Money and video games: A sad mix
Dan Houser, Rockstar Games creative vice president and chief Grand Theft Auto IV writer, said in an interview recently that he would rather see developers enjoy their creative freedoms instead of garnering respect from the entertainment industry and being tied down by regulations.
"(Developing video games) is really fun at the moment because we're not in any academy and the medium's not codified," Houser told the Telegraph. "There's no accepted way of doing anything so that give us enormous pleasure because we can make it up as we go along.
"Movies and TV and books have become so structured in the way they have to approach things," he continued. "Not working in that environment gives us enormous freedom. I'd rather keep the freedom and not have the respect."
It's an interesting point and one that I tend to agree with. Right now, many shows and television segments need to go through a "standards and practices" check to ensure that what will be broadcast won't offend others. Films also go through a rigorous vetting process and each movie is rated based on its content. Trust me, it's nothing like the ESRB.
But as video games continue their rise in popularity, it might only be a matter of time before they finally reach the mainstream entertainment space and are considered an equal to films and movies. Once that happens, as Houser explains, the video game industry will be rocked by rules and scrutiny that could diminish its value to those of us who have enjoyed gaming for years.
Realizing that, I don't want to see the video game industry go mainstream.
I think the industry has gone far enough. I remember a time, not too long ago, when the video game industry wasn't so focused on business the way it is today. I agree with Houser that there is still some creative freedom, but the more I play games, the more I realize that that creative freedom is being sucked away just a little more each day.
How many first-person shooters do we have to play before it gets to be enough? More often than not, the game is built off the Unreal Engine (just look at this list!) and regardless of the developer, it looks and plays the same way as every other FPS on the market. It's to the point now that I've boycotted first-person shooters because of my disgust.
But it goes far beyond first-person shooters. Years ago, you'd be hard-pressed to find an advertisement in games. Now, if you play Madden NFL 09 or just about any Need for Speed title, you'll be inundated with in-game advertising. It's everywhere. And it's annoying.
There's also the issue of sequels. I realize that video games are becoming more costly to develop and one of the best ways to get every last dime out of a game is to develop sequels and capitalize on a franchise, but come on! Do I really need this many sequels? Sure, some are better than their predecessors (I'm looking at you, Gears of War 2), but I find that those are the exception, not the norm. More often than not, sequels are rushed out the door because the suits upstairs want to make a quick buck. Great. But what about the gamer?
I consider myself "old school" when it comes to gaming. I still love my favorite titles from on the NES and I look back fondly at the debates we engaged in over which console, the SNES or the Sega Genesis, was best. That was a time when gaming wasn't nearly as popular, but it wasn't as commercial either. Innovation and creative freedom was rewarded above all else and derivative game play was practically nonexistent.
But as the video game industry started its trek to the mainstream, it placed a priority on cash. And in the process, games did become more regulated and that creative freedom Houser touched on, while still present, is a modicum of what it once was.
Do I still love gaming? Of course. Would I give it up even though it's starting to go mainstream? Of course not. But that doesn't mean I need to like where gaming is headed. The more mainstream the industry gets, the more ads, derivative game play, boring iterations of established titles, and regulation, we will be forced to deal with.
And as a gamer, that's not good.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Sequels, be it movies, books or games are formulaic, by definition.
"There's also the issue of sequels. I realize that video games are becoming more costly to develop and one of the best ways to get every last dime out of a game is to develop sequels and capitalize on a franchise, but come on! Do I really need this many sequels?"
Coming from the person/company of have made a million and one GTA games, and he has the cheek to complain about people making sequels.
Cry me a river and go play on your iMac.
Video games are made for a different audience. We demand more creativity, I think, because a) we're paying a hell of a lot more for what we're getting and b) this isn't mindless entertainment, generally speaking.
If a video game has a truly crap plotline- not a mediocre one, but a truly bad one- or horrible game mechanics or whatnot, the sales are generally going to plummet. Consider what we pay for playing one game. Pound for pound, most of us spend more to play one game then most others pay one month of movies. We demand good quality, and if there's not a great plotline (for games that generally lack them altogether), then we demand good controls, replayability, and engaging mechanics.
Because of what we expect from our games- and the high price we pay for them, in terms of consoles, extra controllers, accesories like additional headsets, memory cards, and online accounts- game developers have to come up with ways to keep us occupied continously so we don't just rent games instead of owning the discs, let alone special edition copies, various paraphanila and DLC. I'd put video games closer to books than movies- movies only have to be engaging from time to time, but books and games have to really good in order to hit high sales and keep other sales- the DLC, the swag, the online accounts- up and running.
Becoming 'respectable' would really only open the audience more. Games are targeted towards certain audiences, but our audience intermingles. Unlike a movie, where a girl can force her boyfriend to watch some chick flick as a one off even if he doesn't want to see it- because it's made for one very particular audience-, video games reach out, and people are often fans of more than one style, even if they tend to favour one. It has to be enjoyable alone and/or as a group, it has to be creative, and it has to capture the imagination or let the hours pass by in an enjoyable state for an extended period of time. That part of the formula can't change because the audience cannot be any wider- you can rarely drag people to video games, but you can entice them to go interactive. Video games can't be the summer blockbusters that the Men in Black series was anymore than the MIB series is going to spawn movie 'clans'. It's an apples to oranges comparison, and it does't hold water.
Executives -> creatives -> developer -> product
The viewpoint of the guy of rockstar is "Executives" don't exist as a real entity just they give money and don't interfere in the developer process. Of course it is valid for many games but AAA games (such rockstar games).
I am a indie, so the process is way more simple :
creative & developer -> product , i have 100% freedom in the final product, i don't need to add a "useless co-protagonist with a big ****" or a "mountain dew" or a "pepsi coca" to my products, i just want a good product and (hopefully) earn some money but not sacrificing the quality or the creative process to adding "useless" stuff just for increase the sales.
The way it's done now, most rational human beings would agree that it adds to the realism. If you hate seeing adds in Cleveland Browns Stadium, then blame the Learners. Don't blame EA.
- by Inconnux January 30, 2009 3:01 PM PST
- Are you saying that Mass effect plays just like Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe??? Just because they use the same code base (engine) does not mean that they have to play the same. /me shakes his head
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)