Bethesda Softworks - Todd Howard Interview

Not the worst choice, I'd agree.

There's a lesson to be learned in that picture

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
There's a lesson to be learned in that picture

I'd say that image applies to every developer given time.

One day CD Projekt will be in the same category.

IMO it's a bad graph and EA circle/cycle used 7845636843567333486 times already is better:

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I'd say that image applies to every developer given time.

One day CD Projekt will be in the same category.

I was referring to the wisdom of not harboring negative feelings about things way, way beyond our control - however justified we think they are

As for complacency - I think that's a dangerous topic when talking about people you've never met.

But I can talk about it in general terms, based on my experience with people - and what I consider the average human reaction to great success.

It's been my experience that the majority of artists that achieve great success at some point in their lives - tend to be less driven and less impassioned about their work compared to the time before public recognition and the supposed self-realization modern society would consider such an achievement.

Again, it's dangerous to talk about this when dealing with specific people or companies - but I would argue that, for instance, James Cameron reached this stage relatively early (around the time he made The Abyss) and Ridley Scott reached the same stage with Blade Runner.

Now, that's not to say I don't think their later work is bad or void of passion - not at all, I just think their later films were less about proving themselves and going all the way - and more about experimenting with whatever caught their fancy at the time.

In a way, great success can be liberating in that way.

I suppose it depends on what your original ambition was. For some artists - the ambition is to prove themselves to others - and, in that way, I would say great recognition would be very liberating indeed.

If, however, your original ambition was to simply contribute and do the best work you possibly can - then I don't think great success necessarily brings complacency - because why would you stop wanting to contribute just because you've already contributed, you know?

I know this seems a little off the mark, but it's just my way of getting to my point about Bethsoft.

You see, I've never felt their games represented some kind of one-time achievement goal.

I see them chasing the same thing as they always did. They want to "perfect" the huge freeform open world CRPG - and bring all the various elements that they enjoy about games together.

If you listen to Howard talk about their games in various interviews - you will hear him talking about the kind of things they're going for, and how they're always trying to get closer to it and expand the formula to be even better.

Since I, personally, feel their games are getting better and better with each iteration - though still far, far from perfect - I really have no reason to doubt his words.

In fact, they make a lot of sense to me.

So, from my perspective - Bethsoft are definitely not complacent developers in the bad sense of the word.

However, I do think they're liberated from having to prove themselves - and they have extremely powerful financial support from the suits, as their games sell millions and millions of copies - and they've done so ever since Morrowind.

It still might be complacency on some level, but it's not what I would consider a bad thing.

Overall, though, it must be understood that I'm one of those people who have accepted the "great compromise" that must exist when developing AAA games under a publisher model.

If you want money people to fund your game - you must understand the basic fact that they're not going to do so because they care about the game. They do so because they care about the return they're going to be expecting.

Under those circumstances, there's no way a huge and expensive game like Fallout 4 or Skyrim could ever target the "hardcore" audience, because that would automatically exclude the largest source of income.

So, they do it the other way around. They make a game they want to make - but they deliberately compromise the challenge and complexity involved in playing it - so that not only the smallest audience wants to play it.

In that way, they earn more money - and they please more people. They also please a LOT of "hardcore" fans who're ok with compromise (like myself) and who're not feeling entitled to something that absolutely doesn't belong to them.

On top of that, they have an active modding community willing to fine-tune balance and mechanics to the satisfaction of most people.

Obviously, people who don't accept compromise and who think they're entitled to games they don't personally work on - with huge economic consequences for the people who DO develop and finance those games - are not likely to be very pleased.

Such is the nature of human beings.

Well that's was very deep and I agree with some of your points in your post above. I was just referring to how opinions change over the years of every consumer-base.

One day your the hero of the gaming masses then one day your reviled for selling out and going mainstream. Just look at the Marvel and Star Wars Franchise for examples.

Though I'll add one for Joxer and say not EA they sold their souls a long time ago, and come on have you seen their CEO the guy looks like a Sith Lord from Star Wars.

That's true for everything. You either die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Well that's was very deep and I agree with some of your points in your post above. I was just referring to how opinions change over the years of every consumer-base.

One day your the hero of the gaming masses then one day your reviled for selling out and going mainstream. Just look at the Marvel and Star Wars Franchise for examples.

Though I'll add one for Joxer and say not EA they sold their souls a long time ago, and come on have you seen their CEO the guy looks like a Sith Lord from Star Wars.

Very true, gamers are fickle and very passionate about their point of view.

Well, many are

I was once a very bitter gamer, too.

I used to feel a lot more entitled and angry at what I've just decided to call "the great compromise" - but that's long ago now.

I've sort of realised that I'm not the center of the universe, and people aren't necessarily stupid, lazy or evil because they don't cater to my needs.

I've learned that things aren't always as they seem from one point of view. Things change as your perspective changes - and people aren't always driven by the same ambitions or wants as you, yourself are.

Developers who make great games that I, personally, enjoy aren't necessarily worthy of more praise for that reason. I don't think it's particularly praise worthy to be like me - more so than being like other people.

Well, ok, it's a topic of some depth better left for another occasion

Another article of interest with Tod Howard was posted this week.

Link - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl…ry-single-time

Bethesda Game Studios remains one of the few big developers not owned by a platform holder that hasn't moved away from almost entirely single-player experiences into games-as-a-service.

While many major developers and publishers are still including single-player modes in their games, there is a clear trend away from this, sparking a recent debate around 'the death of single-player'.

Although the announcement that Fallout 76 will be a shared world survival game may have added credence to that argument, studio head Todd Howard says it doesn't represent a permanent departure for the company away from single-player experiences.

"It doesn't mark the future," he tells GamesIndustry.biz during an interview at Gamelab Barcelona. "Corporately we've done a mix; people forget sometimes. Elder Scrolls online is one of the biggest online games in the world, we have Fallout Shelter which we keep updating, and Elder Scrolls: Legends.

"Anyone who has ever said 'this is the future and this part of gaming is dead' has been proven wrong every single time. We like to try it all. For a long time we wanted to try a multiplayer game and we had this idea. We shouldn't be afraid. We should try it."

Interesting title of that article :

Service-based Fallout 76

I still hold on to my theory that a game which is considered no more as a game, bjut a "tool to make money", is no longer a game.
Or, in other words, it's a "service" here, but no longer any game.

I really detest that "games as a service" thinking.

At least board games are immune to that - because they are still bought and owned.
But for how long ?

Games are about gameplay. It has been a while since players neglected gameplay to favour something else. They are enamoured with stuff like TW3.
Vid products are less and less games and more and more something.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Games are about gameplay.

Not on PC.
There is a reason why those products are called games and not gameplays.
Joining Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft drones and shilling for inferior hardware that can't deliver art but can do only gameplay won't change it.

You just can't sell non-action adventure games with the "games as a service" premise - which is why no big publisher / developer is doing them.