[Editor's note: megaStryke wrote up this piece on the word vision and how it's thrown around in relation to videogames. -- CTZ]
Far be it from me to impose my thoughts on how software developers should direct their projects. If I had my way, games would return to NES-era pixelated affairs. I mean, my favorite game of this past year was Mega Man 9! However, I understand that mine is not the ideal direction for the industry, that there is no reason to dump technology over some fantasy retro utopia. It’s not like I don't enjoy the current stable of software anyway. Now, I know you guys out there, the forum warriors and the blog commenters. Always up for a good debate, you will argue over the capabilities of you favorite consoles and how games could look and play better on one over the other. That's fine. My problem lies with some of the inane arguments typically paraded, one in particular which totally rubs me the wrong way.
To set the scene, imagine that you are anticipating high-profile console exclusive game when an announcement is made that it will be ported over to a competing console. Maybe it will be a direct port but perhaps it will be a down-port. Perhaps this game is a former PS3-exclusive being reworked for the Wii. In another case, you have been following the lead of a promising new game for an unannounced platform. It sounds totally sweet and awesome and the hype begins to consume you. Then the big reveal is made and it turns out to be... a DS game. At some point, the following will be dropped: "This is a disgrace! Such wasted potential! Why should the developers sacrifice their vision just to make a little extra cash?" I've read those lines far too often and so have you. I find it hard to believe that this is based in any genuine concern towards the advancement of as a "visionary" medium. Let's explore this curious term that has found its way into the gaming community lexicon, shall we?
What's "vision"? Better yet, who is visionary? Why, artists are visionary! We use the term as a means with which to link games and art because developers are like artists and you would never ask an artist to sell himself or herself out for a little extra pocket change. No, the original vision must be preserved and realized however the artist sees fit. There's a problem with this analogy, though. "Art" in and of itself is not a profitable venture when applied to the demands of the media industry. You may have "artists" working in the art department, on the sound team, or with the writing crew, yet all of them toil within the confines of a project intended for distribution to a buying public. Debate all you want on whether or not an overall project, game or film or whatever, is a genuine work of art after it is released... it is a
product first and anything else second. If the product doesn't meet publisher expectations, expect to see a little less "art" next time around. This is contrary to the mental image of the world-renowned painter crafting masterpiece after masterpiece in the comfort of his private studio. It's a glorious scenario but not typically a profitable one. A lot of the most famous painters in history lived and died in poverty... Van Gogh anyone? The "starving artist" persona is one I highly doubt any sane game staffer seeking financial stability would pursue.
The truth is that games are dictated not only by orders from higher authorities but also by time constraints and budget concerns. Milestones need to be met and stuff winds up on the cutting table. A level here, an extra boss battle or two, a little "
tightening up on the graphics," cut, cut, snip, snip. No game is ever shipped with all the content that the developers had originally planned. Some of it goes into the sequel, some of it is lost, and all are victim to the mechanizations of the software development cycle. In this sense, no developer's "vision" is ever truly achieved. Sure, project leads can and will fight to retain as much content as they can, but those with the most pull are the ones who have proven themselves to be masters of their craft. You can count on one or two hands the number of game developers who are respected enough to be given free reign to spend as much time and money to ensure a blockbuster as they so desire... legends like Shigeru Miyamoto and Will Wright. Don't be fooled into thinking that these guys are not immune to cutbacks, not to mention that they only got to where they are by proving that they can deliver results despite monumental hurdles:
Donkey Kong was Miyamoto’s recycling of the hardware and arcade cabinets of Nintendo's failed
Radar Scope;
SimCity was an enhanced version of the map editor from Wright's first game,
Raid on Bungeling Bay, that he tooled with in his spare time.
But what does any of that have to do with "vision"? I was under the impression that "vision" implied some transcendence of the norm, some new innovation that will change the foundation of gaming forever. The city-building of
SimCity was visionary. The new cinema-quality experience of
Metal Gear Solid for the PSX was visionary. The allowance of PC game mods was visionary. An extra deathmatch mode or two or the ability to render the stitching on virtual cloth more realistically is
NOT visionary. I don't mean to discredit how these extra bells and whistles can add to the overall experience, but simply being able to add more than what was available on lesser hardware doesn't make a game a shining paragon of progress in the medium.
I caught
a recent interview with Dave Woldman, producer for the PS3 and Xbox 360’s upcoming
The Godfather II, and noticed this little nugget as to why there was no Wii version in the works:
"We felt that in order to truly deliver on the vision of The Godfather II we really had to focus and take advantage of what the next gen hardware has to offer, including online connectivity. The next gen hardware is simply more robust and allows for a higher visual bar and immersive experience. "A next gen hardware focus enables higher-resolution textures, longer draw distances, and better frame-rates. But we also harnessed the power of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 to make gameplay improvements as well. We were able to create an all new Artificial Intelligence system to make our characters act and react more intelligently." Naturally, I would expect the HD consoles to yield greater visuals and infrastructure than the Wii. What that has to do with "vision" is beyond me, but whatever. Makes sense, right? Now, just over a week ago, there was
an interview with John Calhoun, one of the game's designers, in which he made this announcement in regards to the Wii port of the original
The Godfather:
"The BlackHand Edition was definitely a lot of fun- both to play and design. The ability to punch, strangle, and aim using the Wii controller was simply a blast, and if your readers haven't played it, I encourage them to check it out. "In fact the dual controllers were the inspiration for our new combo system in The Godfather II - the left trigger representing your left arm and the right trigger your right arm. The Godfather II will be coming to the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC." So, the Wii version of the original game featured such fantastic controls that it became the foundation for the controls in the sequel. Yet there is no Wii version. So any control layout in
The Godfather II, I suppose, would be an "unrealized vision" because neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 feature the Wii’s dual-controller setup, right? Why wouldn't there be a Wii version? My hypothesis, and though I may be wrong I highly doubt it, is that EA is not concerning itself with "vision" as much as it is with whether it is fiscally responsible to develop a ground-up version exclusively for the Wii given how unreadable the Wii market is. Somehow, I find that to be an easier pill to swallow then some developer's pride over realizing "vision."
I've noticed something else. Whenever "vision" gets tossed around, it is always with respect to some hardware-hungry beast or some Holy Grail, AAA-budgeted extravaganza. It's as if we, and I'm referring to both the community and the software houses, believe a developer's true intent can only be achieved given near-infinite resources or the latest-and-greatest in technology. Let me roll back a bit here... I've mentioned the constraints of working with a game company and the pressures of maintaining financial stability. For those who eschew the cogs of big business, there's always indie gaming. Indie developers are small, set their own rules, take as long as they want, and experiment with design concepts that may never be green-lit by any major publisher. They've also crafted games that rival most commercial products in terms of creativity and beauty. I am not going to bother listing examples as I'm sure you've played your fair share of freeware PC games and can vouch for my claim. Do you know what these developers lack? The funds and the hardware that major companies take for granted. Don't tell me that these games aren't "visionary" because they don't require a DX10 configuration for optimal performance. Maybe some of these small teams aspire to greater goals, but I guarantee that most of them scale back their "visions" in accordance with the resources available to them. Even if that's not the case, it doesn't take away from the brilliance of their design because no amount of money can make up for sheer ingenuity.
Maybe I'm looking at this whole thing wrong. Maybe I'm thinking of "vision" in the wrong context. Perhaps I should replace "vision" with "ambition." The more ambitious a project is, the more likely it is to require a greater level of time and dedication. Ambition is an admirable trait, right? Ambition is no reason to go for broke, though. There is a reason that these constraints are established and it is because overambition can be far more damaging than accepting a little performance scaling from conception to the final product. You want to talk about overambition? Wanna know what happens when you fly a little too close to the sun? Ask the fine folks at Sony
who after over a year of delays decided to release Home in a beta state of indefinite length and unfulfilled promises. Ask the clowns at 3D Realms who after ten years of literally developing
NOTHING else saw it fit to release a couple of nice wallet-sized
Duke Nukem Forever photos and then, the following year,
some handheld camera footage that was never meant to be seen. Ask Yu Suzuki how he felt
after spending $70 million on Shenmue only to realize that he would NEVER break even on the project even if one copy was sold to every Dreamcast owner on the planet, and then for kicks ask him how
Shenmue III is coming along. It's no stretch to imagine that a single large, unwieldy project can sink a company in the near future. It's like a composer who pours everything he has into his magnum opus which turns out to be his requiem when he dies from the shame of having his show close after a single night playing in front of an empty theater. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but there's a kernel of truth in that.
For all this talk of maximizing the potential of a software's target platform, why do people get in such a fuss over something like
Blood of Bahamut coming to the DS? Apparently, gamers know the developer's "vision" better than the developer because clearly such a game demands release on an HD console in order to realize its true potential. Do we even know if Square Enix considered the home consoles before settling on the DS? Whether they did or not doesn't matter. There is no HD version, there never was an HD version, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there never will be an HD version. Why play the "what if" game? We could talk about what could have been until the cows come home, but there is no point in bemoaning the loss of something that never existed in the first place. For all you know, there is some feature that can only be accomplished on the DS. Unlike those
Godfather fellas, I haven't heard anything out of these guys about "vision" and potential, so let's leave well enough alone.
I don't care what kind of PR the game companies want to deliver. What I care about is this annoying trend in the game community to speak of "vision" as if it really mattered. Do you know what the truth is? It's not the developer's vision that isn't being met, it's
YOURS. That's right. It's in the best interest of numero uno that the games you desire are built to your specifications. It has nothing to do with art or potential, it is sour grapes over things beyond your control. I'm not saying that you can't feel some disappointment, but don't build up some ideal game in La-La Land and then get upset when it becomes clear that the development team isn't following your imaginary floor plan.
Enough with "vision," alright? Let's strip that from our vocabulary right now. I'm sick of this garbage.
Contest:
10:00 AM on 02.13.2009
| 
It is also truth however to say that games do not just fill that single definition anymore. Much in the same way that film is a combination of its own unique strong traits and those taken from theatre and music, video games are a culmination of all those mediums in addition to their own. To Peter Jackson, the Lord of the Rings was a vision because of what the visual experience could deliver in taking viewers to the realm of the books. In the same way, for some video game developers their visionary ideals involve providing the same level of immersion and transportation via sweeping vistas and orchestral scores.
When people complain about the platform a game is on, you're right: vision is the wrong word. There is a vision there that is being met to the best of the developer's abilities and constraints regardless of what the consumer may wish for. But platform choice is one of the tools developers use to make their visions reality as well.
I feel like I may have strayed from the point of your argument a bit in this reply and I'm sorry. A little tired from three hours sleep and coffee high. Still, excellent post and I hope you see where I'm coming from (if I even understood you correctly).
And I'm not saying that there aren't any true visionaries in the medium. I just don't like how it seems that every developer, at least in the eyes of the community, is some magnificent artist working on the next legendary Hollywood blockbuster.
But I'm rambling here, sorry.
And in my opinion, EA will come out with a Wii port of Godfather II. Vision likely has nothing to do with it, it's much more likely that they are just waiting to release the Wii version until it's more financially viable for them to do so.
I've often wished that they would make a new Kung Fu (or something similar) and just add like 1,000 levels with all kinds of new enemies and maybe a few different kicks or something, but the same 8-bit style. That would be awesome.
I may just steal it.
Also, 4 pages? That's a lot of text man.
It may not be 1000 levels, but... Kung Fu - Remix.
@grafkhun
I had totally forgotten about Diablo 3. Yeah, what self-important whiners.
That looks freakin' awesome. I'm going to play it right...now.
Thanks for the ego boost! I'll keep 'em coming as long as my brain remains functioning!
Keep them coming megaStryke.
"And I'm not saying that there aren't any true visionaries in the medium. I just don't like how it seems that every developer, at least in the eyes of the community, is some magnificent artist working on the next legendary Hollywood blockbuster."
I was concerned that your use of "vision" was skating dangerously close to a straw man argument, but that second to last paragraph (about how it's our vision) really cinched it. Excellent!
I think people like to pretend that their taste should be some kind of universal guide for everyone.
On yet another note, I still don't think that people see that the different consoles can give very different and equally valid play experiences. Play is play, whatever form it takes.
I'm a bit of a snob about various things, including video games, music, and even fine dining. I have to tell myself this once in a while.
Vision is the intended design of a game. It will have this many levels that take place in these kinds of environments, there will be these enemies, these features, the player will be able to do this, experience this, be rewarded with this, etc. If a developer can't adhere to their vision for the game, then it's like getting a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing.
You seem to be stating that you believe that game developers are trying to revolutionize the industry by using the term "Vision" which they are not. It's the term for the implementation of all the design choices they've made.
I most certainly covered that ground as well. I did my best to cover all my bases on this one. There are multiple ways you can look at "vision." It could be the developer's push towards some artistic benchmark, it could be raw potential, or it could be a simple checklist of things the developer wants included in the final product. It's never realized 100%. Never. Not once.
Also, if you are going to be referring to one of the latter definitions, best use a different term other than "vision" when describing how you want a project to pan out. "Vision" implies something grander than what it really is.
It's a great blog, but it fails to take into account the studio system used in films. Despite the vision and intent of one man, usually the director or producer, there is tons of pulling in every direction as multiple personalities try to get what they want. And yet, films somehow manage to meet with the lead artist (director's) creative vision, so much so that we have the auteur theory of film criticism. So far, the decision-making process in games is still considered more collaborative, rather than being auteur-based, with a few minor exceptions like Hideo Kojima or Suda51, but that does not change the fact that it is still a group of people deciding on the vision they have and working towards it.
And they base that vision on initial expectations. To illustrate an example: Rayman Raving Rabbids was designed for Wii. They saw the controller, the system specs, and designed their vision of a fun minigame collection with a strong focus on humor. During the Wii launch window, my friends and I had a lot of fun with the game, especially due to its motion controls. Then, they ported it to the 360 almost a year later, to make more money, which no one can begrudge them. But in the process, they compromised the original game's vision - the game just simply isn't as fun with a regular controller mixed with the Live Camera, even if it has enhanced graphics.
In this line of thinking, I don't know why people are complaining about Blood of Bahamut on DS, since I've only seen enthusiasm for it - Square clearly has a vision of how they want the game to turn out, and DS is going to work best with their vision, the same way the Mega Man 9 team thought the game would essentially work best on an NES. To disrespect those initial decisions and port it somewhere where it doesn't belong, though, leads to compromises in the game's identity.
To me, the uproar over Dead Rising Wii has always been about this fact. The original game was designed as a survival beat-em-up, with its gameplay elements properly tied to its story. The feeling of a zombie invasion could only be properly reproduced with the increased firepower of the 360 (and PS3, but we don't know why they didn't port it there). However, the Wii port is just making it into an RE4 mod. RE4 was an amazing game, but it is not the right template for the Dead Rising experience. It places an unnecessary focus on guns, limits melee, removes the picture-taking (removing a link to the story), and eases the time limit restrictions (removing another story link). You now have a vision - a photojournalist surviving in a mall for 72 hours - that has become a separated story with some unrelated gameplay. Maybe unrelated is harsh, but it certainly does not connect and flow as well. (This is to say nothing of the Wii's inability to capture a horde of zombies overflowing in the mall.)
This is the equivalent of going into a film studio, taking the masters, and recutting the film with additional footage to turn it from a romance film into an action film. As someone who is going into the film industry, I do not want to see anything I work on get treated this way, and studios are mostly respectful of this, even if it means less sales. If anyone wants us to take games as a serious medium, the least we (and more importantly, the companies themselves) can do is start respecting what made an original game unique and not start mucking around with it to appeal to a different audience. This isn't a matter of creating a game crafted specifically for you, it's a matter of respecting a design team's decisions enough to realize a new decision has destroyed the original vision.
Long story short: we concern ourselves with the vision of a game because game studios sometimes don't.
You're arguing the definition of a word. A word used on the Internet, no less.
In the time it took you to make that point, another person has learned to juggle or met a girlfriend or written a piece of music fixed their friends PC and loads of other coy things that escape me right now.
But all pretence aside, it was a good article.
Congratulations on the promotion as well :D
I hear the word vision bandied about in the gaming press, but I don't see much of it in most of the finished games.
So, your problem is that I could have learned how to juggle instead of writing a blog? How do you know I didn't type this up with one hand while I juggled with the other?
@Necros
It is very coincidental that my article appeared on the front page not soon after the other comment you made. I was actually going to link to this back then as my rebuttal but it had disappeared only to reappear this morning. Surprise to me.
Funny you brought up Rayman Raving Rabbids, a classic case of original intent going out the window. You said you had tons of fun with it, right? It was a good game, right? Well, it was originally going to be a traditional platformer. During development it was referred to as Rayman 4. However, once the Wii dev kits arrived, the team decided to take the title in a completely new direction. Michel Ancel, Rayman's father and creator of the rabbids, didn't quite like how the project was turning out and stepped down from the helm. He was only credited as character designer in the final build and he had no involvement with future Rabbids titles. So the game didn't quite turn out as Ancel had hoped. The game isn't bad because it isn't a platformer, is it? It's still a great game. Nothing can change that.
As for Dead Rising: Chop Til You Drop, I've read nothing from Capcom, the CTYD team, the original team, or Keiji Inafune stating anything other than confidence for this title. The only people who are complaining are the press and the enthusiast audience. We can't read the minds at Capcom, so how do we know that this isn't exactly what they want for the franchise? We don't know because it isn't our business to know. If Capcom wants to attract a new audience with a retooled Dead Rising, who are we to hold that against them? Besides, I've only seen a couple of reviews for the game so far and they fall in the 7 to 8 range. Apparently the game isn't totally without merit, so perhaps it does something right. We'll know for sure once it hits shelves.
So, to reiterate, it isn't up to us to worry if "vision" is being met. You said, "Long story short: we concern ourselves with the vision of a game because game studios sometimes don't." If the studio isn't concerned, there's no reason for us to be. We aren't making the game, we can't dictate the direction it will go. Maybe the game is exactly as they plan it to be. Let's not assume otherwise.
"A next gen hardware focus enables higher-resolution textures, longer draw distances, and better frame-rates. But we also harnessed the power of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 to make gameplay improvements as well. We were able to create an all new Artificial Intelligence system to make our characters act and react more intelligently."
----------
I kind of feel like there's an equivocation going on here. I certainly agree with your post that games, as a whole, are less art than product. However, by 'vision' I just think - in this specific case - he only means to imply 'the way he sees it' as opposed to 'the other possible ways.' Personally, I don't see how draw distances or online play can mess up a Godfather title; but I'm also of the opinion that Godfather should never have been made into a game to begin with. It's like making a game out of a Casablanca and saying that it needs online play. What for?
So, 'vision' can mean lots of things. When I look at my computer monitor I do so with the use of my vision. When I consider what I want to do with my life, I craft a vision - a way I want it to turn out. When I read Plato's Republic, I try to understand his vision - the grand culmination of all of his ideals. Those last two uses are nearly the same, but still somewhat different. I think the latter is more akin to what Miyamoto had in mind with Wii Music - some grand scale orchestra that you can play. (God help us all.)
Vision isn't merely artistic either. Walt Disney had a 'vision' for Disneyland (or is it Disney World?) that is not technically an artistic venture in the classic sense. It just seems to me that you're adding in this idea that the games artistic aspirations are somehow what he's referring to in his article; whereas it seems to me he's referring to the 'vision' of the overall experience of the game itself. Let me know if I'm wrong on this one.
I think it's safe to agree that many a vision are usurped by the simple fact of getting product on the shelves. Sometimes, tho, the concentrated effort that circumvents the constraints of giant-publisher development gets a good result even today. Castle Crashers... Braid... Noitu Love 2... and more of everyone's individual preferences, of course. That's vision I can get behind.
You are right that "vision" isn't an exclusively art-related term. However, it is no secret that there are developers in this industry who fancy themselves rock stars. Off the top of my head, Tomonobu Itagaki and Denis Dyack. Here are two guys who just won't shut up about how awesome they are. The games they've helmed aren't necessarily bad, but nothing they have done tells me that any of their posturing is warranted.
With The Godfather II, yes, maybe in that case "vision" was more in reference to the kinds of features he wished the game to have. If that is the case then why isn't the game on the Wii? The Wii port of the original game laid the foundation for the sequel's control scheme, so logically a game not on the Wii hardware would be lacking in that department. There was a compromise made, and that compromise was the team would rather have nicer draw distances and crazy particle effects than what they themselves have called the ideal input method. If that's what it takes to make the game better, so be it, but it is yet another detour from the project's original intent.
Oh, no doubt. I'll call bullshit on that one with you. I agree that it's probably because they don't expect to make thier investment back on the wii title. A lot of developers seem to think that. The irony is that just about anything both adult-oriented and well produced would sell exceptionally well. My Wii has been gathering dust for some time; though it has more to do with my work schedule than the lack of games I could be playing. I just know that many gamers are wanting more wii content but it seems like we're stuck with Hula-Wii and the like.
I'm going back to my previous point, though, and saying that I don't think Godfather should have been made into a game. I haven't played - and even if it's exceptionally good I'd still think it's pointless. Just my opinion though.
I mean, people get way too worked up over the subject of "artistic integrity" when most of the time what they really mean is "baww, y is x gaem not out for mai system of choize"