Warren SpectorWarren Spector's four-part series on the current state and the future of gaming continues, looking at the challenges next-generation hardware and internationalization bring.
Issue 39 - Gaming at the Margins, Part 3
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Munir
Just wanted to say I'm enjoying the articles so far a lot. Glad these things are being brought up at high enough levels to actually have an effect.
I'm not so hot on how business models and harware issues affect the industry, but I'd like to think I know good content when I see it. I always feel, especially having bought a 360, that I'm being missed out as a target demographic/audience. I'd say I enjoy the popular games, but I'm not exactly your default gamer (whatever that is!). So there has only rarely been a game that has hit the sweet spot for me. (The last game I truly enjoyed was GT Legends by SimBin last year which satisfied my sim racing needs to the max!)
It seems some devs think reaching the 'mainstream' is done by trying to target every audience in one game. So a game has to appeal to non-gamers and the hardcore alike, men and women, young and old, people from all kinds of different backgrounds, which inevitably compromises itself in all these aspects. Every so often there maybe a genius of a game which does have widespread appeal, but the only sure way to reach a mainstream audience is to make tonnes of different games catering to different groups of gamers individually and creating diversity that way. There are so many tastes and interests out there amongs gamers, many that just don't go together. Trying to make one game for everyone doesn't work. Focusing on one and making it the best ever game in that niche area does. It may not make as much money as the next Rainbow Six game for example, but it goes a long way to improve the diversity and health of the industry.
Maybe I wouldn't buy a musical game over a shooter, but I'd be reassured that one does exist and someone somewhere is enjoying it. Then maybe at some point I'd get a game that hit the sweet spot for me and others like me, instead of a compromised game that was made for me and some other guy who I have nothing in common with!
Just wanted to say I'm enjoying the articles so far a lot. Glad these things are being brought up at high enough levels to actually have an effect.
I'm not so hot on how business models and harware issues affect the industry, but I'd like to think I know good content when I see it. I always feel, especially having bought a 360, that I'm being missed out as a target demographic/audience. I'd say I enjoy the popular games, but I'm not exactly your default gamer (whatever that is!). So there has only rarely been a game that has hit the sweet spot for me. (The last game I truly enjoyed was GT Legends by SimBin last year which satisfied my sim racing needs to the max!)
It seems some devs think reaching the 'mainstream' is done by trying to target every audience in one game. So a game has to appeal to non-gamers and the hardcore alike, men and women, young and old, people from all kinds of different backgrounds, which inevitably compromises itself in all these aspects. Every so often there maybe a genius of a game which does have widespread appeal, but the only sure way to reach a mainstream audience is to make tonnes of different games catering to different groups of gamers individually and creating diversity that way. There are so many tastes and interests out there amongs gamers, many that just don't go together. Trying to make one game for everyone doesn't work. Focusing on one and making it the best ever game in that niche area does. It may not make as much money as the next Rainbow Six game for example, but it goes a long way to improve the diversity and health of the industry.
Maybe I wouldn't buy a musical game over a shooter, but I'd be reassured that one does exist and someone somewhere is enjoying it. Then maybe at some point I'd get a game that hit the sweet spot for me and others like me, instead of a compromised game that was made for me and some other guy who I have nothing in common with!
Original Comment by: Munir
Sry one last thing: So I think the audeince is there and I'm sure there are willing and talented developers too, so perhaps it's just the business and harware models that need to change. A friend of mine recently made his first (free) game, which I absolutely loved! It was a 2d, anime, point and click, adventure, original story-based, horror game! He and I obviously have a lot in common, but through digital distribution, the game found a lot of other people around the world who loved it too. And it was made by 3 guys with no funding on the Wintermute engine! Hardly a mainstream success, but it just shows that the seeds are indeed there.
Sry one last thing: So I think the audeince is there and I'm sure there are willing and talented developers too, so perhaps it's just the business and harware models that need to change. A friend of mine recently made his first (free) game, which I absolutely loved! It was a 2d, anime, point and click, adventure, original story-based, horror game! He and I obviously have a lot in common, but through digital distribution, the game found a lot of other people around the world who loved it too. And it was made by 3 guys with no funding on the Wintermute engine! Hardly a mainstream success, but it just shows that the seeds are indeed there.
Original Comment by: Tadhg
http://particleblog.blogspot.com
I think the answer to all of Warren's ills can be summed up in one word: indie.
Simply put, what he's lamenting is the lack of Spielberg-equivalent power (relatively speaking) with independent sensibilities of content and exploration of those themes. In this regard he's not alone by any means. There are plenty of developers who are struggling with what amounts to a paradigm shift in their business and their creative lives.
However, there is hope. There are engines and tools on the small end of the scale. Not everything has to be about AAA, and no idea requires AAA levels of production to work. Warren mentions that he has ideas from 15 years that he feels can only be done now. I ask why is that. Graphical punch aside, what are the key traits of these ideas that make them so tech-necessary? A lot of even the supposedly important advances in games technology are just layers and layers of effects, and Warren's own Deus Ex remains to this day the most interesting fps adventure game (not the sequel though, sorry Warren) for the last ten years. It does so on what is a comparative shoestring compared to the 20 million club.
Any idea can be developed at any level. It just takes belief and the ability and willingness to work within constraints rather than growing angry or disillusioned at their existence. What Warren needs, it sounds to me, is a little faith.
Tadhg
[email protected]
http://particleblog.blogspot.com
I think the answer to all of Warren's ills can be summed up in one word: indie.
Simply put, what he's lamenting is the lack of Spielberg-equivalent power (relatively speaking) with independent sensibilities of content and exploration of those themes. In this regard he's not alone by any means. There are plenty of developers who are struggling with what amounts to a paradigm shift in their business and their creative lives.
However, there is hope. There are engines and tools on the small end of the scale. Not everything has to be about AAA, and no idea requires AAA levels of production to work. Warren mentions that he has ideas from 15 years that he feels can only be done now. I ask why is that. Graphical punch aside, what are the key traits of these ideas that make them so tech-necessary? A lot of even the supposedly important advances in games technology are just layers and layers of effects, and Warren's own Deus Ex remains to this day the most interesting fps adventure game (not the sequel though, sorry Warren) for the last ten years. It does so on what is a comparative shoestring compared to the 20 million club.
Any idea can be developed at any level. It just takes belief and the ability and willingness to work within constraints rather than growing angry or disillusioned at their existence. What Warren needs, it sounds to me, is a little faith.
Tadhg
[email protected]
Original Comment by: mofomojo
Here's my future.
Gaming becomes, per se, the next hollywood. You have a lot of small time workers, getting paid average salaries. While you have star characters in each dev team directing the games and their content. Like Lucas and Star Wars, per se. Of course, a lot of stuff will be done offshore for cheaper.
But you just can't outsource inspiration. You can outsource gruelling repititive tasks like manufacturing, but you can't outsource art.
Gaming, unlike other fields of software, requires inspiration and innovation; in a good mix too.
It doesn't cost much to develope a game now, really, it's only about $20 000 - $100 000 in software for about 4 - 10 devs. Given that this is all unpaid work, you and your group can earn a profit. There are even some open-source modeling and coding apps.
Graphics will have a limit in quality. It will be optional to any game; good graphics that is. A time will come when the graphics race itself will be obsolete and replaced with the search for greater inspiration. There are a minority of good creative devs out there; these guys (Meier, Miyamoto, Wright, Carmack, etc); these people will drive the industry. These are the superstars.
Of course, there are several unmentioned greats, but they'll have their fame too. Small time guys will rise up too, guys working out of their basement with a few friends; the future of the game industry is in the modders. These guys pirate software, work for no wages, and work with the goal of a piece of artistic beauty in mind.
The future of the gaming industry is in their hands.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Here's my future.
Gaming becomes, per se, the next hollywood. You have a lot of small time workers, getting paid average salaries. While you have star characters in each dev team directing the games and their content. Like Lucas and Star Wars, per se. Of course, a lot of stuff will be done offshore for cheaper.
But you just can't outsource inspiration. You can outsource gruelling repititive tasks like manufacturing, but you can't outsource art.
Gaming, unlike other fields of software, requires inspiration and innovation; in a good mix too.
It doesn't cost much to develope a game now, really, it's only about $20 000 - $100 000 in software for about 4 - 10 devs. Given that this is all unpaid work, you and your group can earn a profit. There are even some open-source modeling and coding apps.
Graphics will have a limit in quality. It will be optional to any game; good graphics that is. A time will come when the graphics race itself will be obsolete and replaced with the search for greater inspiration. There are a minority of good creative devs out there; these guys (Meier, Miyamoto, Wright, Carmack, etc); these people will drive the industry. These are the superstars.
Of course, there are several unmentioned greats, but they'll have their fame too. Small time guys will rise up too, guys working out of their basement with a few friends; the future of the game industry is in the modders. These guys pirate software, work for no wages, and work with the goal of a piece of artistic beauty in mind.
The future of the gaming industry is in their hands.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Original Comment by: The Sword of Damocles
When Warren Spector asks,
"And where are the Carmack equivalents willing to tackle problems like non-combat AI, virtual actors, conversation systems, collaborative storytelling questions? The technical challenges associated with these necessary elements of more mature content are at least as challenging and fun to tackle as the graphics, sound and physics stuff we usually go after. Surely, there are people out there champing at the bit to tackle them."
... the irony is almost thick enough to kill.
Did anyone else notice that this article opines the immaturity of the medium while simultaneously confessing that Ion Storm burned through OVER 90 PEOPLE on Thief: Deadly Shadows?
I was there on the Thief: Deadly Shadows team. No one associated with the management of that kindergarten-level fiasco has any place calling anyone else immature.
And I'll tell you exactly where Warren Spector can find the people who are "chomping at the bit" to tackle the big challenges of the next generation of gaming: all around the industry, among the cast of thousands who have worked with Warren Spector before and refuse to make the same mistake twice.
If Spector really wants to understand why he has such a hard time finding people eager to help him take on the big challenges of next-generation gaming,
I would like to humbly suggest
that someone please
be kind enough
to buy him
a mirror.
When Warren Spector asks,
"And where are the Carmack equivalents willing to tackle problems like non-combat AI, virtual actors, conversation systems, collaborative storytelling questions? The technical challenges associated with these necessary elements of more mature content are at least as challenging and fun to tackle as the graphics, sound and physics stuff we usually go after. Surely, there are people out there champing at the bit to tackle them."
... the irony is almost thick enough to kill.
Did anyone else notice that this article opines the immaturity of the medium while simultaneously confessing that Ion Storm burned through OVER 90 PEOPLE on Thief: Deadly Shadows?
I was there on the Thief: Deadly Shadows team. No one associated with the management of that kindergarten-level fiasco has any place calling anyone else immature.
And I'll tell you exactly where Warren Spector can find the people who are "chomping at the bit" to tackle the big challenges of the next generation of gaming: all around the industry, among the cast of thousands who have worked with Warren Spector before and refuse to make the same mistake twice.
If Spector really wants to understand why he has such a hard time finding people eager to help him take on the big challenges of next-generation gaming,
I would like to humbly suggest
that someone please
be kind enough
to buy him
a mirror.
Original Comment by: Mark
I always enjoy the discussion following these Warren Spector articles. Anyway.
Solutions to the problem of funding are beginning to arise, albeit slowly. Part of it comes from more lenient or smaller publishers like Nintendo or Manifesto. Part of it comes from the increasing recognition of the importance of better development tools. Most of the rest is as Will Wright says: "[...] procedural [...] procedural [...] procedural [...] procedurally." The more art that's drawn by a computer, the less you need to pay humans to make them. The genetic algorithms that made the countryside in Oblivion is a nice start.
I can see one other benefit to all this horsepower: it is now easier to make games that are highly extensible and reliant on scripting, making it much easier to create content that's more cerebral within the framework of your usual run-of-the-mill gameplay. A bridge, as it were, between Kill Things VI: The Sequel 3: Zombie Alien Terrorists and Indie Game: No Consumer Will Ever Know About This.
Sooner or later the market is going to expand, and when that happens, there'll be a sizeable demand for AAA-quality games (as well as just A- or B-level titles) that aren't rehashes.
And I agree with Spector's comment on sequels. Reusing IP is by no means a bad thing. It only becomes bad if it doesn't expand on the original concept in any way.
I always enjoy the discussion following these Warren Spector articles. Anyway.
Solutions to the problem of funding are beginning to arise, albeit slowly. Part of it comes from more lenient or smaller publishers like Nintendo or Manifesto. Part of it comes from the increasing recognition of the importance of better development tools. Most of the rest is as Will Wright says: "[...] procedural [...] procedural [...] procedural [...] procedurally." The more art that's drawn by a computer, the less you need to pay humans to make them. The genetic algorithms that made the countryside in Oblivion is a nice start.
I can see one other benefit to all this horsepower: it is now easier to make games that are highly extensible and reliant on scripting, making it much easier to create content that's more cerebral within the framework of your usual run-of-the-mill gameplay. A bridge, as it were, between Kill Things VI: The Sequel 3: Zombie Alien Terrorists and Indie Game: No Consumer Will Ever Know About This.
Sooner or later the market is going to expand, and when that happens, there'll be a sizeable demand for AAA-quality games (as well as just A- or B-level titles) that aren't rehashes.
And I agree with Spector's comment on sequels. Reusing IP is by no means a bad thing. It only becomes bad if it doesn't expand on the original concept in any way.
Original Comment by: Dylan
Having recently finished Deus Ex for the first time (actually, only yesterday), I feel that Warren is complaining about a non-factor. I think he is mistaking the goal for the way to reach that goal. The most important part of any game, at least to the consumer, is the "fun factor," not innovation itself. Most innovative games are not all that fun (this of course goes out with an apology to Will Wright and the Katamari team). We should strive for a game that is fun, not innovative for innovation's sake.
This goes back to Deus Ex. While I played it, I realized how innovative it was. An action game you could finish without killing a single person? Awesome. Hacking computers, picking locks, and other facets of corporate espionage? Awesome. The ability to complete every confrontation in dozens of ways? Awesome. But even though I was played most of the game in a constant state of awe, I never really had as much fun as I would playing Halo. Halo, Madden, and GTA are all maddeningly fun, the type of games that you have a really hard putting down. Katamari was really fun as well, but that was an exception among "innovative" games.
The gaming industry is not in trouble. Games and the hardware that supports them are better than they have ever been. Maybe indie developers will never be able to make full priced 360 or PS3 games anymore, and that not a horrible thing. XBL Arcade is a beautiful thing, and I am sure the Revolution virtual console will be just as popular. Want to make a game that doesn't use standard buttons, mice or keyboards? Make a DS or Revolution game. The industry is simply making more options for more people. For every huge budget/team game like Black that is merely ok, we have a Marble Madness or Geometry Wars that are fantastic.
Having recently finished Deus Ex for the first time (actually, only yesterday), I feel that Warren is complaining about a non-factor. I think he is mistaking the goal for the way to reach that goal. The most important part of any game, at least to the consumer, is the "fun factor," not innovation itself. Most innovative games are not all that fun (this of course goes out with an apology to Will Wright and the Katamari team). We should strive for a game that is fun, not innovative for innovation's sake.
This goes back to Deus Ex. While I played it, I realized how innovative it was. An action game you could finish without killing a single person? Awesome. Hacking computers, picking locks, and other facets of corporate espionage? Awesome. The ability to complete every confrontation in dozens of ways? Awesome. But even though I was played most of the game in a constant state of awe, I never really had as much fun as I would playing Halo. Halo, Madden, and GTA are all maddeningly fun, the type of games that you have a really hard putting down. Katamari was really fun as well, but that was an exception among "innovative" games.
The gaming industry is not in trouble. Games and the hardware that supports them are better than they have ever been. Maybe indie developers will never be able to make full priced 360 or PS3 games anymore, and that not a horrible thing. XBL Arcade is a beautiful thing, and I am sure the Revolution virtual console will be just as popular. Want to make a game that doesn't use standard buttons, mice or keyboards? Make a DS or Revolution game. The industry is simply making more options for more people. For every huge budget/team game like Black that is merely ok, we have a Marble Madness or Geometry Wars that are fantastic.
Original Comment by: anon
When he says "off-shoring" will be a great tool for the small developer what planet does he think he's on?! He seems to forget that the major developers can just as well make the same move. And in other industries it is th ebig players who use off shoring the most...
When he says "off-shoring" will be a great tool for the small developer what planet does he think he's on?! He seems to forget that the major developers can just as well make the same move. And in other industries it is th ebig players who use off shoring the most...
Original Comment by: SC
http://www.daedalusdevelopment.net
!DISCLAIMER! I'm too tired to read TFA. Excuse me while I make a comment.
On the subject of outsourcing/offshoring; I find that you can't actually offshore a whole lot. Art assets? Yes. That's already happening; big deal. Even now our art team is quite large.
Design? Well, unless we're on the receiving end of offshoring, I don't see how design can be offshored.
Now, programming.. Some of the code targets can actually be offshored. Like generic game logic for example. Base functionality used by the renderer and game logic, shit, what not? Now, there's only one problem; co-operation. In game development, there's one thing you can't do, and that's push everyone into cubicles, draw up a schematic and hand it to the people and just assume that it'll all fit together in the end; same goes for offshoring. You can't hire 3 programmers and offshore tasks for 5 programmers to India or wherever and expect they'll commit beautifully working code. Actually, it might just work beautiful, but it may not be what you wanted it to be as the chief programmer. That's where communication comes in. Game programming is all about tackling problems, together, as a team. If you're going to downsize your team and at the same time hire cheap programmers to do the mundane time consuming tasks, you may just lose that extra power in problem solving, thus resulting in delays etcetera etcetera. Even if that doesn't actually happen, you'll still find that in the end, you outsourced in addition to the people you hired.
Again. I haven't read TFA (will read it tomorrow during my lunch break), but I wouldn't worry about offshoring/outsourcing too much.
http://www.daedalusdevelopment.net
!DISCLAIMER! I'm too tired to read TFA. Excuse me while I make a comment.
On the subject of outsourcing/offshoring; I find that you can't actually offshore a whole lot. Art assets? Yes. That's already happening; big deal. Even now our art team is quite large.
Design? Well, unless we're on the receiving end of offshoring, I don't see how design can be offshored.
Now, programming.. Some of the code targets can actually be offshored. Like generic game logic for example. Base functionality used by the renderer and game logic, shit, what not? Now, there's only one problem; co-operation. In game development, there's one thing you can't do, and that's push everyone into cubicles, draw up a schematic and hand it to the people and just assume that it'll all fit together in the end; same goes for offshoring. You can't hire 3 programmers and offshore tasks for 5 programmers to India or wherever and expect they'll commit beautifully working code. Actually, it might just work beautiful, but it may not be what you wanted it to be as the chief programmer. That's where communication comes in. Game programming is all about tackling problems, together, as a team. If you're going to downsize your team and at the same time hire cheap programmers to do the mundane time consuming tasks, you may just lose that extra power in problem solving, thus resulting in delays etcetera etcetera. Even if that doesn't actually happen, you'll still find that in the end, you outsourced in addition to the people you hired.
Again. I haven't read TFA (will read it tomorrow during my lunch break), but I wouldn't worry about offshoring/outsourcing too much.
Original Comment by: John Barnard
In regards to Dylan's commnets on fun:
Halo's like a big budget summer blockbuster. Lots of fun to watch and play. Hard to put down, but it ain't gonna be winning any Academy Awards.
Those of us who are little older sometime want content with a little more sophistication and we're willing to sacrifice a little of that nebulous "fun factor" to get it. That's not to say that I want ot play a game that is decidedly un-fun, but when I get down to the nitty-gritty I'd rather play a game that can affect me emotionally and from which I can take somthing away than a game that is merely beer-and-pretzels fun.
That's where games like Deus Ex fit. No, they don't appeal to the same type of wide audience that Halo does, but how many people still play Halo now that Halo 2 is available? Anyone? How many people are still playing Deus Ex? The fact that it's still available six years after its release is pretty phenomenal in an industry where games have an average shelf life of just a few weeks. Popcorn product is only sustainable until the next game/movie comes along that looks better. Timeless product is timeless because it appeals to something deeper in the human consciousness.
The real ticket, and I think what Warren wants to do, is to create games that have the mass appeal fo popcorn style movies, but are still about deeper more menaingful interaction than simply blowing everything up. (Think Lord of the Rings or the first Matrix film for an example from film.)
In regards to Dylan's commnets on fun:
Halo's like a big budget summer blockbuster. Lots of fun to watch and play. Hard to put down, but it ain't gonna be winning any Academy Awards.
Those of us who are little older sometime want content with a little more sophistication and we're willing to sacrifice a little of that nebulous "fun factor" to get it. That's not to say that I want ot play a game that is decidedly un-fun, but when I get down to the nitty-gritty I'd rather play a game that can affect me emotionally and from which I can take somthing away than a game that is merely beer-and-pretzels fun.
That's where games like Deus Ex fit. No, they don't appeal to the same type of wide audience that Halo does, but how many people still play Halo now that Halo 2 is available? Anyone? How many people are still playing Deus Ex? The fact that it's still available six years after its release is pretty phenomenal in an industry where games have an average shelf life of just a few weeks. Popcorn product is only sustainable until the next game/movie comes along that looks better. Timeless product is timeless because it appeals to something deeper in the human consciousness.
The real ticket, and I think what Warren wants to do, is to create games that have the mass appeal fo popcorn style movies, but are still about deeper more menaingful interaction than simply blowing everything up. (Think Lord of the Rings or the first Matrix film for an example from film.)