Jimquisition: Irrational Decisions (Or Freedom In Chains)

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Although it's upseting to see people in the AAA games industry completely screwed over, at the same time refusing to be part of the whole next gen thing, at least for another year or two, means I can chill out and play some old games I never got around to playing.

Just bought the original Luigis Mansion for £15, i'm good.
 

Ferisar

New member
Oct 2, 2010
814
0
0
hermes200 said:
Sorry, but no.

I agree with your assessment of the AAA industry, but while I think Levine has every right to leave in search of greener pastures, I think you and many people are missing the point of his actions and forgetting the other side; the real victims of personalities closing mega-studios in search to narrow their reach are not the gamers that want more high budget RPG and less modern shooters, its the hundreds of talented people that busted their asses to give us one of the best games of last year, and collaborated a whole lot to its success, even when not in the spotlight, finding themselves without a job one day because their master and commander decided to jump ship and left them with nothing but an empty office and a few lines in a resume.

"Irrational Games has been sunk, but Ken Levine is still here"... I am sure its a big consolation for those people. When Romero and Carmack left Id, it was still there the next day. The same with Jaffe and Santa Monica or Bleszinski and Epic... This here is closer to "I'm going to take my ball and go home!". Of course, I believe Levine is a very talented man and I will eagerly wait for his next work, but I don't think this is a time for celebration, as much as I don't believe its a lost for the industry.
Adam Jensen said:
You know what the gaming industry needs? It needs to embrace the Hollywood style of marketing and production. By that I mean instead of having the next game from Irrational Games etc. we get the next Ken Levine game etc. In that kind of environment publishers would simply give the developers money and let them make the game according to their vision. Games would be marketed as the creative vision of the game director.
Unfortunately these two points stand at an impasse, because with the latter the whole reliance on bigger projects fall on single big names whilst ignoring the many gears that work within the behemoth, and the current system acknowledges a studio despite it having a very forward creative mind at the helm.

It's probably a bit overstated that the guys who went down with Irrational suddenly get nothing but some lines on a resume. I'm pretty sure "I worked on Bioshock" isn't exactly something that's overlooked by anyone who isn't living under a rock.

I also can't reasonably agree with the stance in the video, as much as I'd love to. I adore indie games and am glad that some of them succeed to the point of spotlight, but they never hold me, personally. Maybe I'm just shallow and vain and want something really basic by playing triple-A games, but that's just my shtick. Massive single-player spectacles are, to me, much more enjoyable than a tightly constructed indie game. I can definitely appreciate the latter and play it, but... If that became the driving force behind the market, I couldn't participate until their budget was within expectations of what I've come to progressively expect growing up with video game development. And therein comes the problem of a repeating cycle.

Either way, I'd like both to exist, but I'd also just like games to keep evolving on multiple fronts, not just under various budgeting/publishing categories.
 

franksands

New member
Dec 6, 2010
115
0
0
I have to say that despite all it flaws, I liked Beyond:Two Souls. The story is good and there are some stages I had a lot o fun. Of course, the EMOTIONS thing get in the way some times.
Aside from that, I definetely want much more Thomas Was Alone and Super Meat Boy games than another shooter. Maybe Instead of AAA games we can have shorter AA games that look good but have something to say.
 

Alterego-X

New member
Nov 22, 2009
611
0
0
The Broken Age example only makes sense if you literally believe the old clickbait narrative that Double Fine "ran out of money", but in it's actual context, it's all about what Jim just described here, more freedom to decide what the creators want to do.

They could have still chosen to make a very short, very simple $2m game, or they could have chosen to delay the development and only finish it by 2015, and instead they rather creatively chose a thid option to boost their budget with a two-parted release.

If anything, this is a prime example of how non-conventional development models can be started outside the conventional wisdoms of AAA publishing. If Activision would be faced with the same decision, that they have too much content planned for a game's budget, we already know what they would do, because we have seen it with Starcraft II: Split it in three parts and sell it thrice. Alternate optiomns include releasing it unfinished with a half-assed ending, and delaying it for an absurdly long time.

Hooray for the creative best of both worlds.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Ferisar said:
hermes200 said:
Sorry, but no.

I agree with your assessment of the AAA industry, but while I think Levine has every right to leave in search of greener pastures, I think you and many people are missing the point of his actions and forgetting the other side; the real victims of personalities closing mega-studios in search to narrow their reach are not the gamers that want more high budget RPG and less modern shooters, its the hundreds of talented people that busted their asses to give us one of the best games of last year, and collaborated a whole lot to its success, even when not in the spotlight, finding themselves without a job one day because their master and commander decided to jump ship and left them with nothing but an empty office and a few lines in a resume.

"Irrational Games has been sunk, but Ken Levine is still here"... I am sure its a big consolation for those people. When Romero and Carmack left Id, it was still there the next day. The same with Jaffe and Santa Monica or Bleszinski and Epic... This here is closer to "I'm going to take my ball and go home!". Of course, I believe Levine is a very talented man and I will eagerly wait for his next work, but I don't think this is a time for celebration, as much as I don't believe its a lost for the industry.
...It's probably a bit overstated that the guys who went down with Irrational suddenly get nothing but some lines on a resume. I'm pretty sure "I worked on Bioshock" isn't exactly something that's overlooked by anyone who isn't living under a rock...
Of course. As I said, the studio is likely filled with talented people that will have no problem getting a job in the industry if they wish to do so, on the names of Bioshock and Infinite alone. The question is, why would they wish to do so? The developer community in Boston, outside of indie teams, is shrinking fast. Outside of Harmonix, Irrational was pretty much the only studio left.

So, those people that still care enough about games can opt to go independent or move their families to another state in search of a job. And why would they? For a job that forces them to huge crunch times, anonymous work and years before they can even ship a game. To the risk of having a publisher deciding that their job is redundant they now have to add a new one, the risk of having their boss deciding he has enough, so all their jobs are redundant. There is a reason why most people last in game development no more than a few years.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
I'm confused. Why did Jim get David Cage to show up at the end and say "Thank god for me"?

I don't want to thank god for David Cage!

TiberiusEsuriens said:
Big publishers can still have there place, and it shines well with games like the upcoming Thief and Wolfenstein.
I think you spoke too soon. Thief is getting carved up in reviews for being a watered down design-by-committee publisher-ruined cash grab.
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
So... we're fine with basically saying that unless you're the creative director, employment rights aren't a thing in the games industry?

'Cos I'm not. I think it's morally wrong, and I think long term not good for games. Because people don't do their best work when they're stressed out from having no life stability and having to constantly look for the next project whilst working on the current one.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Why do the words "Cop Out" keep ringing in my head. Not of Jim, but of the game industry.
I remember back in the early 00s the big deal was game companies didn't have enough money to do what they wanted. And we, stupidly apparently, gave them more money.
"Oh sure, you could have made a good game if you had more money. Here's millions of dollars!"

Now game publishers, or the men behind them, are saying that they could make a good game, if only that had less money.
I can't help but feel we as a gaming community are being taken for a ride. Its too damn convenient that the problem is always external:
We didn't have enough money.
Too many people wanted a say on the story.
The fans wanted too much.
The fans made fun of me.
There's too much money.
We need a new console generation!

Anyone else see a problem with ALWAYS letting game designers off the hook for bad games? Or better yet, always accepting the blame leveled at us? That we as the gamers are simply too much for the game publishers to handle? That being successful was simply too hard for them...

What a load!
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
You know what the gaming industry needs? It needs to embrace the Hollywood style of marketing and production. By that I mean instead of having the next game from Irrational Games etc. we get the next Ken Levine game etc. In that kind of environment publishers would simply give the developers money and let them make the game according to their vision. Games would be marketed as the creative vision of the game director.
Didn't we get that with Warren Spector and Epic Mickey? Didn't work out so well.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I don't think I'm quite ready to buy the "money is the root of all evil" hypothesis. Yes, the AAA industry as it currently exists is unwieldy and risk-averse; I don't think there's a lot of dispute on that point. But it's worth noting that while there are certainly Double Fines that raise eight or more times their Kickstarter goals and then fumble while trying to get the promised product out the door, there are also studios like Harebrained Studios (Shadowrun Returns) and inXile (Wasteland 2) which have a similar narrative yet seem to be more or less on track.

inXile, in particular, seems to have taken a particularly thoughtful approach: yes, we have millions of dollars, but let's use the Unity engine. Let's let our community help us create assets to use in the game. Let's have a prolonged beta and get a second round of feedback about what people really want to see in this sequel.

I don't know for certain what happened inside of Double Fine, or what happened inside of Irrational, for that matter. But it seems that the problems that plague big productions have at least as much to do with leadership and baseline thinking and planning as they do with bloated budgets. Yes, having a bloated budget means that you can skew wildly off the original design document and throw manpower and money at problems when the project gets away from itself, but it doesn't have to go that way if wiser heads can prevail. Just because you have one incredibly new, shiny, and expensive tool in your toolkit, doesn't mean you have to let its availability distract you from all the other tools you used to use to get the job done.

Let us not forget all the lauds that Bioshock Infinte received, nor the high-profile Kickstarter failures, nor the flood of independent projects on Greenlight, the App Store, and Google Marketplace that may be fantastic but just can't capture an audience. We're in a time of shift, but where that shift is headed, I don't think I can predict. It seems like a lot of creative talent is going to starve waiting for discovery, a lot of indie games are going to get ripped off by groups with slightly bigger budgets; it's not entirely clear to me we're entirely healthier with a pool full of piranha than we were with a pool full of sharks.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Why Jim, you should never pass on an opportunity to rip on David Cage! It is your sworn duty to knock self-proclaimed auteurs down a peg. Now where's that .gif of Jim in the Cage mask saying EH-MOH-SHUNS a lot?

OT: It's one thing for a "name" developer to leave the studio, but another to shut the whole thing down afterwards. If Levine kicked all his employees to the curb, that's a big dick move.
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
Sometimes we forget the little people behind the scenes of, say, Bioshock: Infinite. It's kinda sad for them to lose their opportunity to be part of a great game again.

I wonder if being part of the AAA industry is worth it at all. Sure, you'll have a steady pay-cheque for maybe a year or two, but you'll be dropped as soon as the game you're making is finished. Might as well go indie where you consistently know you won't have any income. Therefore, you don't get the shock of having money, and then no money. You just simply learn to live with no money. And you'll eventually have something to show for it. Eventually.
 

Scow2

New member
Aug 3, 2009
801
0
0
Alterego-X said:
The Broken Age example only makes sense if you literally believe the old clickbait narrative that Double Fine "ran out of money", but in it's actual context, it's all about what Jim just described here, more freedom to decide what the creators want to do.

They could have still chosen to make a very short, very simple $2m game, or they could have chosen to delay the development and only finish it by 2015, and instead they rather creatively chose a thid option to boost their budget with a two-parted release.

If anything, this is a prime example of how non-conventional development models can be started outside the conventional wisdoms of AAA publishing. If Activision would be faced with the same decision, that they have too much content planned for a game's budget, we already know what they would do, because we have seen it with Starcraft II: Split it in three parts and sell it thrice. Alternate optiomns include releasing it unfinished with a half-assed ending, and delaying it for an absurdly long time.

Hooray for the creative best of both worlds.
Wait... how is what Double-Fine did any different from what Activision Blizzard did with Starcraft, aside from having it planned out and accounted for since the beginning?(On the other hand, I think that Blizzard-As-A-Game-Studio has managed to maintain their much-coveted and famous "We're Good Enough To Do What We Want" carte-blanche from the publisher that they've always had - did they ever lose it?)

So, when the answer to "What would a AAA publisher do when faced with Double Fine's situation" is "Do what Double Fine did, but first!"... what's your point?
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
I'm still waiting for the AAA market to crash in on itself so it can be restructured to promote good, inventive games, not just good profits. Maybe with some of the biggest minds breaking off to work on smaller projects, it will happen sooner. Then, the guys with the good ideas can show the publishers how restrictions are hurting games. Probably won't happen but I'm taking enough cold medicine to make me think I'm wearing the magic slippers from the Wizzard of Oz and will keep repeating that to myself.

Also, I'm scared to know that Jim has a "katana" shaped like that at the end of the video.
gargantual said:
Its not just the narrative reasons why AAA is moving away from single player.

narrative single player demands smart level design and balance of challenge, smart AI and resources. Its easier to just throw all the assets into a map and say let the players tussle with each other, while they referee from the sidelines, and add in more microtransactions.

Right now AAA video games is basically seeking to replace Zynga and Magic the Gathering as the premier choice of long term addictive expensive competitive social gaming.

In the future if you wanna have fun with action adventure by yourself without being on a company server. Its side scrollers, walking simulators and point and click, or play your old games.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Social this and social that with the new consoles. Multi-player being shoe-horned into to virtual every single player game coming out, often with lackluster results. It's easier, too, to nickle and dime players through multiplayer add-ons, like map packs and new characters, than to expect a console gamer to pay for a better weapon in the middle of a single player game. Halo and Call of Duty showed them that it's possible to addict people, so now every publisher has this set as their goal. Campaigns on those series' later game sucked, too, compared to their online options. I guess it's indie games, hacks and mods of ancient games, and Nintendo for me if the whole market hits this point.
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,163
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Irrational Decisions (Or Freedom In Chains)

Major studios are not just shutting down because evil publishers are closing them. Some of them are falling on their own swords. Certain developers are trading in one cage for another, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Watch Video
Well said Mr Sterling. I completely agree with you, which surprises me somewhat, because I'd have though you'd be the absolute last person to make the points that you just did. Since your "Last of Us" / "Bioshock Infinite" reviews, I've regarded you as largely disagreeing with my contention that games should be as "unscripted" as possible.

I was rather surprised to hear your "left hand" point made about "Bioshock Infinite" in particular though. Not that I don't AGREE with that point I absolutely do, there are several systems in "Infinite" that just don't seem to work together - I'm just surprised that it's you making it! But hey, I've crapped on "Bioshock Infinite" enough, and I do think it's a decent game, if not worth the forty squid that I spent on it.

But regarding your main point... I'm sadly old enough to remember when Ken Levine was a young up-and-coming game designer, and it's fair to say that the games he made then were a lot more appealing to me than the ones he's making now. It just feels as though he's lost his way. Maybe he realises that as well. I can't wait to see what he does when he starts to design smaller, more focussed indie-style games, because I think it gives him a chance to really go back to looking at using his particular strengths. Be a DESIGNER instead of a manager.

Again - I know I've kinda crapped on Ken Levine's latest work - but that's because I know how much MORE he's capable of. Here's hoping that he gets a chance to shine in his new role.
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,163
0
0
Doomsdaylee said:
So, back on topic, the industry NEEDS to crash. It'll clear out these dude-bro Halo/CoD casual gamers that've been hanging around like a wet fart, dismantle the big, billion dollar method in place now, and leave the more indie studios, the ones more interested in making games than making billions. (I'm not saying designers SHOULDN'T be interested in making money, but not to the point of killing their games over it (*COUGHFFXIIICOUGH*)) I, for one, welcome the inevitable flaming doom of the industry. I'll bring the marshmallows.
Nah. Don't agree with this.

I have no problems with the CoDs and Battlefields, even though I'm not into them myself. If people enjoy them and want to keep playing them, what's the harm? Where I agree with you is that their success shouldn't stop other interesting projects from being made and sold by the AAA games industry.

But do they? Maybe to an extent, but the last time I checked, there was plenty of competition to the likes of "Call of Duty" that I could choose instead if I wanted an interesting gaming experience.