Why bad games are bad

By Ellie Gibson Published 7 June, 2006

A developer speaks out.

A lead designer at High Voltage Software (the people who brought us Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude) has spoken out on on what makes bad games bad - and why it's not always the fault of the developer.

In an article for PopCultureShock, David A. Rodriguez wrote: "People think that all bad games are the result of the people who make them not knowing or caring about what they are doing. While this is surely the case in some instances, it isn't always how it goes down.

"I’ve been involved with or have watched other games that were on a track to possibly be a good game, slowly get churned into a giant steaming piece of crap through no fault of the people directly working on it."

Developers, Rodriguez argues, generally want to make great games - and will work jolly hard to achieve that aim. "But sometimes no matter how hard you work, someone more powerful than you is going to come in and stick their d*** in your peanut butter."

So why does Rodriguez put up with it all? Why not just get a nice job in a shop or something? Well, it seems he's reached a conclusion which allows him to be at peace with the situation, and it is this: "I'm not an artist... An artist gets to do what they want, how they want, when they want. That’s not what I do. Someone comes to my company with a contract. They give us money to make something. I make it. They take it and sell it. I don't work in art.

"I work... In customer service. And fortunately or unfortunately, the customer is always right. That means that no matter how bad I think an idea is. That means no matter how unreasonable the request or how STUPID the last thing they said was, in the end they write the cheque, so they get to decide.

"I can voice my opinion. I can tell them what I think because that's what they are paying me for, but ultimately, if they decide that something must be in the game... Then you can bet your sweet ass it's gonna be in the game."

Now, you might be thinking that all this relates to the game Rodriguez is currently working on, which is 50 Cent: Bulletproof - G-Unit Edition for the PSP. However, according to Rodriguez, when he started working on the game, he "didn't know that it would turn out as well as it has.

"But I can honestly say that I am very proud of the current state of the game and how it's being received so far... Sure I had a few run-ins that ruffled my feathers but I kept in mind that I was hired by these people to make their game and that even if I disagreed with them I was committed to finishing it."

And Rodriguez has a final piece of advice for us gamers: "Next time you’re playing a game that makes you wish the developer would go to hell, just remember it's not always their fault."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (55) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • E-Vader #1 6 years ago

    well said that man!

  • rinoaMW #2 6 years ago

    It's not only that, but crap budgets, impossible deadlines, and miniscule over-stretched dev teams.

    If some people only knew the truth.

  • reality_cheque #3 6 years ago

    However, according to Rodriguez, when he started working on the game, he "didn't know that it would turn out as well as it has"
    He was obviously expecting a complete turd, rather than an almost complete turd.

  • Teeth #4 6 years ago

    It's so true, and it's frustrating, but unfortunately that's the way it is.

  • Bezzy #5 6 years ago

    *Applause!*

    Some may say that it stinks of passing the buck, but honestly, this happens a lot (and not just in games - any place where commerce meets art).

  • Rodster #6 6 years ago

    "But sometimes no matter how hard you work, someone more powerful than you is going to come in and stick their d*** in your peanut butter."

    Insert EA here. ;)

  • w00t #7 6 years ago

    True.

  • Teeth #8 6 years ago

    It's a little unprofessional of him to say it in such a fashion, but it deserves saying.

    Publishers should leave the development to the developers; their actions in development terms should be supplying assets for the developer such as licensed reference material and sounds, and ensuring the developer is on schedule.

    The publisher's role should not be:
    * to add or remove gameplay elements for gameplay reasons
    * to change the game's content beyond legal censorship because of what marketing say
    * to change the game design because of what the testers think of the game
    * to ask for demos that were not on the schedule

  • Talha #9 6 years ago

    All I can say is, LOOK WHO'S TALKING!

  • afray #10 6 years ago

    @Teeth

    Why shouldn't the pubs get some gameplay say in their games? They are paying for it (well, most of them pay eventually!).

    The problem is these "gameplay" ideas come from external producers with little or no game design experience. Even worse, they're based off poor focus group/committe design decisions.

    Get some experienced real game developers to work for the publishers and you'd start to see better games in general.

  • lambtron #11 6 years ago

    Publishers are (often though not always) a cancer that in a ideal world would be excised. The problem is that often external producers are frustrated games designers who couldn't get a job anywhere else. They don't do their job instead they try to introduce their own horrible ideas.

    The ideal situation would be devs rich enough to fund and distribute their own games. Or even better an even playing field where it doesn't matter how much money you have everyone has access to the same distribution (Xbox Live Arcade for example).

    Games still wouldn't live or die necessarily on how good they are (you can't explain the shit that some people buy SOE springs to mind) but it would be better than now.

    Perhaps this will come to pass.
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 12:15

  • neilka #12 6 years ago

    Why on earth would anyone want to stick their duck in peanut butter?

  • Dizzy #13 6 years ago

    "Why games are bad says 50 cent developer."

    The irony!!!!

  • Sko #14 6 years ago

    *bites tongue*

  • trevd72 #15 6 years ago

    it still leads to too many crap games being released with names attached that pull in an audience that do not read reviews......they are still ripping people off. The developer gets his money during the creation of their masterpiece....so stop complaining. Hopefully the appearance of more indy games in the mass-market of live arcade and the wii will show the big boys how its done and we will have a revolution in gaming.

    I only have to looke at the new mario game on the DS to see that above all gameplay rules. Even marble blast on Live! shows the way when it comes to gamplay. So stop twisting, you may be able to programme but that does not mean you can put together a truely playable game with soul....just like a musician may know three chords but he aint going to write a song as important as smells like teen spirit.

  • AHiFi #16 6 years ago

    I Agree (with the developer).

  • Teeth #17 6 years ago

    @afray

    "Why shouldn't the pubs get some gameplay say in their games? They are paying for it (well, most of them pay eventually!)."

    If someone at a publisher wants to make a gameplay change, they should quit their job and apply for one at a developer IMO, unless...

    "Get some experienced real game developers to work for the publishers and you'd start to see better games in general. "

    ... this is a great idea.

    "The problem is these "gameplay" ideas come from external producers with little or no game design experience. Even worse, they're based off poor focus group/committe design decisions."

    Exactly.

  • rinoaMW #18 6 years ago

    "The developer gets his money during the creation of their masterpiece"

    That's not true. A lot of devs rely on royalties as part-payment.
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 15:57

  • Skooch #19 6 years ago

    It's not just publishers that ruin games with their tight deadlines, inexperience of game coding, etc. etc. it is also the retail sector. I read an excellent article in The Escapist about the influence of Wal-Mart on the games industry. Their purchasing power, and the publishers desire to have their game stocked on Wal-Mart shelves, is having a huge influence on the style and design of games. Due to Wal-Mart's attempts to maintain a clean public image almost no games now have nudity. Great quote from one dev "There's not much nudity other than statues. Wal-Mart is picky about that. When you have to decide between feeding your family or putting nudity in the game, you choose food." Wal-Mart was also one of the first to pull GTA:SA after the Hot Coffee incident, one of the reasons why Take Two got hit so hard in the wallet.

    Link for those interested: http://ww w.escapistmagazine.com/issue/40/11

  • MORZTAN #20 6 years ago

    Quit whining and try working in the construction industry.... You would't last a day! :p

  • afray #21 6 years ago

    @teeth

    If someone at a publisher wants to make a gameplay change, they should quit their job and apply for one at a developer IMO, unless...

    As the publisher is putting their money into developing, marketing, and distributing the game they /should/ have a say over game design decisions. However as we have agreed the person making those decisions for the publisher shouldn't be an accountant who played pacman once fifteen years ago.

    Even when taking your own IP to publishers you will still be expecting them to stump up a lot of cash that you don't have to get the game to market. In retun they're going to take a lot of the revenues despite it being your hard work and talent that made the game popular. To maximise their revenues they'll want creative control over the game. This is all ok as they're giving me wads of cash to work.

    EDIT: bloody tags
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 12:39

  • Goban #22 6 years ago

    Agree with MORZTAN, christ, other professions have to deal with this kind of shite. Stop moaning and try a bit harder.

  • Teeth #23 6 years ago

    The thing is afray, it's never true creative control they want. The control exercised is a) market-driven, with all the negative effects on gameplay that that implies, and b) pawprint management hierarchy design changes, where people change the game just because they want to and have the power to, not for any reason beyond that.

    They just want to say "I made that". We provided the design document, and if they didn't like it in the first place, why not make the fricking changes before the contract is engaged?

  • afray #24 6 years ago

    Teeth:

    a) Yep, but what I'm trying to say is it's /their/ game to make market-driven. The developer rarely even owns the assets or code so complete is the publisher's ownership. As such we can't complain when they make changes. This isn't good for originality or quality of content, but it /is/ good for the market in general. When any game, good, bad or cash-in, flies off the shelves it means more money for the publisher and hence more devs kept in jobs.

    b) This is bad whoever owns the game, agreed.

  • Teeth #25 6 years ago

    @ afray, fair enough if they want to make the game market-driven, totally dair enough, but what I'm saying is those changes should be put in place not half way through development (whcih is what this guy's complaining about), but at the beginning so that changes aren't overwriting some creative work already done under contract terms by the developer.

  • Xerx3s #26 6 years ago

    Isnt this the public secret of the gaming industry? :\

  • afray #27 6 years ago

    @teeth ok, now I got ya. *nods*

  • Teeth #28 6 years ago

    That said, sometimes the developer does cock up and the design is shite or doesn't turn out to be good half way through, which is when your plan to infiltrate publishers with developers comes into play.

  • Nikanoru #29 6 years ago

    The ideal situation would be devs rich enough to fund and distribute their own games.

    You mean like 3D Realms? I'd still like to see some games actually getting released, thanks.

  • lambtron #30 6 years ago

    @Nikanoru

    That's just one extreme example, hardly a compelling argument.

    EA are their own publishers.
    Travellers Tales did so well with Lego Star Wars they bought out their publisher.

    Those companies seem to knock out titles regularly enough?
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 13:22

  • Nikanoru #31 6 years ago

    Yeah I know, but I couldn't help but think of it. :p

  • lambtron #32 6 years ago

    Heh there is some validity to your point I guess - it depends on how responsible/organized the company is.

    Not changing engines/physics system etc every 2 months probably helps too...

  • Tiny_Tim #33 6 years ago

    Perhaps the main reason why games are bad is because we're all sitting here reading this rather than doing any work?

  • mezzomorto #34 6 years ago

    Having worked with High Voltage on a project a couple of years ago (yes I was publisher side but not calling the shots so to speak) I do n't really have a lot of respect for them. I know you can't slam a company just for one project but to be honest they did n't need any publisher's d*** to make it a hard slog, their peanut butter was already turning rancid before that (not sure how far I can take this allegory!)

    I totally agree that publishers should try as much as possible to stick to the concept they agreed on with the dev team. However, when you put your money into something, you tend to get some pretty naff knee-jerk reactions from the top brass, as they get nervous about return-on-investment.

    In any case, High Voltage should take a leaf out of Valve's book. Produce a great product, make sure you keep control over it's life-cycle and spin-offs, etc and any publisher who's ever worked with them caves in as they're desperate to keep the IP. Blizzard's another example that springs to mind but obviously they're owned by their publisher so their case is slightly different...

  • BeDevil #35 6 years ago

    So true, and frustrating after finding out first hand just how little say you really have :(

  • Hunam85 #36 6 years ago

    I wish i had his integrity, oh wait, no, i wish i was someone who stands up for their beliefs...

  • thehat #37 6 years ago

    Perhaps the main reason why games are bad is because we're all sitting here reading this rather than doing any work?

    /Goes back to work
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 16:19

  • Mr_Whacker #38 6 years ago

    Well its all very interesting but at the end of the day a shite game is a shite game and I won't be buying it whoevers fault it is.

  • afray #39 6 years ago

    And so you shouldn't. The consumer shouldn't be punished.

  • DrugBert #40 6 years ago

    If you're comparing the publisher/developer relationship with an architect/builder relationship, then what would you say to an architect who insisted that his vision of an office building without a front door is the primary focus of the building and it is essential that no door is added to the exterior of the building?

    It is not all publisher/developer issues that cause bad games, usually I'd say it is just inexperienced game designers, or game designers who are stuck in a rut and won't try anything new, or focus testing says something or other can't be accomplished by someone not even in the target group leaving the game lacking its one original idea. But publisher producers have their donk in their nutella too I guess.

  • Riggers #41 6 years ago

    That's funny, I always thought bad games were the QA department's fault...

    :p

  • evade #42 6 years ago

    @yellowtruck: "Climax have been living on this philosophy for years"

    Yes they have but it didnt do them much good with a few of their big projects. You dont need to look to far back for climax cannings due to this.

  • jaxon58 #43 6 years ago

    Damn right about Wal-Mart. I worked on a game called Wargasm for the PC and WM said that they wouldn't stock it unless we changed the name. We didn't bow to their pressure. They didn't sell it.

  • Saii #44 6 years ago

    neilka, a little duck in peanutbutter goes a long way XD

    Question, do Games Developers have a Union? Is there an engineering guild or standards?
    Right now, I get the feeling that game developers are software engineers that get bullied by their employers for the sake of their passion for games.

    Its something that makes me question my career choices on a daily basis.

  • Teeth #45 6 years ago

    no union

  • IAmBatman #46 6 years ago

    re: Wargasm. You shouldn't have changed the name because of pressure from Wal-Mart. You should have changed it because it's shit.

  • Krun #47 6 years ago

    As an Artist (the painting pictures and drawing stuff type) I have had to stop taking commissioned work, because of this "customer" knows best rubbish.

    Some guy wants a drawing/painting done. and I say "sure, give me a basic idea of what you want and I can make you something really great."
    Then he hands me a 5 page document with diagrams and photographs, each cross referenced and annotated of what he wants. I used to buckle down and do it, silently cursing him for all eternity to rot in a badly conceived hell made by Artists working to a set briefs.

    I now politely tell them, "I'm sorry too busy."

  • captain-future #48 6 years ago

    IMHO a game gets worse when there are more people involved. I'm not talking about artists or programmers... I mean that when a lot of people try to shape a game they usually fail.

    Most successful games come from (more or less) genius masterminds that simply realize their ONE SINGLE VISION. more people that decide = more watered down games.
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/06 @ 21:52

  • tenma #49 6 years ago

    Agree with MORZTAN, christ, other professions have to deal with this kind of shite. Stop moaning and try a bit harder.

    Yeah, but those other professions don't have fanboys spouting hatred towards them on the internet.

    And your advice is completely asinine given the content of the article in the first place...

  • Drakron #50 6 years ago

    1.5 millions dont give much, games costs well above that.

    The problems come from lack of focus, look at how developers start talking about "taking the game to the masses" and then add fad gameplay mechanics ... such as stealth in a adventure game or FPS in a RPG.

  • rinoaMW #51 6 years ago

    "IMHO a game gets worse when there are more people involved. I'm not talking about artists or programmers... I mean that when a lot of people try to shape a game they usually fail.

    Most successful games come from (more or less) genius masterminds that simply realize their ONE SINGLE VISION. more people that decide = more watered down games. "

    Are you talking about dev tems with lots of designers? or input from publishers?

    You'd be hard pushed to find a single title from a single "genius mastermind" that hasn't had lots of input from his/her design team and as a result altered their "single vision". If it is the former, go on, name ONE? :)
    Edited by 2 at 08/06/06 @ 08:41

  • LOLLERS #52 6 years ago

    Yeah, you can complain and whine or you can get out there and do something about it. Use XBox Live Arcade or Steam and show us what a great designer you are, there are ways around this problem now, you just have to brave eough to take them.

    If it is the former, go on, name ONE? :)
    Tetris
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/06 @ 10:13

  • rinoaMW #53 6 years ago

    curses :)

  • mezzomorto #54 6 years ago

    @ revoltkid, if I had that kind of money, I would n't be sitting here slaving away for another game publisher, trying to kill downtime through reading EG postings :p

  • chavatar #55 6 years ago

    ...masterminds that simply realize their ONE SINGLE VISION

    Well they say a camel is a horse designed by a committee...

    @Teeth - Good points well made, esp about last minute requirements changes - I feel the pain.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to mail the peanut butter quotation to some top brass and say "You are that dick"

    Well, I'd hope so.

    ...Yep I know it's business and the Way Things Are