Looking Glass Studios - Paul Neurath Interview

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
A site called Grupo97 has an interview with Paul Neurath, co founder of Looking Glass Studios, about the famous studio. More recently, Paul's current company Floodgate Entertainment co-developed NWN: Shadows of Undrentide and Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, though this isn't part of the coversation. I'm not sure much is revealed but it's a walk down memory lane for fans:
Over the years people usually realize and accept both errors and successes committed in the past. Looking Glass main successes are evident, but what about errors?
We surely made many errors over the 10 years we were in business. All companies do; more so if they do anything interesting. We did try to learn from our errors.
Some of the errors we made…
- We should have dialed back somewhat the level of depth and complexity we put in some of our games, and put more emphasis on accessibility. We did learn from this, and Thief was the result.
- We did not put sufficient emphasis on pure visual pizzazz for many of our games. Fight Unlimited was an exception; but for our other titles the level visual eye candy, and providing fast and smooth frame rates, was not on par with the blockbusters of the time. This hurt our sales.
- We spread ourselves too thin in terms of genres. Nearly every blockbuster studio of that time had a tight focus, such as only doing PC first-person shooters, as often as not just a single franchise. We did 3D fantasy games, 3D science fiction games, flight simulators, sports games, and others genres. In hindsight, we were slightly crazed to try to tackle such a wide palette as a small company, and it meant that we could not build the level of expertise in any single genre as we otherwise could.
- We were undercapitalized for what we were trying to do. As an small but ambitious studio we tried to push ourselves and do a lot; but often with not quite enough capital. It was a risky strategy that ultimately contributed to our demise.
I could go on, but that’s probably enough to mention for now.
More information.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Really great interview, this guy really understands the industry.

Dominance of established brands. Related to the point above, to try to reduce risk publishers are gravitating more than ever to using brands from films, TV and the like to build games around. A strong brand certainly can help, but it also means that what the developer brings to the table in terms of their creativity and design is valued proportionally less. Also, too often publishers overspend on branding and under spend on development, with the result of a mediocre game.

I've never been drawn to brands related to movies. They tend to just about always be bad games.

I’ve played a couple of these simulations, and they are very good. Nevertheless, there are many fewer simulations being developed today than in the 1990’s years, with the major franchises from that era having been generally discontinued.

That's too bad, considering hardware now is so much more capable of rendering flight sims than it was back in he 90s.

There are many in the game press who are well informed about games, and value what LookingGlass and others have done in terms of innovation. What I think might be lacking is the equivalent of the Academy Awards done in a way that the broad audience cares about. There are various awards given out, but the broad gaming audience mostly does not follow these. Without the draw of big movie stars and comedians to get audience attention, perhaps this is just wishful thinking.

MTV tried to do this for I think at least two years. But it was so 'cool' that it was nerdier than ever. The whole presentation made me totally uninterested. Perhaps a less MTV-ified approach could work.

I think it would be hard to justify the economics of a modern single player focused PC game such as Thief or Ultima Underworld, which is why so few are produced.

A sad comment. I hope the European developers can continue to work out the economics so we can continue seeing games like divine divinity, gothic, and arx fatalis in the future.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
Can't believe it's been 10 years since Looking Glass shut down... it still hurts a little to think of. They were the best.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
43
What he's saying is, basically, that they should have compromised their integrity for the sake of the buck.

That's probably right, and they would have stayed in business.

Only, we wouldn't have System Shock, Thief, og Flight Unlimited to talk about - as undying classics that have never been matched.
 
Apparently I am a consumer who's needs can only be met by companies with unsustainable business models.

What a depressing thought...
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
255
Apparently I am a consumer who's needs can only be met by companies with unsustainable business models.

What a depressing thought…

You and me both :(

But it's not so bad, and things are changing slowly.

Neurath touches on it a bit, when he speaks about the possibility of finding creative power still. I'm just surprised that he can be so proud of his past games, which he should be, and still say they should have dumbed them down for profit. Maybe it's because that's what he's doing now, with Floodgate.

Can't blame him for that, and I'll let anything slide after System Shock.

The market will change, because even the masses will start being more demanding - and eventually, taking "risks" by being creative will become more attractive to the big boys. We just need to be patient.
 
Apparently I am a consumer who's needs can only be met by companies with unsustainable business models.

What a depressing thought…

Well, I think you hit the nail right on the head there :)

And what's even worse - eventually people *do* learn from past mistakes. I think that's why we don't see many new games like our favourites from the 80's and 90's.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
453
Back
Top Bottom