Where do games go wrong? Comments by Tom Bramwell

Didn't read the article yet but I'm sure it tackles something I'm very interested in... I am steadily loosing my interest in games... and I'm wondering if everything is allright with me or if there is something wrong with them (I'm 27)

It's a subject I've chatted about time and again with mates. Certainly, the PlayStation might have one of the largest gaming back-catalogues ever, but exactly how much of that is quality gaming? A bafflingly low percentage.

PC gaming in particular has seen a sharp decline in quality and production values, I feel, with only a handful of real contenders actually trying; games like Republic and Deus Ex 2 spring to mind, coming from developers that appear mindful of the precautions and measures that need to be taken before setting out on a project that could make or break both their wallets and reputations.

mmmm not, I was deceived by the title... well planning is one of the main keys in any program design (I'm a developer)... especially those with economic significance (management/administration/payroll).

I'm a developer

Not of games, I hope?

Nope... I wanted of course at one moment... but it wasn't worth the effort. Programming in business pays much better - stresswise at least.

Thought provoking article, I must say I agree with Tom here:

for me it all boils down to one crucial component: the designer

As with any creative venture, design by committee is pretty much doomed to failure from the start. How many good novels do you see with more than a single author? Also, list your top ten favourite films off the top of your head. Then go back and see how many of them are the 'brainchild' of a single person, usually the director. It may be a huge risk to entrust a massive budget to a single creative type, but if you keep second-guessing the 'artist' by sending in studio execs/publishing suits to fiddle with his concept then you're guaranteed to end up with something mediocre at best.

Good article. I've had first hand experience with all the problems listed. There are now so many people involved in creating a game that you have to depend on everyone to do their job right. When someone doesn't, especially if its a lead or someone else with power over what happens, everything can easily go to pot. Design by committee - You have a designer who has to cater to the most uninformed ideas, often from people who never play games. Publisher interference can have a good or bad effect - sometimes it can save a game, other times it can screw it royally. I wouldn't say leaving developers alone was neccessarily a good idea though - otherwise you can end up with another Daikatana. Publishers need to step softly, but know immediately if & when their input is needed. The worst thing is when you have a publisher pulling one way & a licence holder pulling the other & the developer is stuck in the middle, trying to please both. You end up with a complete mess.

It may be a huge risk to entrust a massive budget to a single creative type

It certainly is; look at what happened to John Romero (and consequently EIDOS) for example.

Errol - well yes exactly - I'm not surprised that publishers prefer to go the safe route, given the risks involved, god knows I'd probably meddle like nobody's business if I were the publisher. For every Miyamoto you're just as likely to get a Romero. Thing is, Romero had proven himself as a level designer but not as a lead designer, whereas Miyamoto (Spector, Sid Meier, etc) have earned themselves the right to do things on their own by matching their creativity with good management skills and business sense. I think it's a really similar process to film-making, architecture, other creative industries which are also profit-driven and competitive. The creative type (Spielberg, Richard Rogers, Tarantino, whoever) makes his name not only by producing a masterpiece but also by bringing it in on or under budget. The danger is when the hype creates expectations which exceed the artist's capabilities (I'm thinking Romero, Orson Welles, etc).

Surely with so many rubbish games being released all the time, someone on each of these development teams must have realised that they're producing a turkey, irrespective of where the blame lies (poor design, flawed implementation, etc). So how come so many of these games actually make it all the way through to retail? Are publishers afraid to pull the plug on the basis that poor sales are better than no sales at all?

Also, IMO some of the worst games tend to be the movie tie-ins, promoted entirely off the back of the film they are accompanying. The article's comments about executive interference and teams having to meet time deadlines instead of development objectives (ie the game must be ready for the film's release) pretty much explains why.

I suppose at the end of the day, the one-man show designers work best because they have a lot of personal pride - and their reputation - riding on their games. In design / development by committee it's far too easy to point the finger of blame somewhere else, so why bother putting in any overtime?

Never thought I'd hear John Romero and Orson Welles mentioned in the same sentence!

Never thought I'd hear John Romero and Orson Welles mentioned in the same sentence!

lol! Expect John Romero in thirty years' time to be bloated and obese doing voiceovers for pantyliner adverts.

Nah to be fair to poor old Orson he did some quality stuff before it all went pear-shaped. Literally.

"Are publishers afraid to pull the plug on the basis that poor sales are better than no sales at all?"

Yes, that can often be the case.

It's a subject I've chatted about time and again with mates. Certainly, the PlayStation might have one of the largest gaming back-catalogues ever, but exactly how much of that is quality gaming? A bafflingly low percentage.

Spot on, on the other side, if there had been no PSX. The market for consoles would NOT be what we see today.

someone on each of these development teams must have realised that they're producing a turkey, irrespective of where the blame lies

Unfortunately I think the blame in many case lies directly with the publisher. They see a successful game and immediately commission a hastily-put-together 'clone' game, because they know it'll shift bucketloads on the back of the original. The reason so many games are rubbish these days is because they're not being invented by the people who play them - they're being designed by PR and Marketing suits who only think in 'units sold'.

some people actually like bad games.... Fifa anyone??

Well, everything is relative, not everyone knows the options.

thing is ..bad games can actually end up being funny ...that is as long as you dont actually buy them but borrow them of a mate or use the 10 day return policy and buy something else later at EB...

"The key to this creative freedom is for producers and publishers to stop hassling the developer and let them get on with their work."

Oh dear ... I am afraid that just won't work.

You see the longer a game is in development the more it costs. And the less likely it is to look new and shiny. And therefore sell badly. And lose money.

What the article sort of misses out on is that most of the greatest games are not the best selling ones. Publishers make money on the Harry Potter cack that is churned out yearly, not on the decent stuff that people on sites like this wait years to play.

So Publishers will always have a say. Just like Tim Burton's Superman film biting the dust when we all know it would have been great. Sad but true.

It's true. Then again, everything Tim Burton does is great so I guess we haven't lost anything as long as they still let him make films.

Then again, everything Tim Burton does is great

Whats your definition of great ?

"Too many Chefs"

I cannot agree enough.

"everything Tim Burton does is great"

I have four words for you - Planet Of The Apes. Ok, it was a decent check-your-brain-at-the-door summer blockbuster, but hardly a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly no comparison to stuff like Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Mars Attacks.

Sorry, I forgot about that one-- it did suck arse. And Sleepy Hollow was maybe a bit weaker than his usual fare too. Can we blame Holllywood for these then I wonder?

POTA was awful, horrible over the top acting all over the place. I'd rather watch the older movies.

Good article Mugwum, I'd love to see the big games websites write this without furiously wanking over some rent-a-quote EA press man who is giving them freebies for good things to be said.

Anyway, just one thing to note - Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians - I believe you are supposed to say - Too many Chiefs and not enough native Americans.

It is fairly similar to a movie, in that everyone has a say in a particular aspect of the production, but the director has to be ultimately responsible for the overall vision and the producers for the management of the project. Just as you wouldn't expect the costume designer to have a major impact on the overall direction of a movie, should a modeller or artist have a big say in the design of a game? I guess there's a balance to be found between letting everyone chip in with their own suggestions so they feel a part of the design process, and having a strong leader to solidify the design and make sure everyone sticks to it.

Make sense?

having a strong leader to solidify the design and make sure everyone sticks to it.

Make sense?

Definitely. Someone strong enough not only to put the fear of God into all the artists and coders and all the other monkeys that go into making the damn thing, but also strong enough to scare away the suits from central office who want him to do this or that with his overall vision to make it more palatable 'to the market' (or if not scare them away, then at least ignore them).

Nah to be fair to poor old Orson he did some quality stuff before it all went pear-shaped.

The Transformers movie. Nuff said.

I agree with Gestalt.

I would add one thing. From an administrative perspective, accountability/ responsibility is essential to getting a quality product that a publishing house wants.

On the creative end, the commitment to the overarching vision is essential.

To follow with the Movie analogy, the director is responsible and gives feedback to cameramen, editting teams, actors etc. The publishing houses give feedback to the director. The cameramen etc. tweak and add art to their respective parts, but the director keeps it cohesive. A good publishing house knows when the director isn't getting the job done.

Good innovation requires fast failures. I wish publishers understood that better. Kill bad projects before they waste everyone's resources...

I think that's got to be the next question - why do publishers put out this crap? :) Don't they realise they've got a bad game on their hands, or is there a point at which it makes more sense to shove it out the door and hope some poor sap buys it than to just cancel it outright and save the marketing spend?

I think that's got to be the next question - why do publishers put out this crap? :)

I think it quite often comes down to the consumer, there are many people out there that just buy games because of their "big name" like Die Hard for instance. The publisher assumes he can make more from a lame and cheap title being bought by the occasional gamer, than paying out the extra for an exceptional title that is not guaranteed to sell more than the crappy title.

Anything by Looking Glass proves that, they were given praise on a consistent basis but their sales were poor. An interesting and engaging game doesn't mean sales :(

Perhaps if we moved back to smaller teams with an array of people doing exactly as they were told, things would be a lot more entertaining and blame a lot more assignable if things were to go wrong.

Presto!

Originality doesn't make it a hit; hell by the rule of thumb its just the opposite most of the time.

I think the biggest problem of all is that when you look back at gaming (if ya have been around long enough) is that the men in grey have taken over.Theres no room for originality anymore as anything remotely original doesnt sell as well as something with some bozo`s name attached to it and we gotta try to make the most for our share holders.Theres no flair for the bizarre anymore where you could try some outlandish game for about 2-3 quid a pop if ya went for something by firebird or mastertronic,where as now you have to spend about 30 or 40 quid.When you look at the gaming scene you realise that more has been lost than has been gained as all the previews are for things we have either already played i.e sequels or the same game types i.e fps or rts`s...gaming truly has lost some of its shine and something needs to change or there is gonna be a huge tumble like there was way back in the 80`s...shame really but there ya are.

the "suits" are über alles!!! (thanks Wolfenstein for renewing my German baggage of words).
It's just that games are simply as someone put it earlier as complex as movie making: you need actors, nice scenery and good scenarist (designers). Also it is very well known that no project should go over one year - people get bored after so much time... A game is a complex project nowadays, that's why it is a bit risky to make any game... unless you are good.

The answer is not simple but the lack of innovation kills a lot of gamingwill from my side (and I think I'm not the only one) and games don't get tested as much as they used to... even on the technical side (stupid scripting bugs for instance). People create software too fast these days :(.

Where do games go wrong? when reviewers hype games and give them undeservedly high scores, thats where they start going wrong!

Ah, someone obviously doesn't have a clue about games at all.

But europe will still remain the little bitch that goes in the kitchen and makes Japan and U.S. sandwiches.


Gestalt et al:

Please ban this person for his contant racist (is that the correct term?) comments. As this is a public forum, these messages of his no doubt contravene his ISPs Acceptable Use Policy (as they would if posted to a Newsgroup, for example - I should know, I've banned enough accounts whilst working at BTinternet a year or so ago), so it would also be helpful for you to provide a timed IP address in order that I may complain formally.

While we're at it, ban his IP block. It will be a shame to discriminate against those who might also be using his ISP, but his clearly trolling comments lower the tone of this otherwise excellent website.

Thank you.

I've been saying for ages that they need to start giving thought to an acceptable use policy. Sooner or later it's going to have to come up. Forum threads going to the dogs is one thing, but EG also need to cover their own backs... Oh well, no doubt they'll do the right thing ;)

To a certain extent I'm with you guys, but resentment takes effort, ignoring takes none.

I agree, constant racism cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

I suggest a 3 strike warning system. Or maybe even a zero-tolerance regime.

"need to start giving thought to an acceptable use policy"

Don't worry, we're already working on one. :)

Try not to make it too harsh though. Its really racism and seriously offensive (and out of context) language that needs to be prevented.

After all, we don't want too many freedoms taken away, do we ?

What he's trying to say is, don't ban him for talking about Isla Fisher.

Well quite. I mean European Scum, if indeed that is his real name, is entitled to his opinions of World+dog, including the Xbox.

However,

But europe will still remain the little bitch that goes in the kitchen and makes Japan and U.S. sandwiches.


this and other statements of his in a similar vein cross the line.

I think racist or other abusive language or comments are yellow card offences, possibly red card depending on context, ditto personal attacks. Persistent trolling should be yellow carded then red carded, if a member of this community who goes to the trouble of registering a nick and visiting the boards on a daily basis can't to anything more constructive than pick a fight every time he's here then I don't see why he should be made welcome. Sorry but I don't see why the majority should have to put up with it.

Otto:

Hell Yes.

"need to start giving thought to an acceptable use policy"
Don't worry, we're already working on one. :)

Just as long as you don't make it one of those catch-all "lets protect the children" type of AUP's. I don't like seeing difficult subjects censored away because the politically correct don't like it. If something is true I'm not going to hold back just to protect someones feelings.

Max: can we please just write one which results in that cheesy bell-end being banned?

Thank you.

Talking about Isla fisher is hardly racist or offensive. It may be annoying and off-topic; I admit that.

People may have noted that I have toned down the number of comments about the antipodean babe. Largely due to the fact that Gestalt keeps on zapping them !

I think racist or other abusive language or comments are yellow card offences, possibly red card depending on context, ditto personal attacks. Persistent trolling should be yellow carded then red carded, if a member of this community who goes to the trouble of registering a nick and visiting the boards on a daily basis can't to anything more constructive than pick a fight every time he's here then I don't see why he should be made welcome. Sorry but I don't see why the majority should have to put up with it.

Otto for President !
Otto for President !
Otto for President !