Here's another interesting article I came across today, this one from Ars Technica. You can read the article
here.
For those who don't want to read it (although I encourage you to), the crux of the article's argument is that game developers and designers who are huge gamers have difficulty thinking outside of the box. Having played games for so long, what currently exists in the industry is all these designers know, and as a result they just keep rehashing the same ideas over and over again and stifle progress overall in the industry. Oddly, about halfway through the article they shift to a discussion of some issues with developer quality of life and the ridiculous hours devs have to put in, and I do believe that IS a valid argument. What I'm writing about now isn't in regards to that claim. The argument they start with and the argument that is the main theme of the article, that more time gaming = less time having "life experiences" = less creativity, is what I'm going to be discussing, and it's an opinion I strongly disagree with.
Sure, there are some game designers out there who just try to remake older games, change the title and the characters, and pass them off as new, but I believe that's more the fault of the companies they work for. I don't think any game designers sit down and dream of making a generic platformer that's just like all of the other platformers released in the last 3 years. I'm sure most of them have all sorts of great ideas for games that they're not allowed/unable to pursue. Being gamers themselves, I believe that, in an ideal world, they would be able to create awesome, original, and unique games all the time. However, they typically can't, and I don't believe it's usually their fault.
As more and more industry mergers happen and game companies get larger and larger, we're going to see even less creativity and innovation. It's not because all the people making games are gamers and can't think of anything original, it's because these huge studios are all about making money and aren't willing to make risky moves with original games. I'm willing to bet good money that, if many of the big names in game innovation today (Shiggy, Kojima, etc.) were just now starting out in the industry, they would never be allowed to create the games that made them famous. They wouldn't be big names, it would be seen as too risky, and whatever company they pitched too would be more comfortable creating Spongebob Squarepants 4 DS since they know that's where the money is.
I also take offense at this notion that being a hardcore gamer means that you're missing out on all sorts of life experiences and that you're uncultured as a result of your playing games. The argument they make later about the industry requiring ridiculous hours holds water, but CliffyB's inane comment about him having all these fantastic experiences that he was able to draw on for GoW because he games less is just dumb. I'm pretty sure him cavorting around London had a lot more to do with the fact that he had a bunch of money than the fact that he plays video games less. What it boils down to now is that the industry has become so corporate that only designers who are already established are being allowed to be fully creative. If you're not a big name, you're not trusted with large sums of money and instead have to fall in line with the generic copy/pasta that the corporations want you to make.
Overall, I think it's vital that the people who are creating our games be gamers themselves. They know what gamers want in a game, and I believe they try their best to deliver. Sure, there are some hardcore gamers who produce crappy games, and there are some people who've never touched a game in their lives who could probably make fantastic games, but I believe those are the outliers and not the norm. Rather than blame the designers, who are often restricted by the whims and wants of the megacorporations they work for, we should be blaming the companies themselves. Take some more risks, let designers run with some crazy ideas, and you might find that what they're pitching will end up making you more money than the 19th iteration of your Madden game.
Most of the big names today got their start long ago, back when the industry was relatively young and they could do what they wanted. (CliffyB actually first got famous off of Jazz Jackrabbit, a game I'm sure many of you are familiar with.) I'm betting there's a number of CliffyBs, Miyamotos, Kojimas, and Garriots out there in the industry today. They'll just never be given the chance to prove themselves.
What's your opinion? Do you think that this article is right and that game designers who are gamers keep rehashing the same games and stories over and over again? Or do you think that being a gamer gives designers a better insight into what's already been done and what gamers want, and that it's the game companies that are holding them back?
[Via
Ars Technica 
Aerox's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
I personally prefer borderline illiterate authors, because they haven't had their horizons narrowed by reading the so-called "classics" and constantly being exposed to refined forms of expression. No, they've been having life experiences such as eating, hanging out with friends, and traveling -- experiences typically unavailable to the pretentious writer.
Nice write up Aerox, good as always.
In my opinion, I kinda agree with Max here. Having designers that haven't tried out the classics or mainstream games would be something that could help to get new IP's. Still, it would be kinda hard to find someone like that. And to add, I believe that there should be a balance, the kind of designer that even though that has tried out different games during his/her life, can still get inspiration from other media or theme that aren't necessarily from other games.
I don't agree or disagree. It's good to have both. People who don't have a ton of exposure to games often CAN bring some really fresh ideas to the table, particularly those involved heavily in unrelated artistic fields. Then there just needs to also be someone else around to temper those ideas into something that makes sense and is playable.
Damn Maxvest you stole my answer, though seriously cliches in gaming can be made by both Hardcore gamers and people who haven't touched a game.
I do agree on the fact that many designers will probably never get the chance of becoming one of the "Greats", just like in other media like film, painting and music.
I don't really know if everybody should have a ton of life experience before they think of the concepts that later become known as their great work of art. Some people need a lot of life experience to properly display human relationships for example, some others just need to stay indoors and read as many books as they can, or play as many games as they can.
On the whole, the mix of those kinds of people lead to the diversity can amazing stuff that we come to know and love. I can't see Warren Spector making a perfect 2D platformer, just like I can't see Miyamoto make a game with a great storyline.
The great thing about game design, in theory, is that you always work in a team. That team would ideally be made out of people that have the knowledge and experience that makes them perfect for their role. The final product could then have a fantastic storyline, great gameplay elements and a perfect balance between the separate component. Or you could just live with the texture-pop and let BioWare make all your games :P
This is interesting as I am not much of a gamer myself but would like to make them. I know I never WILL make them, but I'd like to.
I always used to spend most of my "gaming" time watching my friends play, or when I'd play, I'd think of ways they could make the game better.
Perhaps it is my destiny, but alas, I am not a programmer, and I have no artistic talent. Woe is me.
Wasn't Jazz Jackrabbit basically just Sonic the Hedgehog with long ears and a raygun? Maybe Cliffy B. shouldn't be talking smack about innovation.
Either way, good writeup.
"Take some more risks, let designers run with some crazy ideas, and you might find that what they're pitching will end up making you more money than the 19th iteration of your Madden game."
As much as I want this to be true, it's really not. In today's industry, big companies aren't playing fast and loose with their money. If they are, it's because they can afford it -- Activision, Capcom, Square. All of these companies are trying new things after being established in the field. But even then, most really creative games don't do well. Look at Clover. Look at Killer 7 and The World Ends With You.
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, it's just wishful thinking and I know it's not financially sound. I do think though, that when big companies go with unique/different ideas, they tend to shy away from the marketing aspect of it. If they promoted some of those games as heavily as they could have, I bet sales would have been a lot better. The only way I even find out about games like Killer 7 and TWEWY is because I'm constantly reading gaming websites. Throw a commercial or two up, put some posters in a Gamestop, and sales might be better.
TWEWY is doing poorly in sales? It's all I see talked about in a lot of places I go.
i believe a good forumla for life experience in a game developer has to include knowledge of the games industry. but not JUST of games. Reading & writing fiction are also very important qualities because you cant have a good game without a good story. You should build a game around a great story as well as adapt the story to great gameplay ideas.
also very important to have cohesive coalescence of vision amongst all the devs working on the project but be open to experimenting with everyone's ideas since most great ideas aren't planned.
Well, I think unique games are always going to have an initially difficult time at retail. However, I'm of the opinion that sometimes you need to have a deep knowledge of the medium, gained through actual play, in order to deconstruct expectations and build new ideas.