to hate on it..(it looks awsome though I cant wait)

bottom line is developers should not be turned off by the wrath of "fandumb" who are usually a minority anyway

I'm sorry. I was writing that late at night/early in the morning. Allow me to clarify. Valve has every right to make Portal 2. In fact, I'm glad they did. I meant that by making it, they were unleashing the rabid fans upon themselves. The ones who will argue that they didn't "get" what made the original so good. That Valve "betrayed" them. No, I haven't seen any of that, yet, but Portal 2 was just an example. You could say that about any game sequel.

As someone pointed out, look at Bioware. So many people seem to be calling their games garbage, but at best people didn't like Dragon Age 2. I can't think of any other games they made that were "worthless". Just look up any thread about Mass Effect 3. "Oh noes! They are gonna streamline the game more!?" People are already calling the game simplified, but they have no idea what is actually going to happen.

And I am personally excited about Deus Ex. It looks really good. I've seen some naysayers that complain because Square is publishing it, but the game looks very good. Count me as one of those that never played the original and don't care. I plan to play this one, and I expect that it will be very good. (Please be good)

So, Escapists, what do you think? Does this show that some developers have those periods of true talent that mark them as such excellent studios that it goes to their heads? Do they become overconfident, believe that they can do no wrong, and create horrors? Do we come to expect too much from them, and anything that is less than perfect or better than previous work is perceived as garbage? Do they shine brightly for a brief moment and then burn out?

Interesting question, though I'm not certain it's best to use the Smithsonian poll results as proof of anything. While I agree with many of the choices, you have to bear in mind that it, as is the case with most web based polls, was more a popularity contest than a real judge of quality or artistic merit.

It was also never made clear exactly what sort of criteria should be used to fuel voter choice. Were voters supposed to be choosing the most innovative game? The most artistic game purely in a visual deign sense? Most artistic in terms of actual game content? The best game regardless of it's actual artistic merit? Etc.

As to the question at hand, however, I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. Developers probably do get a little big headed when they receive many accolades, and they also receive more money and time to create.. which can be a double edged sword. As often as more time and money can help developers create a better product it can also lead to attempts at grandiousity that are never fulfilled.

There's also the issue of success often leading to publishing deals. As can often happen, once a developer becomes beholden to a publisher they have to immediately give up some control if their games. Even if the control comes not in the form of content management but in the form of funding and time restraints, it's not a surprise that the quality of a finished game can be compromised.

Either way, I'm glad you mentioned player expectation as well because in this current age that is truly the biggest problem. Gamers are becoming, quite simply, entitled brats. They expect every game to be built not to the desire of the developer but to their own selfish ideas of what should/must be in "their" game. They have the frankly absurd belief that just because they spent $60 and X number of hours on one game that it means they are now calling the shots on everything else that developer creates, especially if it shares a name with the game they did purchase. Instead of viewing their $60 as purchasing a single title, it gets viewed as a $60 down payment on every other title by that development studio.

Well, the Smithsonian's list of games is what got me thinking about this. It was hard not to look at them as picking the games that defined that genre on that system/era. It was also quite shocking to see a single developer "sweep" a console, and then see next to nothing of them in the later systems. Not even in the genre that they dominated. It led me to ponder this very question. And the fact that it was a popularity contest, kind of lends credence to the argument that it's less developers making bad games and more fans being impossible to please.

Of course, I agree that its a mixed bag. Some developers just lose their edge. Look at Sega. They once made some of the best games out there. The original 2D sonic games were masterpieces. These recent games were buggy, poorly designed, and had characters that were both into bestiality and necrophilia. It's to the point that when I see a game made by Sonic Team that I just shake by head, and put the game aside for something good.

Some games aren't given enough time to truly be completed because a publisher demands a certain release date. Love it or hate it, I think this is a strength of Blizzard. Their release dates are more like general suggestions. They will not release a game that they don't feel is ready. Publishers have a lot of say in what goes on in a game. The best ones, step back, offer some advice/suggestions and give the developers a bit of freedom. They can't let the game lag in development for 10 years, but they can't demand that a game be released in one year (see: movie tie-in games).

And some people just demand too much, or have certain expectations from certain developers, and this ruins the game for them. Some people are just too demanding. They think they are entitled to games, or that games should be what they think they should be. I'd say every big studio suffers from this. From Blizzard (check the WoW boards), to Valve (remember the people crying about LFD2), to Bioware (just about any thread that mentions Bioware).

 

[Vault101]

Everyone say hello to bioware and bethesda whose early success spiraled them into piles of garbage.

you mean games you dont like? theyre games are still excellent quality wise...there is a difference you know?

 

[Vault101]

I actually think a good reputation (and therefore a crazy fanbase)can be a bad thing

Just look at people screaming and raging about Bioware ATM

Portal 2 is a perfect example. I'd almost say they were better off leaving it alone. There is no way that anything could live up to Portal. Because Portal is now basically a deity in terms of video games. Portal 2 could be a arguably better game, but because everyone will compare it to Portal (read: God) it pales in comparison. And didn't Yahtzee basically say that in his review? That if Portal never existed, Portal 2 would be perfect.

Formulas in games are another perfect example. Final Fantasy has to have some form of the Active Time Battle to be a Final Fantasy. That's one of the few things that tie the games together. But constantly playing the same system from 1991 begins to get old and show it's age. Square keeps trying to reinvent the system, but they have very little luck. In FFXII, I found myself watching TV while walking from place to place. This is partly due to Gambits being so easy to use effectively, the lack of control, the sheer numbers of monsters between each area, and the grind. There's a serious problem when I need something to entertain me while I play my video game. In my opinion, they need to rework the system from the ground up. Maybe throw away the ATB system or even go more old school like they did in FFX.

I think most sports games are bad about phoning it in year to year. More often that not, they are little more than a roster update with some tweaks that may or may not strengthen or weaken the game. Also, games in the venue of Dynasty Warriors do very little to innovate or even change their stories.

no way, crazy (idiotic) "fans" should not deny the rest of us who actually HAVE some perspective an awsome game like portal 2 (No I havnt played it but hell I dont need to to know its awsome

and to be honest hardly anyone is going "portal 2 sucks" anyway (and I mean not "eh I didnt like it" but "wahhhh it sucks!!!")

I mean take Bioshock, I knew that it couldnt live up to the "omg wow!" factor, and yeah the seaquel was completley redundant but I knew what to expect and it was a thoughly enjoyable game (and NOT a bad game itself) worst case scenario it could just be ignored

and a portal seaquel was VERY legitimate...a new concept...and cliffhanger ending no it was a good thing to expand on that

as for deus ex if its actually good I dont think it will be the ciritcs hating on it (Like DA2...critics didnt hate it) no it will be the fans..I net theres a whole legion of fans just wating to hate on it..(it looks awsome though I cant wait)

bottom line is developers should not be turned off by the wrath of "fandumb" who are usually a minority anyway

And some people just demand too much, or have certain expectations from certain developers, and this ruins the game for them. Some people are just too demanding. They think they are entitled to games, or that games should be what they think they should be. I'd say every big studio suffers from this. From Blizzard (check the WoW boards), to Valve (remember the people crying about LFD2), to Bioware (just about any thread that mentions Bioware).

I will also add that crazy fans only exist on the internet, thank god they arnt at the game store yelling at you that the game sucks!

 

[AlternatePFG]

Yeah, it happened to BioWare in my opinion. Once they joined up with EA, that's when their games started to be less RPG-like and more action-y. (Granted Dragon Age: Origins already in development at that time) Nothing wrong with those games (Mass Effect 2 was better than the first gameplay wise, no doubt and one of my favorite games last year (if only because of some great characters and their respective missions, and not the stupid, stupid main plot)) but I think the constant praise they get is rather annoying and detrimental.

I enjoyed DA2 but I'm glad there was at least some backlash to it. Most of it was unfounded though, I'll give it that.

 

[Awexsome]

I don't think the dev's take their reputations for granted as much as the fans take the developers' catering to their whims for granted. For some of the biggest and best developers that make critically acclaimed games... you sure as hell couldn't tell from being on their forums.

Ruined this, sold out that, dumbed down here, got lazy there... Never is anything good enough for everyone and by god will people ***** about it.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I don't think the dev's take their reputations for granted as much as the fans take the developers' catering to their whims for granted. For some of the biggest and best developers that make critically acclaimed games... you sure as hell couldn't tell from being on their forums.

Ruined this, sold out that, dumbed down here, got lazy there... Never is anything good enough for everyone and by god will people ***** about it.

Quoted for truth. I can't believe how entitled fandoms get (and, to be fair, I do that too sometimes).

That said, it's not just the good devs that get the annoying fandoms. Seen the Sonic fandom recently? *shudder* Not pretty.

 

[deserteagleeye]

Sonic team...

 

[Micalas]

Of course, just look at the whole DA2 fiasco.

I know I'm not adding much to the topic but I'm typing (?) this on my PS3 and it's a little awkward

It's funny because in some ways, DA2 was better than DA:O.

 

[Micalas]

Of course, just look at the whole DA2 fiasco.

I know I'm not adding much to the topic but I'm typing (?) this on my PS3 and it's a little awkward

It's funny because in some ways, DA2 was better than DA:O.

Indeed, but fans of Bioware seem to demand nothing short of their own personal standard of mind blowingly good.

Oh you're someone who agrees that it wasn't the steaming pile everyone made it out to be? I thought you were one of the haters. I was preparing to pull a Duke Nukem; rip off your head and shit down your neck. I had my knuckles cracked and everything. You're alright. In fact, more that alright because Roy Mustang is a badass.