Richard Garriot: "Me & Cliffy B have figured out how to not have to pay for advertising anymore."
Update: Richard Garriott: "Most Game Designers Really Just Suck"
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Excuse me? The quote used in this article is word-for-word the same quote used in the PC gamer interview:marurder said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/19/richard-garriott-game-designers-suck/
Well, Garriot's ego aside its probably a legitimate point to be made, but theres a plethora of potential reasons.
1) Most designers will only have a handful of truly great ideas, if not just one. He throws out a decent list of what I'd consider prettymuch one and done game designers. This isn't a unique factor to that field either, you can find dozens of scientists, artists, musicians, businessmen, etc where they've had their one shining moment and then blundered on other attempts (either becoming mediocre, or outright failing).
2) The industry will keep racing the same horse until it dies and they have to get a new one. Hand in hand with #1, this sees the "Lords" of game design getting swing after swing at bat, while upcoming designers are placed under them. Even if you get a fresh designer, they're likely to get some level of a hand-me down project and not be able to flourish.
3) Defining vision and collaborative work are almost mutually exclusive. You can occasionally get great partnerships that merge two talents to make a greater whole, but mostly, its just going to dilute the vision into a generically appealing, but less interesting blob. Cue the AAA industry, which now often has multiple 50+ person teams in entirely different countries slamming things together. You aren't going to get anything close to the consistency and possible risk taking of the 80s/90s "Dude in his garage" methods of game development with all these potentially conflicting opinions and varying levels of enthusiasm and commitment.
1) Most designers will only have a handful of truly great ideas, if not just one. He throws out a decent list of what I'd consider prettymuch one and done game designers. This isn't a unique factor to that field either, you can find dozens of scientists, artists, musicians, businessmen, etc where they've had their one shining moment and then blundered on other attempts (either becoming mediocre, or outright failing).
2) The industry will keep racing the same horse until it dies and they have to get a new one. Hand in hand with #1, this sees the "Lords" of game design getting swing after swing at bat, while upcoming designers are placed under them. Even if you get a fresh designer, they're likely to get some level of a hand-me down project and not be able to flourish.
3) Defining vision and collaborative work are almost mutually exclusive. You can occasionally get great partnerships that merge two talents to make a greater whole, but mostly, its just going to dilute the vision into a generically appealing, but less interesting blob. Cue the AAA industry, which now often has multiple 50+ person teams in entirely different countries slamming things together. You aren't going to get anything close to the consistency and possible risk taking of the 80s/90s "Dude in his garage" methods of game development with all these potentially conflicting opinions and varying levels of enthusiasm and commitment.
I have never played any of his games, but I automatically despise any person who says "very few people are as good as me". I don't care if you're a world-class surgeon who has saved more lives than penicillin, you are an arrogant ass and I refuse to take your opinion seriously.
Which is a shame, I thought his point about designers lacking specific academic formation was an interesting thing to consider.
Which is a shame, I thought his point about designers lacking specific academic formation was an interesting thing to consider.
But does he say this? does he come out, hold up his hands and say "yeah, Ultima 8 and 9 were a mess, its really EA's fault but i let down my loyal fans and i'm sorry" no he bangs on about how wonderful he is. The day the guy apologises for how badly he let down his fans is the day i start taking a non-negative interest in him.CrossLOPER said:
you do realize that most games suffer not just because of their design, but also the alienating art, the shoddy coding and, most importantly, executive douchebags meddling in affairs they should not? I'm sure you had plenty of experience with the last two, Mr. Garriot, remember Ultima 8: Pagan and Ultima 9: Ascension? It's still an issue today, the shoddy coding is caused by execs rushing the games out for some holiday or something and the execs in the publishing biz are the biggest problems because they do stupid shit like that.
Bigger evils, sir.
P.S. This is an era where anything a famous man like yourself says impacts his business by a lot, be careful what opinions you voice to the public, sir. I did like your Ultima series up until EA stepped in an rushed 8 and 9 to hell, of course. I don't want to see any of your future projects to be impacted by an offhand thought.
Bigger evils, sir.
P.S. This is an era where anything a famous man like yourself says impacts his business by a lot, be careful what opinions you voice to the public, sir. I did like your Ultima series up until EA stepped in an rushed 8 and 9 to hell, of course. I don't want to see any of your future projects to be impacted by an offhand thought.
I'd say they should design games the way supermarket brands figure out cake recipes. That is, the tasters get the final say not the cooks. While story and setting is best left to an auteur, game mechanics are about experimentation and should be decided by tests. Otherwise, the designer with the most power will put his ideas in regardless of merit, QTEs and all.DiamanteGeeza said:
LOL - oh Richard, please never change...
As funny / ironic as this is coming from the guy responsible for the sandalwood box SNAFU in Ultima V I think it's probably fair to say that he's got a point.
Captcha: head case. Indeed. But it's how you wear it that matters
As funny / ironic as this is coming from the guy responsible for the sandalwood box SNAFU in Ultima V I think it's probably fair to say that he's got a point.
Captcha: head case. Indeed. But it's how you wear it that matters
I dunno that he's really all that famous any more, outside a select group of PC RPG geeks of a certain age. I count myself among that group but as a lot of others have pointed out, what has he really done lately? And by lately, I really mean the past decade or more...Carter Rosen said:
While I am inclined to agree with some of his points, I feel less of this is legitimate thought for the industry and more thought at the expense of the industry to stroke his massive ego.
Yes, Richard, you made a good game once. An excellent game, even. Revolutionary, in a sense.
And then you made a shit game later and now you are just criticizing the industry.
Games aren't going to thrive if we only get one good game every 20 years. Think of these game designers you seem to consider peasants to your lordliness as holding the industry afloat while you come up with something else to make.
Yes, Richard, you made a good game once. An excellent game, even. Revolutionary, in a sense.
And then you made a shit game later and now you are just criticizing the industry.
Games aren't going to thrive if we only get one good game every 20 years. Think of these game designers you seem to consider peasants to your lordliness as holding the industry afloat while you come up with something else to make.
The real problem is that there is no way to prove that you are a good designer if you aren't also at least a programmer. Who's going to believe you can come up with really fresh new ideas if it's practically impossible to show anything for yourself.
Entry level jobs in design are basically data entry / QA, or Level Design. The best games are ones that run on fresh new mechanics, but how many thousands of people have an awesome idea for new mechanics and never get to do anything with it?
Entry level jobs in design are basically data entry / QA, or Level Design. The best games are ones that run on fresh new mechanics, but how many thousands of people have an awesome idea for new mechanics and never get to do anything with it?
Now remember, we are not talking about great programmers like John Romero who could probably get Doom to work on the Apollo flight computer, or artists who create pretty looking things and intricate scripts with philosophical point.martyrdrebel27 said:
We are talking about game design.
Things like amazing character design or writing, those are good, but they could work just as well in a film.
The point is the GAME part.
I'd give an example like Shigeru Miyamoto, although he hasn't done much variety over the past 25 years his games have consistently hung on the brilliance of the design rather than the plot or artstyle or graphical performance. Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, they've always been refined in the game design if nothing else.
Legend of Zelda just had good design elements that games take for granted these days like items progression. And getting heart-meters from defeated bosses gave a constant reminder of progress. It was how you would gain items through a variety of challenges and the items you won would be used in new and interesting ways to continue, like fighting an enemy who uses the boomerang then use the boomerang to continue and to fight the next major opponent.
Suda 51, now he is a compelling and engaging writer, has an amazing visual style to always make striking imagery but in terms of gameplay design.... well. Suda 51 games have always depended on non-interactive parts for their distinctiveness, it's how things look and what is said. Killer 7 is not remarkable for its game design but for its writing and art-vision.
That's good and all, and he deserves all the credit he gets, but games are games. There needs to be innovation in gameplay otherwise it's a bit like having a movie which consists of the narrator readign from a Pulitzer prize winning novel. Yes, it's a good novel, it may even be read well, but film is a show don't tell medium, gaming is a DO don't show medium.
I have several issues with Mr. Garriots comment. First of all, he didn't meet any good designers? I met several good designers, several bad ones, many of them better than me, but many also better than Mr. Garriot. I mean, this guy invents a new alphabet and calls this "good game design". Well, that's nice and all, but it doesn't make you the best game designer ever.
He complains about designers rehashing old ideas. Coming from a man, whose newest project is a rehash of his old ideas. One of the big innovations promised is "player houses". Whoop-de-doo... He failed with his online game venture and now comes back to the games which always worked for him. Not really innovative. I try to create something new with every one of my game designs. Does this make me a better designer than Mr. Garriot? Unfortunately not, my games are still very rough, because of my lack of experience. It's easy to create great games, when you have the manpower, time and the money. I want to see Mr. Garriot in a 48 Hours game design contest, using nothing but an ordinary computer. Then I want to see his "game design genius".
His old games? Well, I played Ultima IV. I really tried to "get into" the game as intended by its designer, even read all the manuals and first avoiding walkthroughs. The premise is unique, but the execution and the game itself is mediocre, even for its time. The game design is horrible in several aspects.
I think it boils down to "ideas are worthless". It's all about execution. You can have a great idea for a game, but fail for several reasons. Maybe the idea is to big for you to flesh it out or to expensive to create (many of Peter Molyneux' games fall into this category). If you have great execution, you get games like Diablo 3 or Star Craft 2, which are really well polished, and are considered good games although they are just rehashing old ideas. If you have great ideas and good execution you get gems like Portal.
This said, I agree with Mr. Garriot, that the industry needs fresh ideas, but I also see, why the big AAA studios are not trying anything new. But I don't think that he is in any position to advertise himself as a great game designer.
He complains about designers rehashing old ideas. Coming from a man, whose newest project is a rehash of his old ideas. One of the big innovations promised is "player houses". Whoop-de-doo... He failed with his online game venture and now comes back to the games which always worked for him. Not really innovative. I try to create something new with every one of my game designs. Does this make me a better designer than Mr. Garriot? Unfortunately not, my games are still very rough, because of my lack of experience. It's easy to create great games, when you have the manpower, time and the money. I want to see Mr. Garriot in a 48 Hours game design contest, using nothing but an ordinary computer. Then I want to see his "game design genius".
His old games? Well, I played Ultima IV. I really tried to "get into" the game as intended by its designer, even read all the manuals and first avoiding walkthroughs. The premise is unique, but the execution and the game itself is mediocre, even for its time. The game design is horrible in several aspects.
I think it boils down to "ideas are worthless". It's all about execution. You can have a great idea for a game, but fail for several reasons. Maybe the idea is to big for you to flesh it out or to expensive to create (many of Peter Molyneux' games fall into this category). If you have great execution, you get games like Diablo 3 or Star Craft 2, which are really well polished, and are considered good games although they are just rehashing old ideas. If you have great ideas and good execution you get gems like Portal.
This said, I agree with Mr. Garriot, that the industry needs fresh ideas, but I also see, why the big AAA studios are not trying anything new. But I don't think that he is in any position to advertise himself as a great game designer.
As someone who would like to one day work as Designer, I've come across hundreds of courses for art and programming, yet not one for actual game design. I think, in this regard at least, he really has a point.
My guess is focus groups are the blame for that infamous example of Ultima fail, all the rage in the late 90's when it was made, to almost every business they touted the idea that you can make anything you do more popular with the public by simply taking random members of the public and tailoring the game to those few random people.Karadalis said:
Of course if you take a random population sample (lured in with the promise of free sandwich bar and some attention they crave) a heck of a lot are going to say "what's a paladin" when shown this game they hardly care about, they just want to be in out of the cold.
Even if a proportion of the genuinely interested posed such a question, a good game designer would not have an established character ask that just because the player might be new. At least, not without establishing some amnesia plot-line.
Or he would be creative as in "Well what do YOU consider a Paladin to be?" which doesn't betray the questioner's ignorance, only implies contradiction on what people see Paladins as.
I speculate it was caught in the 3D trap.
This may seem hard to believe but 3D development even that basic was extremely expensive back then, the expertise on animation and AI was very limited and expensive, but now you can get such software for free. Coming off the back of 2D games, you could make those almost like collage books, just draw pixel art and have it move around over pixel art backgrounds, all within Garriott's established capabilities. But a full 3D world was something else.
So it was expensive, and tried to justify it with "broader market appeal". But he clearly lost sight of why he was even making a 3D Ultima game, it's one of the earliest examples of developers thinking they can dumb down to appeal to a wider audience yet somehow won't lose their established audience. And they don't appreciate what a springboard their established audience is.
Garriot is a decent designer but like many of the aging "superstar" designers from that generation is an arrogant egotistical twit with an overinflated sense of his own importance and abilities. That is why I didn't back his Kickstarter, or Molyneux's and only reluctantly backed the Elite Kickstarter. Also the only Ultima games i liked were the Ultima Underworld ones.
That is my other concern, with the rise of indie gaming and crowdfunding, we are probably going to see another generation of egotistical "superstar" developers. But I'd rather have egotistical superstars producing good games than faceless, hostile corporations mass producing rubbish.
That is my other concern, with the rise of indie gaming and crowdfunding, we are probably going to see another generation of egotistical "superstar" developers. But I'd rather have egotistical superstars producing good games than faceless, hostile corporations mass producing rubbish.