Reshaping the Games Industry @ GameSetWatch

Quick, limited response from work.

You're basically advocating that developers need to potentially forgo their lives (and possibly an income and maybe even their house), so a niche of game players can get what we want, unadulterated from the evils of greed.

This already happens.

We get a game every year or two and the hardcore fans don't all agree about how good they are and none of the participants get a good return.

Spiderweb, Basilisk, Soldak...maybe Planewalker and Iron Tower when their games come out. Old ones like Tom Proudfoot and other stuff noone played.

Quick further comment on BioWare. You know that BG started out as an RTS, right? It wasn't some pure vision from a developer with a high-minded concept - Interplay suggested the D&D license (and the visuals were pretty good for their time). We (as RPG fans) happen to like the result but on paper, this was an evil publisher slapping a license and a total change of direction on the original developer's vision to increase profits.

Nice concepts and I agree with most of his suggestions. Unfortunately though I think that 99% of the stuff the film industry puts out is utterly fucking dire, and most of the 1% that isn't is indie stuff that the gaming industry already does well.

Dhruin said:

Quick, limited response from work.

You're basically advocating that developers need to potentially forgo their lives (and possibly an income and maybe even their house), so a niche of game players can get what we want, unadulterated from the evils of greed.

Click to expand...

Ehm, no.

I'm saying this is possible - as is - IF you're willing to have a job on the side. Foregoing life is a bit harsh, especially because this is supposed to be a pleasurable thing.

But let's not overstate the matter and say this is to make niche players happy. This is about making BOTH developers and hardcore players happy. If developers don't feel good about creating this kind of game, then they certainly should stay away.

This already happens.

Click to expand...

Not really.

We get a game every year or two and the hardcore fans don't all agree about how good they are and none of the participants get a good return.

Spiderweb, Basilisk, Soldak...maybe Planewalker and Iron Tower when their games come out. Old ones like Tom Proudfoot and other stuff noone played.

Click to expand...

These aren't the kind of games I'm talking about at all. While they're good and fine for a limited audience - none of them are evolving genres. In fact, they're stuck in some kind of time-loop from the 80s/90s in terms of gameplay. That said, I've only played Eschalon and the Spiderweb games - and if those others are not the same kind of nostalgic and relatively simplistic CRPGs, then I stand corrected.

What I'm advocating is taking the genre FORWARD, but not by increasing production values indefinitely.

Quick further comment on BioWare. You know that BG started out as an RTS, right? It wasn't some pure vision from a developer with a high-minded concept - Interplay suggested the D&D license (and the visuals were pretty good for their time). We (as RPG fans) happen to like the result but on paper, this was an evil publisher slapping a license and a total change of direction on the original developer's vision to increase profits.

Click to expand...

I know that it started out being called Iron Throne and that it was supposed to be a "next gen" version of what SSI did with Gold Box. It's possible that they originally had some kind of RTS in mind - which is not surprising given how they handled combat in BG. But it's not what my point was about.

My example wasn't about Bioware and them being visionaries - it's just an apt example because of our recent discussions. The point was that most creative and talented developers either die (Troika, Looking Glass, Simtex, etc.) or they grow beyond what they were originally about (Bethesda, Bioware, etc.) - and start focusing on size before anything else.

That's what I'd like to explore - to see if it's not worse to grow beyond creative control than staying modest.

skavenhorde said:

Wow, DArt you have a hell of a lot of energy. That last post has got to be the longest I've seen in a long time.

Click to expand...

As I've said before, it's an unhealthy compulsion

I see where you are going with this, but I think what Gorath is trying to explain to you is that you HAVE to convince someone to give you the money and in this market that is hard to do. Even if the idea sounds good on paper, you still are playing around with other peoples money and they don't want to lose it and normally want to make huge profits. I think Squeek's got the right idea, but you have to be lucky enough to find an extremely rich RPG geek who wants to take a chance on you. It can be done but you have to be lucky.

Click to expand...

But Gorath doesn't have to explain this - as I'm well aware of the current state of the industry.

I'm talking about possibilities that I consider realistic, but only IF some of the players of the industry are willing to change attitude. Otherwise it will remain impossible.

I think the companies you're looking for are 1C or CD Projekt Red and maybe Stardock. Although like you said CPR is more the higher middle end, but they are definatly targeting hardcore RPG players as their market(not so sure with the console version of Witcher, but the PC was specifically targeting us). 1C publishes a lot of little unknown games like Ascension to the Throne and tons of others and seem to be doing well (don't quote me on that, I'm just guessing because I've been seeing their brand more and more in the stores on games that aren't AAA but aren't indie either)

Click to expand...

Those might work - but as much as I like The Witcher, it's less about evolving gameplay than simply being fundamentally good in an old fashioned way. Some innovation is definitely present - but there's a huge difference between innovation and evolution.

Stardock - in my opinion - are also stuck with old fashioned gameplay, and despite having every opportunity they still haven't outdone the 12 years old Master of Orion 2. Oh, Galciv are fine games - but they're not evolving anything.

Sins of the Solar Empire is a pretty good RTS - and I suppose taking something from MOO and Homeworld and slapping it together, could be considered innovation. But I'd rather have an evolved version of either game. You end up with too little of each if you combine and discard like they did.

So I think you already have companies out there that are doing what you're saying. I wish there were more than just a few, but that is just the sad facts of life. Not everyone has tens of millions to risk on a project that might see little profit or no profit at all.

Click to expand...

Actually, I really don't think there are.

Not really, anyway.

I agree we have many "middle-market" titles that are pretty damn good - like the ones mentioned above, and some in the very high end like I expect Risen to be.

But I don't see any middle-market developers doing anything significant to evolve gameplay. Mostly, they seem to be looking at past games and making prettier and slightly more accessible versions. Risen, for instance, would seem to be a polished and streamlined version of Gothic and Gothic 2 combined.

DArtagnan said:

I'm saying this is possible - as is - IF you're willing to have a job on the side. Foregoing life is a bit harsh, especially because this is supposed to be a pleasurable thing.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that you are talking about reshaping an *industry* but are saying that the only way to do it is by gathering up a group of part-time hobbyists, who will make significant sacrifices of their time, energy and money for much longer than a full-time team would need due to the part-time nature, and the fact that you really *are* sacrificing at least some part of your life to do this.

What I'm advocating is taking the genre FORWARD, but not by increasing production values indefinitely.

Click to expand...

So how exactly does one take the genre forward, without increasing the production values?

A more unique story? A new way of interacting with the world?

I would say that many of the games companies listed by Dhruin do that. There games are not just remakes of 80's/90's game concepts. Each one that I have looked at has something very unique (like the one, name escapes me, where the quests are all interactive in that when and what order you complete, or try to complete, them actually matters to the outcome).

What's an example of something that you thinks moves the genre forward that has happened?

txa1265 said:

I think the problem is that you are talking about reshaping an *industry* but are saying that the only way to do it is by gathering up a group of part-time hobbyists, who will make significant sacrifices of their time, energy and money for much longer than a full-time team would need due to the part-time nature, and the fact that you really *are* sacrificing at least some part of your life to do this.

Click to expand...

I think you put that very well, Mike. And it ties in with the author's point about having the guts to change the approach to game making.

There are quite a few people running around Southern California who worked on films for peanuts. Not just actors, either. One I met was an exceptional engineer who made a camera movement for Star Wars and designed and built the robotically-controlled camera boom used for the making of the original Star Trek.

None of them changed the industry that I can tell. Nor was that their intention, I think. They were just trying to get their foot in the door, somehow.

txa1265 said:

I think the problem is that you are talking about reshaping an *industry* but are saying that the only way to do it is by gathering up a group of part-time hobbyists, who will make significant sacrifices of their time, energy and money for much longer than a full-time team would need due to the part-time nature, and the fact that you really *are* sacrificing at least some part of your life to do this.

Click to expand...

No.

I'm saying that because of the way the industry works right now - it's not realistic to accomplish this any other way. But they wouldn't be sacrificing money - as the cost involved is minimal. However, they'd have to be passionate about it. You can call it a sacrifice - but I know I would personally much rather work on such a game - than work on yet another mass market clone. That said, there aren't many who feel that way - nor have I claimed there were.

But since I'm talking about RESHAPING the industry, it's implied that it's about changing it - not circumventing it.

From the start, I've been talking about targeting the middle-market and attracting enthusiasts by focusing on gameplay evolution - rather than production values or clones, as is the norm right now. When I say enthusiasts, I'm talking about the audience that used to make up the majority of the market back when gaming wasn't "cool" and gamers were still considered nerds. I don't have any solid conception of numbers today, but since something like Baldur's Gate 2 could sell 2 million copies - I guess some are still around. I estimate the market I'm talking about could be anywhere from ~20K to 500K. I sincerely doubt you'd be able to attract any more - and I wouldn't expect more than half the maximum to be attracted to the kind of game I'm talking about. For a reasonable team, you'd probably need at least 75K-100K copies sold to stay afloat with an investor on board. Yet, I have a feeling the market might surprise us if this is ever attempted.

Remember, this isn't like the indie market that so many are so fond of. I appreciate indie developers as much as the next guy, but I'm not seeing much in the way of bringing genres forward. Most indie titles are quaint and reasonably deep - but VERY few are actually attempting to break any gameplay boundaries.

Off hand, I can only think of Dominions and a handful of grognard wargames that do this. Indie CRPGs are just re-treading old ground over and over. At least, those that I've tried.

I'm claiming that it COULD be profitable to publishers or investors - but the problem is that it wouldn't be VERY profitable. It's about being modest and accepting modest profit - rather than going for big hits. This mindset is what I'm arguing could improve the industry to an extent, especially for those developers and gamers who care genuinely about being creative and taking games forward.

We've been witness to a stagnation in terms of gameplay for several years now, and evolution is not happening - or it's happening at a snail's pace. This is because most investors want a big return and aren't willing to work on long-term gains, rather than short-term gains. Another problem is that the developers themselves aren't targeting the right kind of people - and are instead either going indie or mass market. Middle-market titles are rare - and those that are there, are typically safer bets of ticking off checklists, so they end up making clone after clone.

... or, they are games like Blade of Darkness that are poorly marketed so they fail ... but when they fail the response is 'bad idea' rather than 'why did we screw up the marketing'!

txa1265 said:

... or, they are games like Blade of Darkness that are poorly marketed so they fail ... but when they fail the response is 'bad idea' rather than 'why did we screw up the marketing'!

Click to expand...

That game had a lot of great things going for it - but as a wholesome experience I found it lacking.

But let's not forget that was many years ago - and once again, that game pushed a lot of technical boundaries and was most likely very expensive to make in comparison to what I'm talking about. Not technical evolution - but gameplay evolution.

BoD had a great fight system - but beyond that it was little more than a corridor slasher with amazing visuals. If only they had added some depth beyond the great fights - the game would have been truly something. Might even have sold better, though I doubt it.

I was more citing how mid-tier games, when they *are* made, are often subject to marketing problems, which are then attributed to the game rather than the marketing.

blatantninja said:

So how exactly does one take the genre forward, without increasing the production values?

Click to expand...

There are multiple ways of doing this, and I'm primarily talking about gameplay mechanics, such as the character system, item system, and combat systems. Beyond that, we have things like improved AI and world building - as in a more dynamic structure than we've seen previously.

Personally, I've worked for a while on a character system and combat system, that I believe is the right direction for progress. I won't go into detail, except to say that it's a combination of both a skill system and level system that is primarily focused on keeping character development interesting and rewarding throughout, whilst resulting in very rich and diverse characters. If successful, it will ultimately give players both unfamiliar freedom in how they want to shape their character, but also retain a measure of realism.

You can consider it an evolution of something like Fallout and Arcanum - both games with very good character systems - but also both with serious problems, primarily in terms of game balance. Beyond that, it's simply taking the rewarding feeling to the next level - where traditionally CRPGs tend to have systems that don't evolve much beyond the middle-stage of the game.

The combat system is too detailed to really get into here, but it's also similar to what Fallout did - except it's based on time units and will have significantly more meaningful options during combat.

A more unique story? A new way of interacting with the world?

Click to expand...

I don't think of storyline as gameplay evolution, but certainly it's an option.

World interaction is definitely a huge part of the kind of evolution that I'm not seeing. Especially where dynamic and "living" worlds are concerned. To me, it seemed to "peak" at around Ultima 7 - and though games have been made with similar depth and complexity - I can't really think of any that has taken it truly beyond this stage.

I would say that many of the games companies listed by Dhruin do that. There games are not just remakes of 80's/90's game concepts. Each one that I have looked at has something very unique (like the one, name escapes me, where the quests are all interactive in that when and what order you complete, or try to complete, them actually matters to the outcome).

Click to expand...

Well, I think we're talking about different things. Every game - even the most appalling clones tend to have one or new "unique" things about them - but they don't represent an overall evolution. Eschalon, for instance, I think of as a very simplistic game both in terms of mechanics and quest structure. That said, I only played it for 5-10 hours before getting bored. But it did have a cute lighting system - but nothing we haven't really seen before.

What's an example of something that you thinks moves the genre forward that has happened?

Click to expand...

I have LOTS of examples.

MOO2 represents the ultimate grand strategic sci-fi game, and no game has as many meaningful features combined with multiplayer modes.

X-Com is still completely unsurpassed in pretty much every way - and though invididual games have attempted to surpass it in one way or the other - as a whole it's STILL miles ahead of the competition. Jagged Alliance 2 could be considered at the same level, but it's different enough to represent a different genre.

System Shock is unsurpassed - though System Shock 2 DID evolve the genre in terms of implementing RPG elements. However, it represented a few steps back in terms of overall level design (SS being a lot less rigid and more non-linear/free) and the consistent vision of SS. But they're close. Bioshock failed utterly to live up to this legacy.

I have ideas on how to evolve all those games - and one of my favorite dream designs is a direct evolution of System Shock - but it requires a lot more resources than what we're talking about here.

skavenhorde said:

Wow, DArt you have a hell of a lot of energy.

Click to expand...

That's basically what I said elsewhere, too.