Games as an art form are dead goodbye sweet prince games industry is dying oh my god I'm dying

@Jim What he's thinking is simple. It's easier to complicate existing game mechanics than coming up with new simple ones. Put a familiar name on the box you also have better chances of it selling. He's thinking as a businessman not an artist. You can efficiently train people to be good with tech, but you can't train someone to be a creative and a good artist.

bean counters calling the shots.

Yeah, he's just stating that not everyone is creative enough to create brand new ideas. That's just a fact, and it's okay.

A team can easily grab an old IP and branch out from there. It's like how it's easier to come up with a new arrangement of a Beatles song than to write your own of the same quality.

Right, who needs new IPs when you can just take years to finally make a sequel that manages to almost top the original... Wait, what?

Bioshock, inFamous, Uncharted, Gears, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Resistance, Demon's Souls, etc. would like to have a word with this guy, I think.

No new IP's needed? Eidos fits into Square's empire just fine then.

People will buy existing IPs because of their familiarity so they are always going to be a safer bet than a new IP. I feel that developers can push new ideas into an existing IP rather than risking a whole new IP with unfamiliar mechanics to the audience.

I'm currently jizzing my pants just thinking about a new Thief game.

Its very very very bad PR and marketing, nothing more. I am 99% certain this isnt something they sat down and made a creative decision about, theyre just trying to put a positive spin on it(not that it really needed it?).

He sounds French. Is he French? Because he sounds French. Even if it werent for his name, I would think hes French.

[rant]
I dont mean to bag on French people or anything, but this is the kind of broken logic we have to deal with in our politics in Canada. That and money grubbing American-wanabees who would sell their mothers soul to an oil company to make a quick buck.

Granted, the "normal" Canadian is too lazy to do anything or give a fuck about it so...
[/rant]

Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Kart
Paper Mario
Mario RPG
Mario Tennis
Mario Golf

Same IP (Mario), completely different game mechanics.

That is what he's saying, and he's right.

I think it's indicative of 'simple' games and 'complex' games being viewed as different products that meet different needs as a piece of entertainment. It might be because of how large games are created today, and the way in which certain aspects are prioritized over others (graphics, audio, graphics, gunshot sounds); and because of the cost of such games, that focus changes the very nature of the game itself. Smaller games can focus on different aspects, like mechanics, and try to change the way established design ideas are implemented, or try and create new ones. The cost for failure is lower if the smaller game doesn't work out, while creating something like Braid or Rock of Ages at the AAA level I would argue, seem too risky for many companies to try. They would likely fall back on established IP's and mechanics, changing them slightly to make the game feel different enough to be new, but not enough to feel old. It seems to me that the min/max-ing of games at the AAA level is actually creating a wholly new way of thinking about what a video game is, and the conclusion by D’Astous seems to be that there is indeed a big difference between what he does and what people like Markus Persson do.

Also: Final Fantasy Series.

actually i don't mind doing that.

the problem is that when they have a terrible idea they still have the guts to go through out.

i mean Silent Hill Book of Shadows(wtf are you thinking konami??), some of the mechanics of AC series(the tower defense thing sucks, love the brotherhood system though ala Portable Ops/Peace Walker)

that said i want anohter Human Revolution but this time ability to play FULL first person and 3rd person as options.

definitely one of my favorite games this generation.

Get ready for 'Deus Ex 4: Modern Warfare: Shadows of Deception.'

But hey, if Eidos can keep up some classic IP's with high quality results, like DXHR, then I support that. As long as they keep in touch with what makes those IP's great, then let them continue. There's still a place for new IP's, but through other developers and publishers.

Now for a new System Shock game. Please?

Shame he didn't mention how having good endings help games either. Deus Ex: HR was a great game until the last level. Beautiful environments, engaging story, and outside the 3 shit boss fights, divergent gameplay. I played through the game 3 times I liked it so much.

Still that last level completely spoiled the game. Not only did they go to the most overused tropes in games, zombies, but they did it poorly. The art took a dive. Remember looking out the window at the station? Who's shit pixelated photoshop bullshit was that? The 3 multilple choice endings weren't all that great, but at least fit the narrative a little. If they hadn't rushed the game out the door, spent some time polishing the game, wrote a decent ending and retuned the problems that game could have been a genre redefining experience, one people pointed to for years to say "There. That's how you do it." but now you can't do that, they shot themselves in the foot. Shame, it was fun until that last level.

New characters aren't as important as gameplay? I can get behind that

With the exception of a select few, I don't think alot of these big companies have the money to risk on new ips to see what sticks. Its kind of the harsh reality of publicly traded companies. So I don't hold it against him for stating the obvious and frankly trying to spin it in a face saving macho light like he did.

I think this is cool as long as they are revisiting old classics that people actually want to see again, while filling them with new ideas without completely removing them from the theme and quality of their predecessors. How many people who played Deus Ex weren't starving for a sequel? How many people who played Human Revolution didn't enjoy it? While the gaming industry certainly needs some new IPs and fresh ideas, I'm fine with Eidos sticking to this crazy plan of theirs. The closer we get to an Anachronix sequel, the happier I'll be.

Well think about things like Kid Icarus. It's a far way away from its NES predecesor, and almost a new game. Instead of using a new IP though they can just use Kid Icarus things. Same goes for any game made back in the 90s still made today. Sonic, Mario, Zelda. Any one of these games could have used a new IP since their 3D games are almost entirely different from those of 2D yesteryear, but they don't have to be because it works and it's still a new game.

Now once you start making sequels using the same technology and ideas though, then reusing IPs gets a bit stale.

@MrFloppyknickers Zombies? Did I miss something? Or is that just your interpretation?

It's not sequelitis perse that kills and IP, it's shitty/samey sequelitis at full release speed. New Super Mario Bros Wii is in essence the same old Mario formula but unlike the once-each-year IPs it's pretty well polished, not as close from it's previous release and brings at least a new idea used (in creative ways too) to the table instead of the exact same thing as the previous iteration.

@drakkengard
Lol at Bioshock. I would hardly consider that a new IP. It was to System Shock 2, what Human Revolution was to Deus: Ex.

Well, they're sort of having their cake and eating it, too. Are recent games like Syndicate and XCOM really old IPs, or brand new ones with old names slapped on them for brand recognition?

hes nuts

Wow, that is some of the laziest shit that I have ever read.

I have to agree with this guy. Just look at fallout which was a a sequel but becuase of new technology was a able to create a whole new expierence in a a world we know and love. I don't think he is saying "release a sequel every year with no new mechanics" but rather incorporate the new ideas into exaisting
worlds.

I see what he is saying, but it's not a very good idea to hold. Always striving to create new things should take priority over just pumping out sequels. If your idea happens to blend with an old IP (Which I assume Human Revolution did), then why not combine the two?

Splinter Cell adopted the Tom Clancy branding because of it's similarity to Rainbow Six, after all. Stuff like that is okay. Just don't sell yourself short.

What new technology? We are dealing with consoles so old they can barely run the games being released for them. The PC has a lot of potential, but gets held back by cross-platform development. At least with the PC player base growing and new consoles coming the bottleneck of the PS3/360 will finally get plunged in the next year or so.

@Jinx 01
"What new technology?"

He means in software; game engines.

This, more or less, has been Nintendo's strategy for quite a while, and I'm completely fine with it.
It's not just about technology, but also about implementing new ideas. Just look at the differences between Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and Super Mario Galaxy. All feature Mario, and all of them are even 3D platformers, but no one would argue that they are creatively bankrupt or anything like that.
....okay, people would, but they'd be wrong.

That's not to say that we should throw all ideas for new IP's out the window, and his statement about "I think this replaces the necessity of having new IP" is really taking it a couple of steps too far. I think we'd all eat up a good new Nintendo IP. That said, I don't see anything wrong with re-using familiar faces as long as new things get done with them.

I see what he's saying, though I think someone like nintendo should be saying that. I'm not sure how many properties Eidos has but the point of the matter is that if they start reviving series and threw those series they make the innovations, that would be pretty awesome because those are series we love, and they would be coming back with new technology.

But the last thing I would want is for Eidos to only make Deus ex games and Thief games back and forth using this thought process as justification. Which is why I said nintendo considering how many old properties they have that could be brought back to life, thus variety happens, with of course "sophistication".

You can call him out on cowardice for not wanting to take a risk on completely new IP's, considering one main reason I'm sure would be less chance of it selling (but that goes into consumers not wanting to take risk as well, and preferring familiarity), but if they started reviewing old properties then those in a way due to technology and different design, would indeed be a new IP.

"Right, who needs new IPs when you can just take years to finally make a sequel that manages to almost top the original... Wait, what?

Bioshock, inFamous, Uncharted, Gears, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Resistance, Demon's Souls, etc. would like to have a word with this guy, I think."

I hope you realize Bioshock is exactly what the guy in the article was talking about.

From a money standpoint it makes sense. You have an existing fanbase, plus you can draw in new fans, and still make something unique(like DE:HR).

I just want good games, I don't really care if it's a new IP or not. I'm completely fine with existing IP's being taken in a new direction or refined, as long as the result is good. You can have an astounding amount of variety within a single IP.

Ssssssssso the future of gaming is replaying the same shit, graphically updated, every 7-10 years? Sounds... exciting.

That's why we pay 'em the big bucks! We pay them not to think so we don't have to think! Er, wait...

Ah the future of eternal sequelitis.

In the context of a game world its a good idea, you can point to dozens of Mario games which have the same characters but they're simple characters and an understanding of why Peach is racing Bowser in karts doesn't need an explanation. However when a game relies on existing characters in a new setting then you have an issue. I was leery of MGS4 because I hadn't played the previous games and all I knew about the series was that there was a cardboard box. If Revengeance were being made a decade from now I'm sure the next generation of gamers would be questioning a lot of details in the game because it's an IP with a rich backstory and new mechanics won't be able to get past that.

Point being, it's not a bad idea but its water that must be tread carefully. If a game relied heavily on story then a spiritual successor is the way to go otherwise people new to the IP will face a learning curve in regards to the plot and backstory and their experience will likely suffer as a result.

did anybody else read this guys name as "disastrous" instead of "d'astous" ?
well this line of thinking is certainly disastrous.
game companies need to come up with more ides and keep them less complex so they can be easily produced in a timely fashion.
there are many great games that are no complex, they are simply creative. games like katamari damacy are not intensely complex. they are relatively simplistic. xenoblade is relatively simplistic with graphics that are not overbearing but because of nice attention to detail and design process, it is an amazing game.

Oh look, it's the same mentality that makes me never want to watch movies. Go figure.

"Well ... that's a cynical way of looking at things."

Well I assume he's French, even if its French Canadian.. Lovely people in Montreal (I really do love it up there) but yeah.. Theres a back end cynicism that I can only attribute to their French ancestry.

Either way, he should run down the street and tell this to Ubisoft, because while they're still making the same old shit year in and year out, they still feel the need to be on the forefront of pushing hard for a new generation that'll mostly be wasted on them.

I'm going to be real honest -I didn't like Human Revolution despite my 1000pt achievement score in it. It felt like a broken, disjointed experience that focused way too much on stealth while giving the illusion of having a choice in how you played it. Honestly, it was what I expect a Thief game to be, and if a new Thief game comes along soon (cause I believe they're working on one) and it plays (and looks) even remotely like Deus Ex does, I'm going to call Eidos on their bullshit, because they essentially made 1 game instead of really spending the time making 2.

Don't get me wrong, I like Eidos, and their properties, and I'm pretty happy to see that being owned by Square now isn't holding them back one bit --But I get the idea that they're going to rush and/or misrepresent those properties just so Square can make a profit SOMEWHERE as opposed to turning one themselves -allowing Square to keep being Square, while putting all the weight on a really great developer they just happen to own.

And by "Either way, he should run down the street and tell this to Ubisoft, because while they\'re still making the same old shit year in and year out, they still feel the need to be on the forefront of pushing hard for a new generation that\'ll mostly be wasted on them." I mean they're pushing like this, just so they can stop feeling "bored" and can put out "new IPs" when we know that they'll probably just shovel the same Raymans, Assassin's Creeds and the like yearly.

I am pretty sure what he is really saying is that creating new ips is hard... Why do something the hard way when you can do it the lazy way?

I can see his point, though, and it's not unreasonable. Deus Ex:HR might as well have just been called something else, because aside from the name (and appearance of Bob Page), the game stands completely on its own. They created a great system of "augmentations" and assorted gameplay mechanics, and they wrote a brilliant story from scratch (it was a prequel, not a sequel).

@Stealth - LOL, the worst interpretation of what this guy is saying has been Nintendo's playbook for its entire existence. Hmmmm..

@George booth - The point. You missed it. We're not talking about remaking classics as shitty cash grabs, here.

I don't think new IPs are nearly as important in games as they are in movies. For certain genres of games, as long as gameplay gets improved in each sequel, there doesn't necessarily need to be a new IP. Look at the success of fighting games.

See....this statement doesn't bother me coming from Eidos Montreal. They managed to revive Deus Ex in a way none of us thought would ever be possible.

The rest of the industry on the other hand has no excuse, because they don't even TRY to make things feel new. They just put graphics over it, cut all of the unique qualities out of the series, and then say "we want Call of Duty's audience".

a friend's sister-in-law makes $65 hourly on the laptop. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was $19426 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more NuttyRich . com

I don't think an IP is crucial if a game is done well, but I also don't like the idea of riding the success of an IP to ensure a profitable audience. It always makes me wonder, "what would this be like if they weren't piggybacking something else?" It's like how Michael Bay should have made his own film about alien robots instead of taking the Transformers franchise and turning it into something else, or how Capcom took the Resident Evil franchise and tried to turn it into Call of Duty.

I'm also under the impression that games are becoming less sophisticated, what with the way they treat players like idiots. I feel that most modern game mechanics are layers of bullshit that only serve to extend gameplay time or distract from monotony. They could have a billion mechanics, it doesn't make the game sophisticated. Quality over quantity. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is one of those games where I felt that most of my time was being spent moving from location to location. That is hardly sophisticated. But that's what most games seem to be doing nowadays.