next »

[Cthulhu32]

both lolher and icyclam are media whores, probably future media moguls.
Right now they're monopolizing everyone's attention over nothing interesting.
in the middle of this maelstrom of shit, a dark figure sits, calmly stirring his tea.

You rang?

[eva_]

i love generalizations about this mainstream aaa industry ! i never tohught of it that way! mainstream games developers must not like games at all! they're our enemy and they must totally not be human! also what we make is always made out of love somehow! that'll teach the robots! lets make a indie podcast where we talk about madden and then laugh about it! because we can do so much better!

[Dustin Smith]

- whether refining formulas (as the mainstream games industry is doing) is actually better after all than them being innovative. this may not be new to everyone, but it's actually new to me: i've never seen anyone argue *against* innovation in the mainstream games industry before, and have a somewhat reasonable argument for their position.

- the idea that rohrer agrees with icycalm about everything except the harsh language. maybe he's just trying to be polite there, but if this is true this means that rohrer himself agrees that the purpose of games is to be challenging and fun and not to try to mean anything to anyone. if this is true this is an interesting development for anyone interested in rohrer's games / career.

Rohrer's contention that the 'art game' as we know it isn't relevant anymore is true to a degree -- just like we don't need 36 hour stationary Warhol movies of the empire state building, a Passage-like wouldn't be as important in the year 2011. What we need are games that take this art-game mentality and impose it onto 'traditional' games. For example, I'd love to make a fully-featured platformer that delves into the concepts of dogma in its related forms (capitalism, organized religion, (drug) addiction). icycalm's claims that the french new wave weren't boring and the fact Oliver Stone isn't an "art-fag" are both bullshit -- new wave is nigh-unwatchable and anyone who's listened to the director commentary to "Natural Born Killers" would smell the pompousness a kilometer away.

Yes, and next thing we know you'll be complaining that basketball has remained the same pretty much since its invention.

icy says this, which is totally fucking stupid; a better analogue would be people inventing new iterations of basketball without changing a damn thing.

again, i reiterate "fuck this guy". I could read further into what he's saying but its so scathing and inane it isn't worth my time.  His rationale for sequels is "it's cool for me, fuck everybody else GIVE ME DIABLO III FAGOT". He's complacent with the mainstream, but this is coming from somebody who listens to Chevelle and Korn religiously so...

Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
fuck, what sinclair said.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
if I could punch icycalm in the face I would.

[cynicalsandel]

i love generalizations about this mainstream aaa industry ! i never tohught of it that way! mainstream games developers must not like games at all! they're our enemy and they must totally not be human! also what we make is always made out of love somehow! that'll teach the robots! lets make a indie podcast where we talk about madden and then laugh about it! because we can do so much better!

I love generalizations about indie game developers.

[TeeGee]

refining formulas (as the mainstream games industry is doing)

I'd be more than happy if that was actually the case, but what the mainstream industry (and I'm taking about the big AAA developers here) are doing isn't "refining". They're dumbing their games down with handholding mechanics in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator of casual gamers and litter them with boring, unnecessary cutscenes in an attempt to mimic Hollywood action movies. Single player AAA games have stopped being about "plain old fun" several years ago and have become something yawn-inducingly dull instead.

It's a huge generalisation. There are always gems.  The latest Kirby game is mainstream and deeply "casualized", and yet it's far from cutscene-stuffed Hollywood action flick wannabe. Red Dead Redemption may be a movie wannabie, but it actually works pretty great. What about Mass Effect? Or Borderlands? Those are really well made games.

The beloved artsy trio of Shadow of the Colossus, Ico and Last Guardian also came from the mainstream developers.

What about Bayonetta or Demon's Souls? Those are very hard and tightly designed games; mainstream or not. Actually, one could wonder if these two would get created if there would be no easy/casual trend they could deviate from to find their audience.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

it's irrelevant whether mainstream game developers like games or not, or even what type of games they want to make, because it's not mainstream game developers who decide how mainstream games will be made, it's the people who fund them who decide. nobody says that the people who programmed madden aren't human, just that they're forced to program madden because it sells, and not allowed to make what they'd really want to make if they were just given money and told to make whatever type of game they want.

even kojima, one of the mainstream auteurs, and will wright, another one, have complained about how restrictive their publishers (konami and ea, respectively) are over what they create. kojima has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to make more metal gear solid games... yet each year, more metal gear solid games arrive, with his name in the credits somewhere. and these two have exceptional freedom compared to most mainstream game devs.

so it's totally not a dislike of mainstream developers. it's a recognition that they are being held captive by their publishers: either they make the games their publishers want or they aren't allowed to make anything at all. there's a reason a lot of the biggest indies are ex-mainstream: they quit because they want to make the games they weren't allowed to make in the mainstream. not every indie game is made with love, but every mainstream game is made under a whip.

[s0]

@TeeGee:
Haha I know that. I was generalizing to make a point because I think that's the general trend.

Look through my post history for "Demon's Souls" and you'll know what I think about that game (hint: I've invested over 120 hours into it). Bayonetta is awesome too, but I don't really consider those two "AAA" games. I mean a lot of people like them, but by the standards of the mainstream industry, they're relatively niche (Bayonetta probably crosses over intop AAA territory).

Red Dead Redemption on the other hand is definitely AAA by my definition and it's a game I really loved. Also, it may take its setting, story and visual style from movies, but not the structure, that's the important part. What I hate are ultra-linear action games broken up by constant cutscenes.

Also I think it's worth clarifying that I have nothing against low difficulty or lack of challenge. I just really hate handholding. Big yellow arrows, tutorials popping up all over the place, auto aim, semi-automated platforming, you name it. I hate the feeling that the game is being played for me.

[s0]

Re: Paul's post: If you want a prime example of the negative influence of publishers on developers, I suggest reading up on the sad story of Troika Games in general and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines in particular.

[eva_]

not every indie game is made with love, but every mainstream game is made under a whip.

mainstream doesnt mean the opposite of independent though and we shouldn't keep making this differentiation

times are changing anyway, publishers are willing to give more freedom: with things like ea partners, 2k play, and that acti+bungie partnership. the pubs who wont adopt the trend will fail to stay.
and what if these people that work on madden WANT to make madden? is it the bias of yearly sports games being derivative to you? what if they are enthusiastic about sports and games? is it a BAD THING

[mirosurabu]

almost everyone who wants to explore other types of games feels that games as they are now are pretty bad.

Taking this out of context to make this point:

I feel like these 'artbusters' misjudge developers quite often. For example, many think that I don't play or don't enjoy AAA games at all or that I even hate them. Or that I don't know much about the history of video games. I'm more critical of AAA games simply because I play them more and because I try to be less critical of indie efforts, mainly because they are 'indie'.

I can understand that though. People like Chris Crawford are just way too angry at the industry. ):

Then there are people who don't appreciate violent games and rightfully so. That said I play violent games, it's just that in a case there is a non-violent game that is as good as the violent game I'd rather endorse the second one and dismiss the first one, as I'm not too keen on negative expression (violence, controversy, etc.)

[Dustin Smith]

we need our crawford's of the medium, though. if anything he's passionate and well-intentioned.

[TeeGee]

so it's totally not a dislike of mainstream developers. it's a recognition that they are being held captive by their publishers: either they make the games their publishers want or they aren't allowed to make anything at all. there's a reason a lot of the biggest indies are ex-mainstream: they quit because they want to make the games they weren't allowed to make in the mainstream. not every indie game is made with love, but every mainstream game is made under a whip.

That's also not entirely true. I worked in the AAA industry for a while, and while much of the bad stuff you usually hear about it is true, I wouldn't say that people were held captive by the publisher or made a game they didn't want to make. Most of the team was genuinely excited about the project, liked the game, were fans of the fiction it was based on and so on.

I worked on AAA, indie and casual, and each group had a set of derogatory myths about the others.

AAA devs think that indie and casual games are laughable, aren't "real games". I had a particulary heart shattering experience, when I went to the programmers' room and found them playing my game and laughing about it. "Look at those graphics! True shaders! People still make 2d games? Someone actually buys this shit?" Ugh...  

Indies think that mainstream devs are all hostage zombies without passion or creativity, and that casual games are all shit and their developers only slightly above Tim Langdell.

Casual developers find AAA games too big and stupid and indie games too niche or unplayable. And ugly.

To be honest, I think they are all right to some extent. But mostly it's just the common human tendency to create artifical divisions and feel better than some "others".

Also I think it's worth clarifying that I have nothing against low difficulty or lack of challenge. I just really hate handholding. Big yellow arrows, tutorials popping up all over the place, auto aim, semi-automated platforming, you name it. I hate the feeling that the game is being played for me.

Oh believe me, I can understand the sentiment .

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if they wanted to work on madden and made madden that's fine, but it'd be more impressive if they didn't have to and chose to do it anyway. like, if ea sports said one year 'make whatever games you want, here's a pile of money' and if they made another madden game exactly as they do every year, that would be wonderful. but they should at least be allowed that opportunity so that we can know for sure. usually if someone would do something even if they weren't paid to do it, you wouldn't have to pay them!

and i agree with teegee that occasionally you find teams that are excited to work on the games that they're told to make. starcraft 2 seems like another example of that: the devs of starcraft 2 are all big starcraft fans and wanted to make it. but that doesn't mean that they would have made the game exactly the same way if they had more freedom: they were told basically to make starcraft 1, but better, and not try anything too experimental, and that's what they did. they enjoyed doing it, sure, but they may have tried a few more experiments on it if they had had the freedom to do so.

[TeeGee]

And thanks to this, you have a wonderfully polished game, that sets quality and design standards for the RTS genre, while leaving enough space for weird innovative indie stuff like AI War to question them.

All is well in the world.

[s0]

I think talking about people's intentions is kinda fruitless here. If someone puts all their passion into making a game I don't like, I still won't like it. Likewise, if someone makes an awesome game without any creative freedom, that won't make me enjoy it less.

Sure I respect people who put everything into their games, but just because I respect the person(s) behind it and appreciate the effort, doesn't mean I'll automatically like the end result.

Also, I agree with TeeGee. There needs to be a balance. As much as I like innovation, I wouldn't want to live in a world where every game is super innovative and ideas never get refined or expanded on. Both approaches are valid, I appreciate them both and there's enough room for both them to coexist.

Lastly, I think people are misinterpreting my position here. I'm not speaking as an indie dev who hates the mainstream industry, I'm speaking as a gamer who's dissatisfied with the products of the mainstream industry.

[eva_]

I think talking about people's intentions is kinda fruitless here.

no cos it bothers the fuck out of me when i see a comment on an indie game saying some shit like "damn this indie game/dev so creative/innovative/whatever-random-bullshit-praise" with some extra bullshit tacked on to the comment "unlike ea who shits out sequels every month!11"

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

And thanks to this, you have a wonderfully polished game, that sets quality and design standards for the RTS genre, while leaving enough space for weird innovative indie stuff like AI War to question them.

All is well in the world.

i don't disagree that there should be balance, it's just that the balance is currently too tipped in the favor of AAA (largely because of their power of marketing): if you look at game sales each year for instance, they're probably 60% AAA, 30% casual, 10% indie (and that's being generous to indie, it's probably even less than 10%). i'd prefer something closer to 33%-33%-33%.

[Okenido]

I think talking about people's intentions is kinda fruitless here.

no cos it bothers the fuck out of me when i see a comment on an indie game saying some shit like "damn this indie game/dev so creative/innovative/whatever-random-bullshit-praise" with some extra bullshit tacked on to the comment "unlike ea who shits out sequels every month!11"

Have you considered joining the RPG Codex?

[bento_smile]

Re. game development, the environment you're working in is WAY more important than the game you're making, IMHO. The problem is that AAA games can have such large teams, and if they're not managed well, the workplace becomes unbearable. If the staff turnover is high (losing one person every two weeks) it's easy to feel disposable, and like some zombie-dev shuffling in and out.   But not every team is like that. (So, I think those feelings come more from the environment than the games which are being made, per se.)

[eva_]

Have you considered joining the RPG Codex?

never heard of it. is this a good or bad thing