Forums > Game Forums > BioShock > Why Video Game Stories are Stupid?
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/26/2008 7:23 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Ken Levine talks about writing for games using Bioshock as an example.
I don't know about you, but for me this sounded like it came from a sad, broken man who had to butcher his creation for the average Halo player. It really didn't read like he is loving how much people adored his game.
He reminded me of this:
PolloDiablo (16852) on 3/26/2008 10:31 AM · Permalink · Report
He should go and write stories for adventure games then, not action games. Different genre, different audience, one that generally does appreciate long, detailed and complicated stories. ;)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/26/2008 4:18 PM · Permalink · Report
He should go and write stories for adventure games then, not action games. Different genre, different audience, one that generally does appreciate long, detailed and complicated stories. ;)
That's exactly why he should continue writing great stories for action games. They need them more. And the example of Bioshock shows that it's possible.
Sciere (930490) on 3/26/2008 4:21 PM · Permalink · Report
You need to make lots and lots of concessions when doing an action game. Unless you go the stealth route, you can't incorporate a story about a fairly helpless, non-violent character. Also, action sequences tend to take a lot away from the atmosphere, the small portions even hurt Dreamfall and Broken Sword.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/26/2008 7:17 PM · Permalink · Report
Unless you go the stealth route, you can't incorporate a story about a fairly helpless, non-violent character.
Bioware was running a writing contest some time ago and I tried to use the NWN engine to cast the player as a "one hit will kill me" mook, a scribe at an abbey fallen beneath the grimmest plight in RPGs: a visit by Adventurers! (If they don't drunkenly destroy everything around them as a matter of course while taking everything not nailed down, some sinister force antagonizing them will end up having the same effect on everyone who has crossed paths with them.) Gameplay was to involve sneaking around behind the scenes and triggering various events to divert the attention of the visitors (a distraction... I need a distraction... I know, I'll set the leper colony on fire and the flight of the flaming lepers will cause the burly invaders to be too overcome by feelings of nausea to notice me smuggling my sacred texts out the gate!)
I would say that Neverwinter Nights wasn't really the engine to attempt this kind of gameplay under, but I couldn't even manage to successfully place a door joining two exterior maps. The ideas are there, but the tools... apparently aren't yet user-friendly enough. I should really finish reading the Inform 7 manual and go to town, since it is programmed in what is essentially standard english grammar.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/26/2008 7:18 PM · Permalink · Report
I tried to use the NWN engine to cast the player as a "one hit will kill me" mook, a scribe at an abbey
If you like this, ask me sometime about my idea for "Shopkeeper: the RPG"! Influencing world events by deciding whether to sell the good or shoddy merchandise to the adventurers who visit.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 3/27/2008 9:59 PM · Permalink · Report
If you like this, ask me sometime about my idea for "Shopkeeper: the RPG"! Influencing world events by deciding whether to sell the good or shoddy merchandise to the adventurers who visit. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
I'd buy that!
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/28/2008 9:48 AM · Permalink · Report
I'd buy that!
I fleshed the idea out a bit more extensively here, but damned if I haven't had time to do anything with it over the past two years.
mobiusclimber (235) on 3/26/2008 4:43 PM · Permalink · Report
I think he's really complaining about the fact that he's chosen to be a game designer rather than a film maker or even better a novelist. Games are slaves to things like gameplay and pacing (the way films are slaves to pacing and the mix of actions with dialogue). There's really not much that can change that. You can cram all kinds of things into a game and it won't be a game anymore. Take the Xenosaga series as a good example of how NOT to do narrative in a game. Nothing ruins a game like taking control from the player and forcing him or her to watch an hour-long cut-scene.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/26/2008 8:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I guess you really need to know some background for Ken Levine to see how sad this is. He knows how to combine narrative and gameplay in a brilliant way. He has done it many times. His most successful game in critical terms was System Shock 2. It's just sad that he feels bitter and resentful towards the game that brought him most fame. There's a noticeable difference between Ken Levine interviews from pre-Bioshock era and Ken Levine interviews from post-Bioshock era. Kinda like idealism versus cynicism.
The same thing happened with Chris Avellone (To Whom I Should Look Up In Awe for Torment) after Kotor 2. He has distanced himself from the nuts and bolts of writing and project directing ever since the backlash, mostly doing small bits here and there (just 2 characters for Mask of the Betrayer).
Of course, the thing with artists is that quite often it is strikingly different how they feel about their creation and how the audience feels. For example, the Quest for Glory creators don't really think that much of Quest for Glory games. Lori Cole is happy spending her days playing World of Warcraft.
Of course, this is just an impression of a random guy from the internet, so don't pay any attention if you will it so.
mobiusclimber (235) on 3/26/2008 9:04 PM · Permalink · Report
Having never played the System Shock games, I can't really comment, but if he was successful there, why the bitterness now? Was he somehow able to get everything into them that he wanted and not be able to with Bio-Shock? Why? I think in one way, developers might be facing this problem a lot more now, mainly b/c the cost of developing a game is getting more and more insane. This leads to developers being forced to streamline some of their ideas to make them easier to accomplish and in less time, and also to appeal to the widest audience and the least common denominator (at times). But I'm not totally sure it has to be that way. Is it totally necessary to sacrifice your vision just to cater to the football hooligan crowd?
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/26/2008 9:13 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I wanted to say "critically most successful", it's a cult game with a dedicated following, not successful in sales. He was pretty much unknown to the mass media until Bioshock.
As to the rest of it, I'd say your impression is right. And in these days of 5 year development and multi-million dollars budgets you have to be successful if you want to stay in business. And so far, the common belief in the industry is that you have to cater to the tastes of the "pariah" to do so.
Personally I believe it's the role of marketing to tell people what they should like. These "lowest" gamers mostly like games that they like because they are told to like them. People in possession of these marketing tools fear that if they market something too sophisticated they fail, but people they preach to would like anything if it was presented with enough flashy colors. It's kinda like a neverending circle. Gaming masses are led by wrong people, and until those wrong people are replaced, gaming will never evolve.
Also - while this don't really fit with the post but I just want to say this because I'm stupid - creators are funny people. They often do things differently than what is expected from them.
EDIT: Ah, fuck it, this post still doesn't make any sense (after 25 edits)... I think I fell asleep for a moment or two when trying to write this. I don't even remember what we're talking about.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/27/2008 3:43 PM · Permalink · Report
Of course, the thing with artists is that quite often it is strikingly different how they feel about their creation and how the audience feels.
And sometimes artists themselves have surprisingly bad taste! Beethoven liked his stupid "Battle Symphony" more than any other piece. This symphony is hardly even performed today, it's so much below his standards. And he was rather indifferent to some of his deepest, most brilliant piano sonatas.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/27/2008 6:08 PM · Permalink · Report
And sometimes artists themselves have surprisingly bad taste! Beethoven liked his stupid "Battle Symphony" more than any other piece.
Yeah, but he had a bit of a deaf ear.
Lumpi (189) on 4/1/2008 6:37 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Well, if your studio gets renamed from "Irrational Games" to "2k BOSTON", you should notice you're heading towards the stupid market. And now he teaches young developers to not even try to do something unusual and target the stupid market more directly:
"Levine explained how BioShock was constructed to appeal to the widest possible audience, which he outlined in the three types of gamers. The first, he said, was the kind of gamer who loves Halo and Madden NFL titles and doesn't care about the story at all - they just want to shoot and blow stuff up. The second type of gamer includes people that enjoy a good narrative for their shooters, but don't necessarily want to follow complex stories with tons of plot details and character. And the third type of gamer is the hardcore fan who wants to go as deep as he or she possibly can into the story, extracting every bit of information available about the experience. The trick is, Levine said, you can't let the experience for the hardcore gamer get in the way of the Halo or Madden fan that just wants to blow stuff up."
A few pics later a powerpoint slide reading "RESPECT YOUR AUDIENCE"
This is so sad. He could be a Kubrick of games but instead chose to follow the path of a Michael Bay.
In the language of his target audience: Fk you, Ted Levine, fk you 2k BOSTON...
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/1/2008 7:18 PM · Permalink · Report
"Levine explained how BioShock was constructed to appeal to the widest possible audience, which he outlined in the three types of gamers. The first, he said, was the kind of gamer who loves Halo and Madden NFL titles and doesn't care about the story at all - they just want to shoot and blow stuff up. The second type of gamer includes people that enjoy a good narrative for their shooters, but don't necessarily want to follow complex stories with tons of plot details and character. And the third type of gamer is the hardcore fan who wants to go as deep as he or she possibly can into the story, extracting every bit of information available about the experience. The trick is, Levine said, you can't let the experience for the hardcore gamer get in the way of the Halo or Madden fan that just wants to blow stuff up."
And that's exactly what's so great about BioShock! It is complex and it has a deep story that doesn't stand in your way of enjoying an excellent shooter! The best products are those who appeal to the widest audience possible. If a casual fan of blowing things up and an intellectual hardcore gamer both enjoy BioShock, then the only word I have for this game is "genius". Just as lasttoblame pointed out in his thought-provoking review.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 7:49 PM · Permalink · Report
While that may certainly all be true, what about purity? What if you just don't want to produce for everyone? Sure, it's not bad to do it. But what about Halo and Madden Football? They're not produced for everyone, they only tackle one of the three groups Levine mentions, now his own product (tries) to tackle all three of them, heck, what about games solely and specifically designed for poor "thinking gamers" (whatever that means)?
I haven't played "BioShock" yet, however, I guess I'll like it. Still, why did they "dumb down" on "System Shock 2" or "Deus Ex" (which even die-hard fans said they did) instead of progressing and making it yet more intelligent? That could really yield an interesting product.
By the way, perhaps we're in dire need of game stories which "stand in the way" of shooting and blowing stuff up. I bow to any game which at least tries to give killing a bad feel. "Deus Ex" and "Thief" both did that, hell, "Ultima IV" did that...what about "Bioshock"?
You say that the best products appeal to wide audiences. What about jazz music? Any chart breakers lately? I don't want to sound grim, still, while that sentence of yours is certainly correct SOMETIMES, I would advise against taking it as a rule of thumb, or away with classical music, "Psychonauts" and theatre + literature in general.
That said, I love "Finding Nemo" AND Kubrick, for we need 'em both. I just don't see any Kubrick games.
Sciere (930490) on 4/1/2008 8:03 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I don't feel pity any more. Independent gaming along with digital distribution has proven to be a viable alternative. Certain developers are leaving major studios to go independent. Students of art and development colleges are encouraged to pursue their own vision instead of going for the crunching bucks. If some of these bright minds feel held back in their creativity, overshadowed by the PR and marketing guys who prefer flashy things over about anything, they should not complain and simply take the risk to create the game they want to deliver on their own.
Imagine a gallery owner tampering with an artist's painting. It's ridiculous, but exactly what is happening in the gaming industry today. If they are as good as they say, it will sell itself. For the second year in a row, I'll be spending more money on independent games than on their retail counterparts, and games-wise 2007 was one of my most refreshing years. Every time I hear someone complain about dull stories or numbed-down gameplay, I'm thinking: "I know an indie game for you". Just as in literature or in movies, the real gems are not on the shelves of every store.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 8:26 PM · Permalink · Report
Any hints where to get some of those gems?
The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/1/2008 8:33 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Any hints where to get some of those gems?
David Gilbert's Shivah was quite awesome. I just finished playing it... and... it's damn fine satisfying. Dave's a really great writer. Worth every cent in that 5 dollar price.
Here's the link to his company.
Edit: A direct link to the game and a little description:
"In this graphical adventure game, Russell Stone works as a Jewish Rabbi at a poor synagogue in New York City. He is a devout man with a problem. Membership is way down and he lacks the funds to keep his synagogue open. Things are looking very bleak, and he has grown progressively more cynical and bitter with the passage of time.
Just as he is on the verge of packing it all in, he receives some interesting news. A former member of his congregation has died and left the Rabbi a significant amount of money.
A blessing? Or the start of something far more sinister? Can Rabbi Stone just accept the money and move on? His conscience says no. Step into his shoes as he travels all over Manhattan in his attempt to uncover the truth."
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 9:15 PM · Permalink · Report
Thanks! Looks extremely interesting. Still, if you'd want to have that game in 3D you'd probably have to hook up with some company no matter how hard you wanted to stay independant (not that I'd need it in 3D).
With movies you can ask an independant company, or you can molest your federal government for funding, at least in Germany. Why don't they fund promising "art games" I wonder...time to enter politics all right.
Hope you all played "Ultima: Lazarus" by the way. Very well done indie-game.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/1/2008 9:17 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I have played Lazarus. In many ways better than the official series. Meant to do a review or featured game for a long time. Never got around doing it.
With movies you can ask an independant company, or you can molest your federal government for funding, at least in Germany. Why don't they fund promising "art games" I wonder...time to enter politics all right.
I thought Germany was the haven of "art games". Well, if someone would do an adventure game that wouldn't be a sequel to Simon the Sorcerer. But Overclocked seemed like pure fine quality authentic "deep shit" to me. Don't tell me it's not awesome.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 9:19 PM · Permalink · Report
I'll definitely write one as soon as that crap exam of mine is over. My hand hurts from writing (really), can't even play for too long - thus crouching forward in "Planescape".
There will be better days.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 4/1/2008 10:28 PM · Permalink · Report
I have played Lazarus. In many ways better than the official series. Meant to do a review or featured game for a long time.
My understanding is that as a "mod" of Dungeon Siege, it doesn't currently have a place in the Mobygames database. (hum: wikipedia does link to the URL formerly hosting our entry for it. This is balls, guys. I move it's time to start accepting mods.)
The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/1/2008 10:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]I have played Lazarus. In many ways better than the official series. Meant to do a review or featured game for a long time.
My understanding is that as a "mod" of Dungeon Siege, it doesn't currently have a place in the Mobygames database. (hum: wikipedia does link to the URL formerly hosting our entry for it. This is balls, guys. I move it's time to start accepting mods.) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
What?! No! That's just mean. Now I'm going to have to prolong my rpg history article. Get all the indies in it so I'd have the excuse to spend 5 pages on Lazarus.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 11:10 PM · Permalink · Report
But...but Lazarus WAS in MobyGames...I just checked and can no longer find it...did they delete it? Why? Because it's a mod?
I've always thought that "mod" was a difficult term. Why's "Deus Ex" not a mod of "Unreal", or "Half-Life" of "Quake 2" if engine use is all that counts. I know and dislike "Dungeon Siege" - believe me, "Ultima: Lazarus" doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it, the art is different and far superior, content is several lightyears away, complete original (brilliantly sequenced) soundtrack, some voice acting (all original) and last not least: the world of Britannia! What's got "Dungeon Siege" more to do with "Lazarus" than "Unreal" with "Deus Ex"? They even edited the engine to implement crazy ship travel and stuff etc.
Frankly, I don't get it. What defines a mod?
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 10:44 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't know "Overclocked". Just checked it out and it looks nice all right, it's just that I've become somewhat critical about modern psycho-thrilling adventures. As yourself I don't really believe that the adventure genre is the story/innovation/depth/philophy-to-humiliate-your-senses genre at all and I'm not a particular fan of the "movie-feel" either.
There are many adventures I like, but the modern ones I played (such as "Black Mirror") seemed to me like leaps backward in comparison to the "a-decade-ago" stuff. And what motivation would I have to play a "Simon" clone? I don't even think the original is that funny (and no, I don't even think that "Monkey Island" is THAT funny, it's just damn beautiful). Life's short - and you can spend only so much time playing games since the real world is, contrary to adventure gaming, real-time.
Do you know "Overclocked"? I'd love to see a good adventure again...I'm just not sure it qualifies...
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 4/1/2008 10:26 PM · Permalink · Report
if you'd want to have that game in 3D you'd probably have to hook up with some company no matter how hard you wanted to stay independant (not that I'd need it in 3D)
3D is an excellent way to gain overhead on a game; a 2D game that could be made by one person might need a team of 5 to render in 3D, without ever wondering about whether or not the new perspective will actually improve the gameplay experience. As best as I can tell, it's become the de facto standard since gullible consumers can fall for screenshots of 3D graphics on the back of a box, which cannot demonstrate gameplay. (Also if your game is not making extensive use of 3D calculations, your expensive console is going largely underutilised.)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/1/2008 8:10 PM · Permalink · Report
You say that the best products appeal to wide audiences. What about jazz music?
Ouch, now that hurts :(
I wasn't talking about kinds of art, or styles, or genres. I was talking about single products within those genres. And I didn't mean actual popularity, which depends on so many factors, but rather the pure potential of the product in question.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 8:35 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't want to hurt anybody, least of all you. :-)
Still, look at the potential of either getting rich or die tryin' with Jazz music. Which of the two is the more common possibility for a Jazz musicians fate?
I like Jazz music. In Germany however, I need my bloody state to enjoy it live since almost all Jazz festivals/concerts I know of have to be heavily state funded - and I'm not sure if it's any more roses for the rest of the world.
Many people think Jazz is freaky and boring, just like "Planescape: Torment". We gotta fight for our right to continue consuming presumably freaky and boring stuff and not always submit to the pressure of 9 million WoW-players' opinions who want to like it "as well".
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 6:51 AM · Permalink · Report
Many people think Jazz is freaky and boring, just like "Planescape: Torment".
LOL, that was a great comparison! Jazz is like "Planescape: Torment": freaky... complex... deep... engrossing... beautiful... and considered boring by the stupid crowd! :)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 4/2/2008 7:35 AM · Permalink · Report
considered boring by the stupid crowd!
My experience is that jazz is more exciting to perform than to listen to 8)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 8:22 AM · Permalink · Report
My experience is that jazz is more exciting to perform than to listen to
Well, for me listening to jazz is more like learning material, I rarely listen to it just for pleasure. Since I perform nearly every day, I don't feel there isn't enough jazz around me :)
I've heard many people (even many professional non-jazz musicians) saying that jazz is too complex for them to understand. What I don't understand is why it is necessary to understand it in order to enjoy? I don't understand how Van Gogh created his paintings, what kind of tricks and techniques and stuff he used, but I can still enjoy them.
Jazz is so full of feeling, sometimes a very primitive, even wild feeling, why do people need to treat it so intellectually? Sure, the beauty of it is that it can be both intellectual and primitively-sensual, but I don't see the need of understanding its intellectual side to enjoy it on a more primitive level. Just as it is not necessary to read all the logs in "Bioshock" to enjoy the shooting and the graphics :)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 4/1/2008 8:25 PM · Permalink · Report
That said, I love "Finding Nemo" AND Kubrick, for we need 'em both.
Don't make the mistake of underrating any Pixar production... every second is painstakingly calculated for maximum effect of the hundreds of render hours needed. They put this technology in the service of a tightrope walk many have tried but few succeeded at: producing kids' movies that are also satisfying and engaging for adults. That's not so different from the different levels Bioshock is described as aiming for here 8)
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 8:28 PM · Permalink · Report
I never said that I underrated Pixar. In fact, I love Pixar, "Finding Nemo" is REALLY one of my favourite movies. I also like Disney, though I like the old ones with all the singing more...(yes, I'm serious).
However, in a diverse world we need diverse culture. And that's why the existence of guys like Kubricks rocks.
Игги Друге (46653) on 4/4/2008 6:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Don't make the mistake of underrating any Pixar production... every second is painstakingly calculated for maximum effect of the hundreds of render hours needed. They put this technology in the service of a tightrope walk many have tried but few succeeded at: producing kids' movies that are also satisfying and engaging for adults.[/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Actually, Pixar have done nothing at all. Nothing. They make cartoons with the same kind of depth as cartoons have had since the 20s. Nothing more. Cute animals jumping around, but with new technology which makes adults feel comfortable about watching their cartoons. It's like the jump between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64; a change in perspective that is made out to be more profound than that.
If anything, Pixar have hampered the development of animaton as a medium for grown-ups.
Lumpi (189) on 4/1/2008 8:32 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Aren't you guys sceptical about all the more famous people in the games scene are getting praised for basically optimizing their games to the lowest common denominator lately? I found the game to lack exactly what Levine described in the article. Like a good meal that lacks a little flavour. It's their right to do it over at "2k BOSTON" (what a name - it makes me shudder every time). But why should this method be praised, critically? Their praise is the money they make with it, it seems to be the driving factor.
It's just sad to think about all the good ideas that have been cut because some testers were too hectic to enjoy the more complex aspects. I see that there is more money this way, and yes, I do enjoy talking about this game to people who I know would never play it if it wasn't so streamlined. But think of what this game could have been if it had all the things Levine had to cut. It could have been art. True art, not Steven-Spielberg-art.
Ted Levine chose commercial safety over creative risks. It's his right, but I don't see why he should be proud of this decision. He indeed seems to be a little bitter on the inside. Like Warren Spector after Deux Ex: Invisible War, only somewhat more successful. He might be a genius, but apparently one with restricted freedoms.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 8:38 PM · Permalink · Report
You're right on, man. Go and have a look at that gaming lecture the Irishman posted. Every gesture of these people speaks heroic poetry about the fierceness of the art vs. commerce struggle.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 4/3/2008 4:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Levine has issued a clarification.
Most interesting point is that SS2 only sold 200K copies and Deus Ex 300-400K. It's hard to argue breaking the mold in a business setting, and impossible when the numbers don't support you.
You can't make art with other people's money.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/3/2008 5:34 PM · Permalink · Report
It's done everyday, just not in the video game business. Practically 90% of art around the world is heavily funded, either by state, advertisement, or by private groups/persons. That counts for theatre, classical music (Berliner Symphoniker could all grab their hats NOW if it weren't for funding), opera (seen any rich kids watching 41/2h Wagner lately?), jazz, radio programs and, of course, "artsy" films and television.
If we'd had free market conditions only, art would almost certainly cease to exist - or at least be highly diminished.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/3/2008 5:38 PM · Permalink · Report
Levine has issued a clarification.
It's nice of him to offer clarification for something that is pretty clear anyway. It was a fantastic decision all the way through, the whole idea of an "optional" story line hiding behind a simple FPS is simply great.
Have you read the comments? The hatred of those fanboys is unbelievable. And the most amazing part is that they don't seem to realize that the story of "System Shock 2" was even simpler than "Bioshock", in fact it was pretty much the same in the way of "go there", "kill X", and "kill Y"; I only think that the characters of "Bioshock" were much more complex and interesting, and the setting way cooler; but otherwise, it's exactly the same story-telling device.
Also, their arrogance is just amazing. What they are saying is, basically, that people who like "Bioshock" are idiots who don't understand the complexity of "System Shock 2". What they don't understand is that there are people who can enjoy both, that not everybody are so narrow-minded that they love one kind of games and hate another kind just because it is not the same.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/3/2008 6:00 PM · Permalink · Report
That's not true. Neither am I arrogant, nor am I, in any way, a "fanboy" of anything. And all I've been preaching is that I LIKE DIVERSITY, so, please, don't accuse me of being narrow-minded. The only thing I said was that if the industry goes ahead and only produces a-thousand-buck-games tailored to be liked by everyone to maximize profit it is very likely to DIMINISH diversity.
I'm not saying that you or anyone who likes "BioShock" is an idiot. As I said, I personally enjoy old Disney pictures, and they're about as shallow as it can get. And I certainly understand that there are people who enjoy "both", in fact, I'm one of them.
That was a pretty personal post, Oleg, not very nice. It was an intersting discussion, though.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/3/2008 6:14 PM · Permalink · Report
That was a pretty personal post, Oleg, not very nice.
Hey, take it easy, man. I wasn't calling you narrow-minded. Have you read the comments to Ken Levine's explanation? That's what I was talking about.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/3/2008 6:27 PM · Permalink · Report
Sorry for misunderstanding, yeah I mixed it up it seems. And I obviously meant THIS thread (and related ones) when I was speaking of a pleasant discussion. There are not many forums where people discussing what they "like" or "dislike", or what's "art" and what's not, remain so civilized. Probably because they all played "Civilization".
As for the easy-taking, no worries. I'm all sugar 'n spice and hope you're fine too!
Back to my books (hell yeah)...
Игги Друге (46653) on 4/4/2008 6:21 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Just Games Retro wrote--]Most interesting point is that SS2 only sold 200K copies and Deus Ex 300-400K. It's hard to argue breaking the mold in a business setting, and impossible when the numbers don't support you.
You can't make art with other people's money. [/Q --end Just Games Retro wrote--] Why not? They make money off people's art and the public's lust for art; it's their bloody duty to support the development of the art.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 4/4/2008 9:11 PM · Permalink · Report
You're talking about the way things should be (and to some extent were before games had defined multi-million selling genres) but not the way they are today. I don't see any malice in companies' plans, I think it really is as mindlessly simple as "If artistic games sold better, you'd see more of them." You can't expect companies to risk shareholder money for what's good for gamers - only for what sells.
I'd like to hear some theories about WHY art doesn't sell. I think it's because people fundamentally don't like to feel stupid. I've seen people embarrassed by art they can't understand - considering that, I can see why people wouldn't want to spend money on something they don't understand/that's too complicated (like a Deus Ex)
Add that to "it's cheaper to produce a new Madden and little more than a roster update sells extremely well" and the state of the business starts to make sense. You'll never change a company's mind without the support of the buying masses.
Sweet capitalism...
worldwideweird (29) on 4/4/2008 9:49 PM · Permalink · Report
"Art" regularly requires an effort, does confront you with something new and unheard-of, may be unsettling - or just "emotional" to a degree that many people don't feel comfortable with it. Moreover, it almost always requires time and patience to be appreciated. According to many people, certainly not the best way to spend your "hard earned money" on your "day off". Many people just crave comfort, relaxation, something which "switches off" their brains. I guess.
I, for instance, only rarely want to play chess in the evening when I've learned for an exam for seven hours straight beforehand. And I even like chess.
Игги Друге (46653) on 4/5/2008 12:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Just Games Retro wrote--]You're talking about the way things should be (and to some extent were before games had defined multi-million selling genres) but not the way they are today. I don't see any malice in companies' plans, I think it really is as mindlessly simple as "If artistic games sold better, you'd see more of them." You can't expect companies to risk shareholder money for what's good for gamers - only for what sells. [/Q --end Just Games Retro wrote--] Actually, I can. I expect something of people – even of shareholders.
Kit Simmons (249) on 4/10/2008 9:42 AM · Permalink · Report
Video games with good stories, well, they seem to have stopped selling well now that the golden age of adventure games is over. Take Tim Schafer, for example. Grim Fandango and Psychonauts? Best two things he's ever written, IMO, but both became cult classics only after they sold rather badly on their first release.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/10/2008 3:25 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, there is story and then there is awesome dialogue. For example, many people and most importantly me found Bloodlines too awesome for mere humans when it comes to writing. However, it's not a story game. It instead simulates situations with well-written characters and allows you to approach and solve these situations and characters differently. Troika was one of the few developers who was most close to the role-playing part in role-playing games.
Of course it bankrupted the company and is a cult success, so you're right about that. I just wanted to fanboy a bit.
worldwideweird (29) on 4/10/2008 6:34 PM · Permalink · Report
The good point: They allow Tim Schafer to continue creating the most whacked-out games one could possibly imagine. I mean, "Psychonauts" was such a commercial failure, and yet they give him approx. 15 million bucks to produce "Brütal Legend", a game about a summoned metal roadie thirsting for blood and havoc - how cool is that? It's uncommercial behaviour to a degree where I feel nothing but hope. How does the guy manage to get by like that?
So, I don't think we'll run dry on good stories in the next couple of years. And, hands down, not all "ye olde" games are literary achievements either. And yep, the dialogue of "Bloodlines" was stellar indeed.
Kit Simmons (249) on 4/13/2008 1:33 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start worldwideweird wrote--]The good point: They allow Tim Schafer to continue creating the most whacked-out games one could possibly imagine. I mean, "Psychonauts" was such a commercial failure, and yet they give him approx. 15 million bucks to produce "Brütal Legend", a game about a summoned metal roadie thirsting for blood and havoc - how cool is that?[/Q --end worldwideweird wrote--]
It is cool, no doubt, and I'm sure Schafer will make it unique. I also think a game focusing on dark humour, over-the-top violence in a metal-inspired, post-apocalyptic world and borrowing the sandbox flair from GTA with a tiny dash of "gotta catch 'em all" has good chances of appealing to a wider audience. Psychonauts, although I adore it, was a very well written classic adventure in the guise of an action-adventure. As such it played well, although not as well as it could have, but I think the scenario, characters and dialogue were really the key selling points. Still, there's always a risk. Psychonauts was planned as an Xbox-exclusive first which I assume in combination with its fan-favourite lead designer garnered it some hype. Not unlike Munch's Oddysee, perhaps. Now, Stranger's Wrath came after Munch - it had top notch art and design, a great scenario and story and was an FPS to boot. Looking at its sales, though, that still wasn't a recipe for success.
Lumpi (189) on 4/11/2008 12:48 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Just Games Retro wrote--]You can't make art with other people's money. [/Q --end Just Games Retro wrote--]
What's that even supposed to mean? Even commercially, SS2 was a step-stone to Bioshock. If risks weren't taken, we didn't even have any games worth discussing. And in the long run, even the most mainstream types of gamers would get bored and sales would eventually drop.
Risky and difficult games are healthy. Not only for games as "art", no, they also produce the foundations for future blockbuster titles. It just seems as if producers want to cheat reality and just skip the innovation part, jumping straight towards blockbuster titles.
There are films produced today, that aren't commercially successful. But they do get funding. They do get respect. They do get produced. And often enough they get ripped off by big studios later, milking millions of dollars of ideas stolen from the indie scene.
So who's leech here?
BurningStickMan (17916) on 4/12/2008 8:14 PM · Permalink · Report
You misunderstand. I'm not supporting that idea. I'm not saying that's the way that it should be. I'm saying that's the way that it is.
This is not an industry out to make art, it's out to make numbers. Therefore, as a designer, you can't make your art in this business while you have to answer to shareholders. You will have to make compromises.
If you don't want to compromise your art, don't do games or film. Paint a picture. Or for games, do a text adventure. They're cheaper and don't require the services of others. Expecting anything else is not being realistic.
It's not the best state of affairs, but it is what exists. Like I said in another post somewhere in here, you'd have to get all the Johnny Fratboys to pay for artistic, enriching experiences to get companies to notice and make them.
I'd reply to your other points, but I agree with them. I will say that I don't think it's the travesty you make it sound like. Personally, I'm pretty chill about it - I'm glad Oblivion and The Witcher and BioShock and Fallout 3 are being made, because the art is there if you choose to engage it. If they have to water them all down to make it happen, so be it. There's still some beautiful art design in Rapture, like a living painting. If they have to make it a standard FPS to fund that, I think it was worth it, since that FPS action is not what I'm focused on.
Still, there's a reason I spend so much time in the backlog of 80s-90s games.
Игги Друге (46653) on 4/12/2008 11:27 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, Just Games, the strange thing is that even in film (the lowest of all art forms), there are auteurs, whereas games are defined both by the brutal capitalism of the business and the low ambitions of the developers.