Support NeoGAF

[Lord_Byron28]

While the main purpose for most of the interviews on Conan and Stewart are there to sell stuff, they also need to make that interview entertaining enough to watch. When they interview an actor they can ask personal questions, because as a celebrity people love learning about how a celebrity lives. With all their money and fame, celebrities tend to lead very extraordinary lives and as actors/comedians they can usually tell us about it in a very entertaining fashion.

When writers are in interviews it is usually about a book that carry very detailed observations or opinions on society, people, current events and the like that can be summarized in an interview in a very intellectually stimulating way.

So if game developers want their game to be out there in that kindof spot light, they need to hire and use a celebrity that people care about, or they need to actually put deep rich social commentary into their games. I guess Bioshock does fall more into the second catagory, but I don't think the commentary is specific, topical, or unique enough for an interview like that, and honestly Bioshock is the only game i know of that at least tried anything like it.

Exactly what I was thinking. They need either a celebrity or someone entertaining enough to be on a talk show with. I think Casual games like Wii __, Just Dance, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, Kinect, minigames, etc. are the type of games where a developer can do a short interview and then for fun demo the game with the show's host and two audience members. However, for more serious games they need to interview someone entertaining enough to interest the audience and show off a game trailer that aligns with the audience's appeal. I couldn't imagine the likes of Bobby Kotick showing up on Ellen to advertise the new CoD. That would be a big disaster especially if he talks like how he does in interviews.

 

[Ellis Kim]

While the main purpose for most of the interviews on Conan and Stewart are there to sell stuff, they also need to make that interview entertaining enough to watch. When they interview an actor they can ask personal questions, because as a celebrity people love learning about how a celebrity lives. With all their money and fame, celebrities tend to lead very extraordinary lives and as actors/comedians they can usually tell us about it in a very entertaining fashion.

When writers are in interviews it is usually about a book that carry very detailed observations or opinions on society, people, current events and the like that can be summarized in an interview in a very intellectually stimulating way.

So if game developers want their game to be out there in that kindof spot light, they need to hire and use a celebrity that people care about, or they need to actually put deep rich social commentary into their games. I guess Bioshock does fall more into the second catagory, but I don't think the commentary is specific, topical, or unique enough for an interview like that, and honestly Bioshock is the only game i know of that at least tried anything like it.

Good god, FUCK no, they do not need to "hire celebrities" to talk about their fucking games. You speak as if game developers are genuinely uninteresting people who couldn't hold a conversation to save their lives.

The problem is who you talk to, and in what manner. Call of Duty and Mario deserve the quick and dirty treatment that Fallon gives. But game developers that we know of to be incredible speakers would be very interesting talks to watch. Its not like there isn't a precedent for this. Not everyone's Will Wright, but that's what the Tim Schafers and Molyneuxs of the world are for.

I don't think I've dismissed any games that aren't "about" something as being beneath me.

I also think your analogy with The English Patient is false. It's not a good analogy. The English Patient was based on a book, and was masterfully adapted to the screen (with the writer's help actually). While I doubt it would work as a game, the analogy was hitting the point more with depth of story, and the actual machinations of storytelling, not whether or not we can make a first person shooter about a dying burned alive man who loved once.

Also this particular part:



and everything surrounding it is patently false. Games today can convey a shitload of a lot more subtle or overt detail than films can, in fact, they can do so because they're not a hamster on a wheel. A film rolls until it finishes, and everything in it is pre-determined.

Make no mistake, games are the superior art form, and films are the handicapped cripple by comparison.

The problem is the content. Most of the games (and films mind you) are made by uneducated and uninformed children, not interested in doing anything better. On the flip side, those that aren't, hilariously, are designing games for children, because children and dumb people are the largest demographic, so you have to sell something that they can eat.

Nasty cycles.



As I said, I actually watch cartoons, so it was just an apt hypothetical analogy.

Also, people who post that CS Lewis quote every time they're trying to defend something childish are really getting on my fucking nerves. I'm not ashamed or fearful of liking Call of Duty because it's childish. Mario either.

I don't like them because they're fucking stupid.

Perhaps I should have made the analogy be between Movie of the Week (or anything else that has a low intellect threshold - the reason I went after cartoons is because they're for children, and thus have to be simple and open) and Hardcore Pornography.

I want the Hardcore Porn in that case. They're just not making it yet, and I'm angry.

Edit: Shit that doesn't work, because there's no intellect in hardcore pornography.

Then we have to make it about the age, but then that's another thing.

Fuck this shit, I'm out of here.

I still want my porn.

You are a terrible person. There is honestly nothing that I can bold to and point at. You are just a horribly pretentious person who doesn't understand the point or purpose of videogames, let alone the people who build these worlds (or films, for that matter), or at the very least, you're someone who blinds himself willingly to that point.

I'm not in the least bit defending Call of Duty or Mario against your unexplained animosity, as that's your taste, but I think you really need to explain yourself on a philosophical level. I genuinely feel like something is wrong with you, something genuinely immature in your perception of art forms and media, that drives this pretension.

 

[DerZuhälter]

While the main purpose for most of the interviews on Conan and Stewart are there to sell stuff, they also need to make that interview entertaining enough to watch. When they interview an actor they can ask personal questions, because as a celebrity people love learning about how a celebrity lives. With all their money and fame, celebrities tend to lead very extraordinary lives and as actors/comedians they can usually tell us about it in a very entertaining fashion.

When writers are in interviews it is usually about a book that carry very detailed observations or opinions on society, people, current events and the like that can be summarized in an interview in a very intellectually stimulating way.

Exactly!

So if game developers want their game to be out there in that kindof spot light, they need to hire and use a celebrity that people care about, or they need to actually put deep rich social commentary into their games. I guess Bioshock does fall more into the second catagory, but I don't think the commentary is specific, topical, or unique enough for an interview like that, and honestly Bioshock is the only game i know of that at least tried anything like it.

Wait. Whaaaaaat?!

No. The observation is absolutly spot on, but your conclusion is just to ape other mediums/arts?!

I couldn't disagree more. Games should achive something unique. I think questioning a developer of fl0wer would work quite well, although or maybe even because it doesn't do anything of the above mentioned.

 

[BlackDove]

You are a terrible person.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ken, you seem like a pretty smart and creative guy. Your projects tend to be interesting, you interview pretty well, you have aspirations for gaming as a medium. But the core mechanic of your new product is still shooting dudes in the face, and thats what the mainstream sees.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Is Chess for children too?

 

[BlackDove]

Is Chess for children too?

Sure.

 

[RedSwirl]

Oh boy here we go.

 

[Ellis Kim]

Ken, you seem like a pretty smart and creative guy. Your projects tend to be interesting, you interview pretty well, you have aspirations for gaming as a medium. But the core mechanic of your new product is still shooting dudes in the face, and thats what the mainstream sees.

And that's exactly why I think that someone like Ken would be an incredible person for one of these talk show hosts to just talk to straight up for 15 minutes. Maybe show a trailer at the beginning of the interview, and then dissect what the game's about from there. Don't show the trailer at the end. Treat the game academically, not as a brainless entertainment spotlight.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Why are you doing this? This is a place of discussion, not a place to be suddenly opaque.

 

[Koopakiller]

We could discuss "parts" of games for hours. I doubt that I could name a single title definitively that I don't think is stupid on some level. Hence, the problem of content.

However, yes, I could certainly name quite a few games that have accomplished the goal of storytelling in a far better and more rich manner than a film could, regardless of the value of their actual story, which more often than not is on par with dog shit (hence my problem).

I'm not going to name any however, simply because we're not going to let this thread degenerate into me particularly explaining game mechanics to you, and their uses, while you tell me the opposite just for the hell of it.

Though I'm rather certain pretty much everyone here can think of at least one game which they feel told its story in a more than satisfactory manner, regardless of what the actual content of the story is.

there's satisfactory and then there's coming somewhat close to what a good film or book can achieve.
you're obviously just trolling but how would you achieve something more than satisfactory?

 

[BlackDove]

there's satisfactory and then there's coming somewhat close to what a good film or book can achieve.

I don't think there's much there other than a subjective distinction. Fact of the matter is, different people will find different books and different films, as well as different games (shocking I know) satisfying.

The point is that the mechanics and the interactivity afford a superior manner of telegraphing a narrative. Not to mention making it more subjectively valuable too (choices).

 

[ampere]

Well, anyone can walk into a movie theater and watch an action movie. Not just anyone can pick up a controller or mouse and play an action video game. You don't really have to react to the action movie, it's a passive form of entertainment. Regardless of your response to the movie, the movie will continue. If someone with slow reactions played an action game and simply could not manage to avoid enemy attacks, they would be stuck.

So I'm not sure if it's all about advertising, action games just don't seem to have as wide of an appeal as action movies.

 

[BlackDove]

Well, anyone can walk into a movie theater and watch an action movie. Not just anyone can pick up a controller or mouse and play an action video game. You don't really have to react to the action movie, it's a passive form of entertainment. Regardless of your response to the movie, the movie will continue. If someone with slow reactions played an action game and simply could not manage to avoid enemy attacks, they would be stuck.

So I'm not sure if it's all about advertising, action games just don't seem to have as wide of an appeal as action movies.

A-HA!

This is a good point worth exploring.

 

[The Technomancer]

The point is that the mechanics and the interactivity afford a superior manner of telegraphing a narrative. Not to mention making it more subjectively valuable too (choices).

In theory yes, but in practice we haven't gotten anything that really takes advantage of the medium yet. Even stuff I like like 999 tends to be lackluster compared to great films or books, and the vast majority of "good narrative" we get in games is in the vein of Heavy Rain, and when BioWare is the developer touted as offering "choice" then you know we're all in trouble. The closest I would say gaming has come to really defining its own meaning of "narrative experience" would maybe be Silent Hill: SM, and even that had its issues.

 

[Campster]

We could discuss "parts" of games for hours. I doubt that I could name a single title definitively that I don't think is stupid on some level. Hence, the problem of content.

However, yes, I could certainly name quite a few games that have accomplished the goal of storytelling in a far better and more rich manner than a film could, regardless of the value of their actual story, which more often than not is on par with dog shit (hence my problem).

I'm not going to name any however, simply because we're not going to let this thread degenerate into me particularly explaining game mechanics to you, and their uses, while you tell me the opposite just for the hell of it.

Though I'm rather certain pretty much everyone here can think of at least one game which they feel told its story in a more than satisfactory manner, regardless of what the actual content of the story is.

If you honestly can't bring up any concrete examples to back up your absolutely, patently ludicrous claims I don't know what to say.

I guess if I had to say anything I'd say that I'm sorry your definition of what makes art acceptable or enjoyable is so woefully narrow. It's a big world. There's more than enough room in the world for Mario to exist alongside of The Passage, room for films to exist beside games, and room for differing opinions about what makes art successful or enduring.

 

[Ellis Kim]

there's satisfactory and then there's coming somewhat close to what a good film or book can achieve.
you're obviously just trolling but how would you achieve something more than satisfactory?

I'd like to address this in some capacity, though from my own personal perception and experiences.

I think that the genius of the good film, and in turn, the good game, is in simplicity. This rule applies to just about everything, but it does particularly so for games.

Good games all maintain a level of simplicity, or to be exact, they all maintain a holistic approach to design. Abstracts are complexities in simple masks, such as utilizing psychological needs, as in something like Tetris.

Satisfaction from a game, however, arrives through a combination of traditional climax and personal, intrinsic happiness. It also arrives in many forms, whether its performing at your peak skill level, or being in an intensely emotional moment, or a sense of completion and finality. But when it comes to games specifically, its the first two more than completion, and that's what game designers want: its what drives MMORPGs as a business model.

But you can't expect the same kind of satisfaction from all media, though you may certainly feel the same about them, emotionally speaking.

 

[Koopakiller]

I don't think there's much there other than a subjective distinction. Fact of the matter is, different people will find different books and different films, as well as different games (shocking I know) satisfying.

The point is that the mechanics and the interactivity afford a superior manner of telegraphing a narrative. Not to mention making it more subjectively valuable too (choices).

How does choice and interactivity make the medium superior? Are those choose your own adventure books superior to other novels?

 

[Xenon]

Exactly!



Wait. Whaaaaaat?!

No. The observation is absolutly spot on, but your conclusion is just to ape other mediums/arts?!

I couldn't disagree more. Games should achive something unique. I think questioning a developer of fl0wer would work quite well, although or maybe even because it doesn't do anything of the above mentioned.

You're not the person they are trying to reach though.

thepotatoman nailed it. In movies you get interviews with stars or very high profile directors. It's extremely rare to see an interview with some unknown, behind the scenes
contributor to films. Sure the director of cinematography has plenty of stories and could even be the most interesting person in world, but without some hook to get people to listen, most won't give a shit.


The problem with the gaming industry is that everyone is behind the scenes.

 

[thepotatoman]

Good god, FUCK no, they do not need to "hire celebrities" to talk about their fucking games. You speak as if game developers are genuinely uninteresting people who couldn't hold a conversation to save their lives.

The problem is who you talk to, and in what manner. Call of Duty and Mario deserve the quick and dirty treatment that Fallon gives. But game developers that we know of to be incredible speakers would be very interesting talks to watch. Its not like there isn't a precedent for this. Not everyone's Will Wright, but that's what the Tim Schafers and Molyneuxs of the world are for.

Im just saying thats what they have to do in order to get into mainstream spotlight.

Lets take Tim Schafer for an example. In order for Conan to traditionally get entertainment out of the interview he needs to talk about either him or his product. Nobody would care if they asked Tim Schafer about his trip to wherever or an embarrassing indecent like they do to celebrities. That's because no matter how well he can tell a story and make people laugh he is still just an ordinary guy that goes to meetings and does paperwork from 9 to 5 where he then goes home and rests for the next day. He doesn't have millions of dollars, or a job that takes him all over the world, and he certainly doesn't have a face people would recognize if he wasn't doing those types of interviews.

And like i said before his product isn't interesting to talk about either because unless you are interested in buying it there is nothing worth hearing about unlike with books where there can at least be a stimulating discussion about the contents that everyone can take something away from.

No. The observation is absolutly spot on, but your conclusion is just to ape other mediums/arts?!

I couldn't disagree more. Games should achive something unique. I think questioning a developer of fl0wer would work quite well, although or maybe even because it doesn't do anything of the above mentioned.

You might right, but I'm not sure what it is they should do differently. It would sound really boring to just bring a guy out to talk gameplay mechanics to a crowd that might not be interested in buying that particular game.

 

[BlackDove]

If you honestly can't bring up any concrete examples to back up your absolutely, patently ludicrous claims I don't know what to say.

I didn't say I can't, I said I won't.

In theory yes, but in practice we haven't gotten anything that really takes advantage of the medium yet. Even stuff I like like 999 tends to be lackluster compared to great films or books, and the vast majority of "good narrative" we get in games is in the vein of Heavy Rain, and when BioWare is the developer touted as offering "choice" then you know we're all in trouble. The closest I would say gaming has come to really defining its own meaning of "narrative experience" would maybe be Silent Hill: SM, and even that had its issues.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, again, I would say that we have gotten many advantages of the medium. Over other forms of storytelling anyway.

What we haven't gotten is something that's actually worth narrating within the medium.

Admittedly, you're right, because of the nature of how code and logic work, the opportunities of storytelling within a game are endless, and technical innovation in how a story is transmitted will probably never stop.

I mean, you went to Heavy Rain, but again, if we separate content from mechanics, the mechanics are largely there for great ways to tell stories, which some games have employed. It's just that the content isn't there.

Heavy Rain's a good example, as Cage knew it was a significant risk going into it. He tried to do his whole "how far will you go for those you love" thing there, and regardless of how far he got to actually executing (which is debatable), the content which he tried to sell wasn't the norm, because it's a big risk and doesn't guarantee sales.

Kids love explosions, kids understand explosions, and kids are great to sell to because the pocketbook (parents) is endless. Hence you largely get games with content that is explosion focused. It's that content part I take issue with.

Mechanical part of games already assailed what films, books and music can do already by default.

I mean games are constructions that can incorporate all three of those simultaneously. Even if we went with the objective angle - how can something that can be all three of those (and much MORE) at the same time be less than any single one of those three.

It's a lot like this actually, if you can make the connection:

 

[Ellis Kim]

I don't think there's much there other than a subjective distinction. Fact of the matter is, different people will find different books and different films, as well as different games (shocking I know) satisfying.

The point is that the mechanics and the interactivity afford a superior manner of telegraphing a narrative. Not to mention making it more subjectively valuable too (choices).

What do you consider ICO, exactly? And what do you consider to have touched these lofty potentials that you seek to see in games?

Because what I'm seeing from you is a whole lot of high-concept with zero concrete. No examples at all.

Telegraphing narrative is one thing, which evokes a lot of games in my mind, but they're all at odds with what it is that you seem to want.

To me, ICO and Flower are two games that deliver narrative in a way that I can only describe as art: communication without words. Of course, there's dialogue in ICO, but that's not what I mean.

Perhaps what you want isn't narrative driven by auteur design, but a subjectively projected one? Or one designed on an per-person basis?

How does choice and interactivity make the medium superior? Are those choose your own adventure books superior to other novels?

And there in lies the problem.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

You can get on Jimmy Fallon (for a large bag of money).

I can understand frustrations that Ken Levine has and the only solution I have is that we have to wait till the older generation dies off and games can be showcased alongside stupid human tricks and Paris Hilton.

I really have a fear that game will remain largely dude bro shooters and have a languishing audience that comic books have now.

For now the exposure games get is the passing comment on how much they love Angry Birds.

 

[Ellis Kim]

Im just saying thats what they have to do in order to get into mainstream spotlight.

Lets take Tim Schafer for an example. In order for Conan to traditionally get entertainment out of the interview he needs to talk about either him or his product. Nobody would care if they asked Tim Schafer about his trip to wherever or an embarrassing indecent like they do to celebrities. That's because no matter how well he can tell a story and make people laugh he is still just an ordinary guy that goes to meetings and does paperwork from 9 to 5 where he then goes home and rests for the next day. He doesn't have millions of dollars, or a job that takes him all over the world, and he certainly doesn't have a face people would recognize if he wasn't doing those types of interviews.

And like i said before his product isn't interesting to talk about either because unless you are interested in buying it there is nothing worth hearing about unlike with books where there can at least be a stimulating discussion about the contents that everyone can take something away from.



You might right, but I'm not sure what it is they should do differently. It would sound really boring to just bring a guy out to talk gameplay mechanics to a crowd that might not be interested in buying that particular game.

That second quote isn't mine :x

I think we're at odds about what we think these developers are capable of talking about. Would I be correct to say that you assume there is some sort of ceiling for developers to be equally entertaining, if not more, than celebrities for these hosts to speak with?

I think that there would be plenty to talk about for these games. You're absolutely incorrect in assuming that a game like Flower would result in talking about gameplay mechanics. You're right, no one in the crowd would give a shit about that.

The point that I feel like you're missing here is that there's always a human connection in anything we touch as people, as creators of anything, whether its a doodle on a scrap of paper, or even something alien, just because that's what we do.

But for a game developer to come onto a show and talk about their game, do you honestly see them incapable of speaking to entertaining lengths of both themselves and their game?

You say that no one would care about what Tim did over his weekend or whatever just because he isn't a fucking rich ass motherfucker living in some 8-bedroom mansion. I say otherwise. I say that Tim endears the FUCK out of the audience because he's not some rich-ass celebrity.

 

[Campster]

How does choice and interactivity make the medium superior? Are those choose your own adventure books superior to other novels?

They don't. They weaken game's ability to tell stories.

We can talk about emergent/player driven narratives until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day that isn't story telling that's running through the possibility space of a system. Which is what games do well.

Games will always suffer as a storytelling medium. It doesn't mean that they can't tell stories, but that story is always a compliment to the gameplay. It can contextualize actions and provide characters to interact with; it can give weight and consequence to choices that might not otherwise have any, or it could simply be that exploring the narrative is itself the goal of the game. Don't get me wrong; story and narrative have key roles to play in the design of a game.

But games are not an ideal way to tell a story, specifically because players need to be interacting with a system and stories are not themselves a system.

 

[BlackDove]

What do you consider ICO, exactly? And what do you consider to have touched these lofty potentials that you seek to see in games?

Because what I'm seeing from you is a whole lot of high-concept with zero concrete. No examples at all.

Telegraphing narrative is one thing, which evokes a lot of games in my mind, but they're all at odds with what it is that you seem to want.

To me, ICO and Flower are two games that deliver narrative in a way that I can only describe as art: communication without words. Of course, there's dialogue in ICO, but that's not what I mean.

Perhaps what you want isn't narrative driven by auteur design, but a subjectively projected one? Or one designed on an per-person basis?


And there in lies the problem.

ICO is one of the examples that proves me right. So does Shadow of the Colossus.

The thing is, once you break those down, they're nothing more than simplistic ventures, and Fumito Ueda confirms them himself to be as such.

We could endlessly talk about ICO and all the fantastic things it does, but there's a big elephant in the room there, which is the simplicity of its narrative. It's why I could never say "Now that ICO right there, that is some serious stuff, you can learn a lot about XXXXXXXX by playing ICO".

While ICO certainly has many fine points it makes, the problem is that the game itself when taken at face value is simply a boy holding a girl's hand, taking her through a castle, as they're chased by shadow demons. There's not a whole lot there. While it evokes emotion (if you're not braindead, and are following along) as well as many other great things, its core content leaves much to be desired for.

Now yes. Part of the reason ICO works is because it's so simplistic. This is not me saying that a dog sucks because it's not a cat. My point is more along the lines that games can contain so much more. So there's nothing wrong with ICO per-se. But you can't deny it is simple.

Ueda's philosophy is actually one that runs counter to my own. He very distinctly says that he can't work complexity because of technical limitations. On one level he's right, but on many others I believe he's wrong. That's another discussion though.

And then, because ICO is a game, it has some other challenges, technical ones, which can break the experience. Admittedly, all games have this challenge.

I swear there's a Penny Arcade comic I could link to for anything, and bastardize all meaning the creators were going for.

Anyway, Levine actually talks about Elisabeth in Bioshock Infinite walking into walls in a recent interview, and how they had to fix that shit up because it assassinates all their other story-telling endeavors, and gameplay mechanics which are meant to be conveying various stories and emotions.

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

"alpha gamer" lol

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Only if the interviews aren't complete shills for the game, (in other words, not 'its Cliff Bleszinski here for Holiday Blockbuster Gears of War 3 (in stores now)') but Cliffy B, insightful hilarious game developer dude.

He makes a lot of good points but at the end of the day you can't force yourself onto talk/news shows. I'm surprised he didn't mention Jimmy Fallon though, he does a lot of video game stuff on his show.

Fallon! Book Tim Schafer! Do eet!!!

 

[Ellis Kim]

ICO is one of the examples that proves me right. So does Shadow of the Colossus.

The thing is, once you break those down, they're nothing more than simplistic ventures, and Fumito Ueda confirms them himself to be as such.

We could endlessly talk about ICO and all the fantastic things it does, but there's a big elephant in the room there, which is the simplicity of its narrative. It's why I could never say "Now that ICO right there, that is some serious stuff, you can learn a lot about XXXXXXXX by playing ICO".

While ICO certainly has many fine points it makes, the problem is that the game itself when taken at face value is simply a boy holding a girl's hand, taking her through a castle, as they're chased by shadow demons. There's not a whole lot there. While it evokes emotion (if you're not braindead, and are following along) as well as many other great things, its core content leaves much to be desired for.

You can make an equally diminishing face-value statement about just about anything. The difference is the beauty in which ICO executes that. Its not an issue of content, as you seem to believe so insistently.

Now yes. Part of the reason ICO works is because it's so simplistic. This is not me saying that a dog sucks because it's not a cat. My point is more along the lines that games can contain so much more. So there's nothing wrong with ICO per-se. But you can't deny it is simple.

The simplicity of the game's design is in not of poorness in technical legroom, but in its desire to deliver a holistic experience through its humanistic design and player experience. The physicality of Yorda is meant to deliver that, amongst other things.

Ueda's philosophy is actually one that runs counter to my own. He very distinctly says that he can't work complexity because of technical limitations. On one level he's right, but on many others I believe he's wrong. That's another discussion though.

And then, because ICO is a game, it has some other challenges, technical ones, which can break the experience. Admittedly, all games have this challenge.

But isn't that EXACTLY what you're talking about? You are incapable of pointing to any given game as an example of what you want, but instead you point to bits and pieces, and even then, you are completely opaque and reluctant to give finer details. You blame some sort of widespread disease of dimwitted game developers as being the cause for this: That everyone else isn't meeting your expectations in achieving some sort of unseen potential.

Do you want complexity for complexity's sake, or what? Because that's all I'm getting from you.

Only if the interviews aren't complete shills for the game, (in other words, not 'its Cliff Bleszinski here for Holiday Blockbuster Gears of War 3 (in stores now)') but Cliffy B, insightful hilarious game developer dude.



Fallon! Book Tim Schafer! Do eet!!!

And that's what the mainstream needs to see. The mainstream needs to see what gamers have had the opportunity to see more and more of in the past half-decade. There's been a sort of renaissance for game developer celebrity-ification, often showing both the gaming PR and human side of the people behind the games.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I was going to be condescending about putting marketing before merit, but then I remembered that 80 percent of advertised art is equally shlock. I don't see why video games shouldn't be included once someone conversant appears.

 

[Coolwhip]

I think the gaming industry is thinking too much of themselves. Videogames are a hobby. I assume a hobby that is still mainly enjoyed by young people. The best selling games sell maybe 20-25 million copies and those are blockbuster hits. If you compare that to movies it just pales in comparison.

With this generation of consoles it became obvious that this industry isn't continuing to explode in size. At least not the traditional core games industry. So will core gaming overtake movies in the future? Doubtful.

Shows like The Daily Show have an audience that is interested in current events, movies, tv shows, celebrities and so on. But I assume the percentage of viewers interested in core games isn't big enough to warrant regular game developer guests.

Just imagine a developer coming by to chat about Dark Souls. All the 35+ year olds would change the channel after listening for a minute and not having a clue what is going on.

 

[Ellis Kim]

They don't. They weaken game's ability to tell stories.

We can talk about emergent/player driven narratives until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day that isn't story telling that's running through the possibility space of a system. Which is what games do well.

Games will always suffer as a storytelling medium. It doesn't mean that they can't tell stories, but that story is always a compliment to the gameplay. It can contextualize actions and provide characters to interact with; it can give weight and consequence to choices that might not otherwise have any, or it could simply be that exploring the narrative is itself the goal of the game. Don't get me wrong; story and narrative have key roles to play in the design of a game.

But games are not an ideal way to tell a story, specifically because players need to be interacting with a system and stories are not themselves a system.

Bravo.

You hit the nail in the head.

I'm reminded of this blog post by an event coordinator when I went out to the "Come out and Play" SF event sometime ago.

http://www.iamtheeconomy.com/2010/10/23/narrative-vs-mechanics-in-physical-games/

I think the gaming industry is thinking too much of themselves. Videogames are a hobby. I assume a hobby that is still mainly enjoyed by young people. The best selling games sell maybe 20-25 million copies and those are blockbuster hits. If you compare that to movies it just pales in comparison.

With this generation of consoles it became obvious that this industry isn't continuing to explode in size. At least not the traditional core games industry. So will core gaming overtake movies in the future? Doubtful.

Shows like The Daily Show have an audience that is interested in current events, movies, tv shows, celebrities and so on. But I assume the percentage of viewers interested in core games isn't big enough to warrant regular game developer guests.

Just imagine a developer coming by to chat about Dark Souls. All the 35+ year olds would change the channel after listening for a minute and not having a clue what is going on.

To use your example of Dark Souls, I think that that's where it would have to differentiate in how you come onto the show and present the game to the audience. Some games and developers are better suited to a visual presentation while talking overhead, while others would do better to simply go the interview route and talk about themselves and their game, with minimal gameplay footage.

A game like Dark Souls would be better suited to showing the mechanics in action, like messing with another player's game, or showing how difficult it is. Any game that's more mechanics heavy (e.g. Mario, Super Meat Boy), or designed for visual splendor (Call of Duty, Alice) would be conducive to a demo presentation.

A Kojima/Molyneux/Will Write game would be more conducive to a high-concept discussion.

And any game who simply has a charismatic lead would also be good for just talking.

 

[BlackDove]

The mainstream needs to see what gamers have had the opportunity to see more and more of in the past half-decade.

Yeah, when I look at Bulletstorm, and the ideas Cliffy B. had behind that game, I sure think that's something that represents both the complexity and the depth of the fantastic narratives games can provide, and why they're deserving of everyone's attention.

Gears of War too.

Unreal Tournament especially.

You can make an equally diminishing face-value statement about just about anything.

No, you can't.

Tell me what Bioshock is about without omitting anything. That'll be a long fucking sentence. And it better contain Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Do you want complexity for complexity's sake, or what?

I want something that is serious, realistic, emotionally charged, something that actually explores either the human condition, behavior, society, history, anything, without resorting to aliens, science fiction, guns, and people's heads coming apart.

And that's just the goddamn start of what I want.

In short, I want The English Patient: The Game.

And no. I don't want what you just thought of when you read that.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

You can make an equally diminishing face-value statement about just about anything. The difference is the beauty in which ICO executes that. Its not an issue of content, as you seem to believe so insistently.


The simplicity of the game's design is in not of poorness in technical legroom, but in its desire to deliver a holistic experience through its humanistic design and player experience. The physicality of Yorda is meant to deliver that, amongst other things.


But isn't that EXACTLY what you're talking about? You are incapable of pointing to any given game as an example of what you want, but instead you point to bits and pieces, and even then, you are completely opaque and reluctant to give finer details. You blame some sort of widespread disease of dimwitted game developers as being the cause for this: That everyone else isn't meeting your expectations in achieving some sort of unseen potential.

Do you want complexity for complexity's sake, or what? Because that's all I'm getting from you.
And that's what the mainstream needs to see. The mainstream needs to see what gamers have had the opportunity to see more and more of in the past half-decade. There's been a sort of renaissance for game developer celebrity-ification, often showing both the gaming PR and human side of the people behind the games.

Would people listen when conversation went in any way shape or form technical, though? Geoff Keighley's pre-E3 roundtable-level discourse. Hell, even the Bombcast's mix of game debate and general silliness would be suspect I fear due to an unknown level of "Give A Fuck to Learn" from the audience.

I've voiced this concern about something similar in gaming tournaments (Quake, Madden, Street Fighter), as even something so seemingly simple as shootin', pigskinnin', and fightin' have to have a level of Give A Fuck To Learn when rocket jumping, roster rules, and just frame talk hits the mic.

Just imagine a developer coming by to chat about Dark Souls. All the 35+ year olds would change the channel after listening for a minute and not having a clue what is going on.

"Imagine it a horror movie, where you star..."

 

[Ellis Kim]

Yeah, when I look at Bulletstorm, and the ideas Cliffy B. had behind that game, I sure think that's something that represents both the complexity and the depth of the fantastic narratives games can provide, and why they're deserving of everyone's attention.

Gears of War too.

Unreal Tournament especially.

Are you trolling, or did you actually miss what I was saying? That quote wasn't even addressed to you, let alone your whole... issue. With everything.

No, you can't.

Tell me what Bioshock is about without omitting anything. That'll be a long fucking sentence. And it better contain Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

And the bolded is where you fail. While there is much cultural and philosophical inference and depth that Bioshock holds, "at face value," Bioshock is nothing more than about a dude who survives a plane crash, goes into an underwater city in chaos filled with psychos who want to kill you, where you occasionally find mutant girls and their "big daddies" that you have to fight in order to either kill or "save" the girls, only to reach a point where you find out that you've been manipulated by some dude who changes accents mid-way through the game, while killing your father in the process, and then donning a "big daddy" suit in which you fight and kill the jerk who was manipulating you.

That's pretty much it. To infer any more would be using some level of critical thinking. Ayn rand, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead are not only supplementary, but completely outside of the core experience. Its the difference between identifying the fact that they "pull a fast one" and stick you with playing as Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2, and realizing the levels of postmodernism and social commentary that is laid within the foundation of the game itself, as well as its content.

I want something that is serious, realistic, emotionally charged, something that actually explores either the human condition, behavior, society, history, anything, without resorting to aliens, science fiction, guns, and people's heads coming apart.

And that's just the goddamn start of what I want.

In short, I want The English Patient: The Game.

And no. I don't want what you just thought of when you read that.

Bolded is exactly what David Cage realized after Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy's development. So you must at least find some consolation in that knowledge :/

 

[Ellis Kim]

Would people listen when conversation went in any way shape or form technical, though? Geoff Keighley's pre-E3 roundtable-level discourse. Hell, even the Bombcast's mix of game debate and general silliness would be suspect I fear due to an unknown level of "Give A Fuck to Learn" from the audience.

I've voiced this concern about something similar in gaming tournaments (Quake, Madden, Street Fighter), as even something so seemingly simple as shootin', pigskinnin', and fightin' have to have a level of Give A Fuck To Learn when rocket jumping, roster rules, and just frame talk hits the mic.



"Imagine it a horror movie, where you star..."

Given the right host, or hosts (depending on what kind of show you're talking about), you can absolutely ratchet up that "give a fuck to learn" level. A whole lot, in fact.

If there was anything that I learned from several weeks of late nights just to watch the first two seasons of the StarCraft 2 GSL tournaments is that if the people talking are great casters, who I can just listen to and feel both informed and entertained, that even as someone who doesn't give a shit about ever playing StarCraft in any competitive fashion can still enjoy the show.

What people react to and resonate with isn't content, but the frame that its in: good, relatable banter. Its the human connection that gives credence to any audience-entertainer relationship.

I'm not talking about mid-level talk like you'd see on the Bonus Round or a gaming podcast, but talk straight from the horses mouth: the developers themselves, and the creative ingenuity and inspiration that they can talk about. There are genuinely interesting people in the industry who can speak wonderfully, whether in podcast format or otherwise, from David Jaffe to Will Wright to Cliffy B to Jenova Chen. The problem is trying to force the same formula into every type of person and game, which you simply cannot do with any expectation of success.

 

[aperman]

Aaron Staton could have easily fit the bill to be on a show like Conan. An actor, giving a performance. In a video game.

Love Conan, anyways. Interviews are generally the dullest segments of his show..

 

[Campster]

...

Tell me what Bioshock is about without omitting anything. That'll be a long fucking sentence. And it better contain Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

...

I want something that is serious, realistic, emotionally charged, something that actually explores either the human condition, behavior, society, history, anything, without resorting to aliens, science fiction, guns, and people's heads coming apart.

And that's just the goddamn start of what I want.

In short, I want The English Patient: The Game.

And no. I don't want what you just thought of when you read that.

A) Arguably Bioshock was more about videogames and game design than it was about Ann Rand or Atlas Shrugged. It actually did very little commentary on the concept of Objectivism - it along with its modernist visual aesthetics were very much a part of the world, but the game never did much with them thematically.

B) Again, I'd point you to Jason Rohrer's The Passage. It's a game about finding love (or not), the inevitability of death, a sense of loneliness and loss, and the hollowness of material goods all wrapped up in 500kb.

 

[jgminto]

He's right. I would love to see Schafer or Levine or even Cliff on Colbert Report.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I think the gaming industry is thinking too much of themselves. Videogames are a hobby. I assume a hobby that is still mainly enjoyed by young people. The best selling games sell maybe 20-25 million copies and those are blockbuster hits. If you compare that to movies it just pales in comparison.

With this generation of consoles it became obvious that this industry isn't continuing to explode in size. At least not the traditional core games industry. So will core gaming overtake movies in the future? Doubtful.

Shows like The Daily Show have an audience that is interested in current events, movies, tv shows, celebrities and so on. But I assume the percentage of viewers interested in core games isn't big enough to warrant regular game developer guests.

Just imagine a developer coming by to chat about Dark Souls. All the 35+ year olds would change the channel after listening for a minute and not having a clue what is going on.

I totally agree. I think a problem is perspective.

If a movie were to be viewed by 3-5 million people in the US, it's box office gross would $30-$60 million dollars, depending on ticket prices/3D/IMAX. Potentially successful if it's low budget or indy, but fairly niche. Even then, it has DVD sales, premium movie channel releases, rentals, netflix, and network broadcast premiers to further push exposure beyond people who don't pay $10-$15 a ticket.

If a game sells 3-5 million copies worldwide (about as much as Bioshock), it's seen as a smash hit. Its hope for more sales outside of the initial window rely on retailers continuing to stock it alongside newer titles for years on end (often blunted by used sales being pushed by the largest game retailer in the country), hw bundling, re-releases, and now DD catalogs.

For a movie to be truly mainstream, it's got put assess in seats - $75-$150 million in revenue minimum in just domestic gross, which translates to 7.5-15 million patrons. Only a handful of games do that each year worldwide. Only a smaller handful would be considered blockbusters in the Hollywood sense of the word.

So as I said before, if we're talking modern games we'd have to start from the top down if you actually want people to tune into these interviews: NSMB, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, GTA, CoD, Angry Birds, Kinect, WoW, Farmville, Pokemon, FIFA, Guitar Hero (before the fall), StarCraft, maybe Mario Galaxy, Just Dance, Madden, Halo, and Assassin's Creed. These are the games that the public actually knows. They have proven accessibility in multiple iterations.

The idea that mainstream exposure will turn core games into blockbusters isn't well-tested, but we've already seen a handful of games advertised before major motion pictures, and a good deal more turned into major motion pictures. Product placement in primetime TV didn't help Heavenly Sword, a theatrical trailer didn't help Lost Planet sell more than 500k in a month, and the Tomb Raider franchise withered and nearly died while the Angelina Jolie movies were banking hundreds of millions.

 

[Cromat]

I think it's likely that one or two (probably males) of these college students he mentioned DID know Bioshock, but were too embarrassed to say it because games, especially 'hardcore' ones, are considered nerdy. I think that's still one of the biggest obstacle this industry faces.

Thank god for smartphones. Imagine seeing a grown man playing a DS. Many (even most) people would consider that weird/immature/nerdy. But a grown man playing on a smartphone? Perfectly natural, even if it's the exact same game.
The gaming industry is basically an industry by nerds for nerds.

 

[Ellis Kim]

I think it's likely that one or two (probably males) of these college students he mentioned DID know Bioshock, but were too embarrassed to say it because games, especially 'hardcore' ones, are considered nerdy. I think that's still one of the biggest obstacle this industry faces.

Thank god for smartphones. Imagine seeing a grown man playing a DS. Many (even most) people would consider that weird/immature/nerdy. But a grown man playing on a smartphone? Perfectly natural, even if it's the exact same game.
The gaming industry is basically an industry by nerds for nerds.

I like the term "alpha gamers" waaaay better than I like the term "hardcore gamers". Hardcore is too broad. I'm sure some of those college students play games like Halo and Call of Duty, and by the current classifications we have, that would make them "Hardcore". But if they've never heard of Bioshock, let alone a game like The Witcher, or something like that, I don't think the fit the true definition of the term "hardcore". The terms Casual and Hardcore are just far too broad to make sense, and I'm sure they don't help anyone with actual marketing.

In other industries, the term "alpha" usually signifies a consumer who has an extensive knowledge about the industry, buys a variety of products in that industry, and will usually spread word of mouth about otherwise obscure products. I see no reason why we can't use that for the gaming industry.

As far as getting on talk shows, I'm all for it.... to a degree. The problem with targeting a "mainstream" audience through shows like NPR and The Daily Show also means that your games need to "fit" that audience. Marketing is unfortunately a double edged sword. I don't want Ken Levine to dumb down or streamline Bioshock Infinite so that it better fits on any of the shows he mentioned. However, if he wants to get games on those shows, those types of things may need to happen. Why do you think they fill movies with so many famous names? Because those are what draw people who otherwise have nothing invested in a franchise or title. A person may not know what Transformers are, but they've heard all about Shia Lebouf. Games don't have this liberty.

I like it too.

I move for a GAF initiative to transition from "hardcore" gamer to "alpha" gamer.

 

[Lunar15]

I like the term "alpha gamers" waaaay better than I like the term "hardcore gamers". Hardcore is too broad. I'm sure some of those college students play games like Halo and Call of Duty, and by the current classifications we have, that would make them "Hardcore". But if they've never heard of Bioshock, let alone a game like The Witcher, or something like that, I don't think the fit the true definition of the term "hardcore". The terms Casual and Hardcore are just far too broad to make sense, and I'm sure they don't help anyone with actual marketing.

In other industries, the term "alpha" usually signifies a consumer who has an extensive knowledge about the industry, buys a variety of products in that industry, and will usually spread word of mouth about otherwise obscure products. I see no reason why we can't use that for the gaming industry.

As far as getting on talk shows, I'm all for it.... to a degree. The problem with targeting a "mainstream" audience through shows like NPR and The Daily Show also means that your games need to "fit" that audience. Marketing is unfortunately a double edged sword. I don't want Ken Levine to dumb down or streamline Bioshock Infinite so that it better fits on any of the shows he mentioned. However, if he wants to get games on those shows, those types of things may need to happen. Why do you think they fill movies with so many famous names? Because those are what draw people who otherwise have nothing invested in a franchise or title. A person may not know what Transformers are, but they've heard all about Shia Lebouf. Games don't have this liberty.

 

[BlackDove]

That's pretty much it.

Nope. Objectivism is all there, at face value. It's what drives the world.

Also, you omitted a ton of stuff. You just summed up the main story (not even that, just glossed over it in a way that doesn't sum up anything - it's actually an endeavor in pointlessness what you've achieved there). As I said, you can't do it unless it's a long fucking sentence.

More like, an essay, it would have to be.

Bolded is exactly what David Cage realized after Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy's development. So you must at least find some consolation in that knowledge :/

Yes, I'm sure you can probably taste my despair over the fact that there's only one out there out of all of them.

And he's not that good either really. At least he tries though.

 

[Ellis Kim]

Nope. Objectivism is all there, at face value. It's what drives the world.

Also, you omitted a ton of stuff. You just summed up the main story (not even that, just glossed over it in a way that doesn't sum up anything - it's actually an endeavor in pointlessness what you've achieved there). As I said, you can't do it unless it's a long fucking sentence.

More like, an essay, it would have to be.

Its hardly any less than your "face value" summary. To say that Ico "is simply a boy holding a girl's hand, taking her through a castle, as they're chased by shadow demons" would be completely ignoring any and all of the game's internalized player-Yorda relationship dynamics, let alone the fiction or context under which the game's main roles are cast.

Do not pretend to say one thing while omitting another. A child could infer more from ICO than what you appreciated in your "face value" sentence.

And no, the objectivism isn't there at face value. It never is. Its inferred from contextual storytelling and cutscenes. At "face value," Bioshock is a shooter with utterly shallow "moral choices" and cool powers, taking place in an art deco underwater city in ruins.

 

[matmanx1]

I like the term "alpha gamer". It sounds far more intelligent than "casual" or "hardcore".

And for what it's worth I agree with Ken and think that he would be a great guest for a talk show. He's intelligent and well spoken. Give the man a chance.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Scanning over the OP, I agree with the gist of what he's saying.

The gaming industry needs stars. It needs charismatic creatives out there making themselves known. The developer name on the box needs to mean something.

 

[Lunar15]

Scanning over the OP, I agree with the gist of what he's saying.

The gaming industry needs stars. It needs charismatic creatives out there making themselves known. The developer name on the box needs to mean something.

I completely agree. Focusing on "stars" also allows a studio to take some more creative leaps, because it's less about leaning on established franchise names and more about the studio's prestige.

 

[ethic]

LOL those fraternity kids wouldn't be listening to NPR.

 

[SublimeO12]

I totally agree. I think a problem is perspective.

If a movie were to be viewed by 3-5 million people in the US, it's box office gross would $30-$60 million dollars, depending on ticket prices/3D/IMAX. Potentially successful if it's low budget or indy, but fairly niche. Even then, it has DVD sales, premium movie channel releases, rentals, netflix, and network broadcast premiers to further push exposure beyond people who don't pay $10-$15 a ticket.

If a game sells 3-5 million copies worldwide (about as much as Bioshock), it's seen as a smash hit. Its hope for more sales outside of the initial window rely on retailers continuing to stock it alongside newer titles for years on end (often blunted by used sales being pushed by the largest game retailer in the country), hw bundling, re-releases, and now DD catalogs.

For a movie to be truly mainstream, it's got put assess in seats - $75-$150 million in revenue minimum in just domestic gross, which translates to 7.5-15 million patrons. Only a handful of games do that each year worldwide. Only a smaller handful would be considered blockbusters in the Hollywood sense of the word.

These statements are incredibly misleading. You can't directly compare sales of a video game to sales of movie tickets or dvds. The only thing that matters from a business perspective is *profit*.

A big budget game these days costs roughly 30 million dollars to make. This means it needs to sell about 4 million copies to break even, taking into account the cut of the money taken by retail and other parties. A big budget movie costs in the 100s of millions of dollars to make. So yes, movies gross more money, but are not necessarily more profitable, and in fact the video game industry brings in more money than hollywood these days. Movies do make a lot of money, but CoD selling 25 million copies of a 60 dollar product is a BIG deal. And 10 million people paying 15/month for WoW is an even bigger deal. So, no the games industry is not taking itself too seriously.

 

[Campster]

Scanning over the OP, I agree with the gist of what he's saying.

The gaming industry needs stars. It needs charismatic creatives out there making themselves known. The developer name on the box needs to mean something.

We already have that, though. Sid Meier, Will Wright, Warren Spector, and Miyamoto are all names that mean something on a product. David Jaffe or Cliffy B are celebrity style names in the industry.

Again, the problem is more that these names only mean something to those who already play games and our audience is simply too limited.