How to make a creative game in 2010: Ensure your CEO never hears of the game

Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 16:47

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

We actually agree with each other here. Re-read my post.

To an extent, maybe. I'm also of the opinion that all the purported creativity of 10 years ago is very much present today, it's only apparently subsumed by the financial burden of making everything look pretty. People seem prepared to write off games as fantastic looking but with poor, rehashed gameplay, when I think that gameplay's been steadily moving either forwards in some aspects (the experimental side to AAA projects) or remaining the same, just as it was in our supposed pre-Y2K 'golden epoch'.

Sure, we might not have the real 'marquee' experimental devs like LGS hashing out new genres any more, but I don't think there are any new genres to be hashed out. Just new combinations of them. But in the place of LGS, we've got companies like DICE making Mirror's Edge, and QD making Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain, and games with interesting experimental tweaks to them like Valkyria Chronicles and LittleBigPlanet and Shadow of the Colossus.

Eldron on 28/6/2010 at 17:00

That and they've found gigantic new markets that just weren't there 10 or 20 years ago, so they started making games for the rest of the world.

But still, way more people are into making games, there's actually an indie market, new experimental games are coming out, the pc platform with steam is stronger than ever.

I think things are looking positive.

Poetic thief on 28/6/2010 at 17:17

I guess it depends on whether you're a "the glass is half full" type of person.

I'm a self-professed cynic and therefore I have a less optimistic view and I give those big companies less benefit of the doubt.

For example, while Thief 2 was a sequel, it was in many ways a direct response to what fans were asking for (viz. more levels with human opponents), and they did try different things.

But if Activision brings out another sequel my cynical self would believe that their motivation was primarily money over anything else.

I would love to be a fly on the wall during the nerdy office discussions in Looking Glass studios and the office discussions at Activision. I'm inclined to think that their discussions focused on very different things and that is bound to have an effect on how the games turn out.

Assidragon on 28/6/2010 at 17:29

Quote Posted by Sulphur

Are you really incapable of enjoying an unoriginal but well-made game for the sheer craft of it? If that's the case, I pity your situation.

By that logic noone should ever try to make anything new. As long as you follow the routine and churn out FIFA 29 which now shows the sweat on the player's face (zomg), it's all nice and noone should complain. It's rather well made, no? Just as FIFA 28 was.

Quote Posted by Sulphur

Since all video games are inherently derivative, I guess there hasn't been an original game since Pong.

It depends on what you consider derivation. Making a rehash of something while adding your own take on thing - adding something new - something different - already helps. Taking an idea, steamlining it to the point and releasing it as a completely new thing without bothering to actually enhance it? Weeelll...

Not that it matters to you, as you should clearly stay with something like FIFA 29 instead. Since as you said, original games have never been impossible to make anyway! Only the amount of polish of a game matters. :rolleyes:

Quote Posted by Sulphur

You must probably be bored silly reading or going to the cinema, because all these books and movies coming out these days, why, they're just rehashes of old stuff that came before them.

Yeah, Rambo XXII: KILLING ALL OF THEM SONS OF BITCHES is arguably on the same level as, say, Tolkien's works, since even if you just tell the same story again the same way, it's not affecting the quality at all.

DDL on 28/6/2010 at 17:36

...I don't think you understand how logic works. Or, in fact, how the world works.

"Appreciating X" does not mean "I demand X and only X"

If you have a company that is capable of churning out incredibly polished, sublimely refined shooters, then they should probably do that. And people should be permitted to appreciate them for what they are: derivative generic shooters, but incredibly polished, sublimely refined shooters.

The key thing you're missing is NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE THAT COMPANY.

If your company is not capable of churning out incredibly polished, sublimely refined shooters, then you DO SOMETHING ELSE. And many do.

And...seriously, FIFA? Wtf.

Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 17:41

Quote Posted by Assidragon

And by your logic, no one should make anything that's derivative but satisfying. Let's just stop making movies and books, because they're all just combinations of everything that's been done before with little actual creativity!

Quote:

That isn't being derivative. That's out and out plagiarism. There's a difference. If you happen to think that the games and movie industry is the latter - well, either you've been watching and playing the wrong games/movies, or it's physically impossible for you to reach satisfaction unless everything's original.

So I just have to ask - whatever are you going to do once you've exhausted every single position in the Kama Sutra?

Quote:

Not that it matters to you, as you should clearly stay with something like FIFA 29 instead. Since as you said, original games have never been impossible to make anyway! Only the amount of polish of a game matters. :rolleyes:

Surely you're able to understand sarcasm, even to a limited extent, yes? Or is that too much to ask here?

Quote:

I have issues with being oversaturated with sequels with nary a point to differentiate them. I do NOT have issues with being saturated with sequels that are derivative but are compelling on their own. So if you're living in your little bubble in the past where everything older was fresher, that's your problem. I have no issues with taking a formula and doing it well, or twisting it around to make something new.

Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 17:53

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

But if Activision brings out another sequel my cynical self would believe that their motivation was primarily money over anything else.

Eh, well, Activision's a different kettle of fish altogether - you can't help but be cynical when they're mentioned nowadays. CoD ended with MW1 as far as I'm concerned. Any new sequels without Infinity Ward in tow are just cash-ins because CoD is one of the biggest financial successes in recent times. Kotick IS an asshole, and the company's pretty much the new EA. They're franchise milking turdburglars that I couldn't care less about any more.

Whereas the EA of recent times is actively pushing risky and creative projects, which is something I can admire - and also something I never dreamed I'd be saying five to seven years ago.

june gloom on 28/6/2010 at 18:25

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

To dethtoll: I would hope that you use your posting style more because you think it makes the board interesting than because you actually believe in it yourself.

What the hell does this even mean?

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

The irony is that your response is just about the most typical one when this topic comes up: "You're just looking back through rose-colored glasses!" "It's nothing but nostalgia!"

So, because it's typical, that makes it wrong? Is that what you are saying?

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

While that might be true in some cases, I really think people exaggerate the effects of this so-called nostalgia.

Heh, "so-called nostalgia" I like that, it does a good job completely negating the other person's argument without actually addressing it.

Quote Posted by Poetic thief

Also, what about cases like me? I played system shock 2 for the first time in 2009, and it quickly propelled to the top of my list of favorite games. I played baldur's gate for the first time AFTER I played NWN 2, and still the enjoyed the infinity engine 2-D graphics, and general "atmosphere" of the game more than the modern game.

So you really are incapable of enjoying modern games. I'd feel sorry for you if I weren't too busy confusing you with thiefinthedark, which only serves to make me realize I can no longer take seriously anybody with 'thief' in their username.

Poetic thief on 28/6/2010 at 18:48

Quote Posted by dethtoll

What the hell does this even mean?

It means that you are a wind-up merchant at best, or a troll at worst. And perhaps you only act that way because you think it makes the board interesting.

Quote Posted by dethtoll

So, because it's typical, that makes it wrong? Is that what you are saying?

This demonstrates precisely what I just said above. Of course that's not what I meant, and I believe you know this too.

You said that you were tired of people making the typical laments about the "good old days." Then you countered that typical lament with the typical response against it..."that's just nostalgia!"

Quote Posted by dethtoll

Again, you must be doing your wind-up merchant schtick again. It should be clear there that I only meant to counter your nostalgia argument when I said that I first played System Shock 2 in 2009, and Baldur's Gate in 2007, and still enjoyed them. It couldn't be nostalgia or "looking back with rose-colored glasses" that made me enjoy those games.

june gloom on 28/6/2010 at 19:44

You're saying that I am making a "typical response" to typical rose-glasses crying. And? What do you want me to say? What would be an untypical response?

Please, do enlighten me.

And please, don't even start with this "wind-up merchant" shit and actually try debating me on the merits of my argument. And don't insult my intelligence by pretending you never also said that you dismiss anything modern because it's all about business:

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, because those AAA companies today spend so much and are run by CEO's who are business executives first, they don't or feel that they can't focus on creativity. The discussions are focused more on how could they target $uch and $uch a market.