Made a new Gamasutra article: The danger of letting the gaming industry curate its own history

[Arulan]

Shame I was banned, would like to go in there are reply some of those comments... especially the guy going "games are iterative!"

Yeah, it's a shame, but at least the article started some positive discussion on the subject. There are a few, how do I put it, "interesting opinions", such as the one you've already taken note of.

Great article though.

 

[Cadmus]

I still don't agree that games are art. They are far less art than movies because they are mostly made through a kind of assembly line process, there's far less human element in them etc.etc. Well, if art was a sliding scale, most of the games would be at the very end of it, anyway, transitioning more into the product territory. Probably the same as calling Transformers 6 an art is akin to calling a chair catalog an art.

Anyway, I'm saying this because there seems to be lots of misplaced nostalgia flying around. I absolutely think that the journos, designers and whoever makes living talking about and working on games ought to be held to a much higher standard than they currently are. There so many good things to be found across the game history that even I can see and I haven't played many games at all. So much to learn from and improve upon instead of being a bunch of faggy Yes-men shit slurpers MAN THAT SKYRAM SO GOOD LETS MAKE MORE SKYRAMS.

I've been thinking about it and I don't know how much should be expected from the pros, because gaming really is impossibly time consuming, unlike the books and movies. However, the more knowledge and experience a person has the more value his opinion and expertise should have and that's definitely not the case now. In the end I'm just sitting here, wanting to scream fuck them all fuck everything. Nice article, Felipe. I liked it. I definitely think that any kind of professional should know the series they are critiquing, being inspired by etc etc. If at all possible. So if you think SkYRAM is the best thing since the bread was sliced and want to make a Skyrim killer or want to talk in the "pro" space (there's nothing professional of course about the journos and shit except for them getting some pittance for their work) you should fucking go and play all of the previous games in the series to learn more about it. It's totally obvious and I can't understand why those idiots don't do this.

 

[Machocruz]

I was just thinking of game design schools last night, and how from what I've seen they are just "teaching" the latest design trends. If anything, their commercials and promotional materials would turn me off of game development if I ever had the desire to work in that field. They're perpetuating the stranglehold of Xbox Generation design thought on AAA production

I'm playing Monster Hunter Freedom Unite currently. These games are quite unique if you compare them to the average sword and stats games, or hack and slash games. There are things in these games that the schools wouldn't dare advocate to their students. It's a hardcore, complicated series that doesn't check off the list of 7th generation design tropes, is entirely play focused, contains almost no aspect to which the player can only pay casual attention, the only way you can advance is to be able to rise to its challenges. They don't do things in these games because others are doing them. They do no more or less than what suits the concept. The world is only "open" enough to provide enough space and variety for hunting. There is only one town, and it serves all your needs and feels pretty good as a real, living place - as real as any town populated by small cat people can feel. There is no dramatic narrative, but, through animation and art, the series has personality to spare. On that point: compare how you go to bed in the MH games compared to Bethesda games. In one, it looks like a human being going to bed, in the other it looks like clothes being folded into luggage, purely functional.

Btw, between MH and Dragon's Dogma, Capcom is doing WAY better dragon fights than all the other AAA fantasy guys.

Point is, schools look to be directing students to think in terms of the same old 7th gen shit.

 

[No Great Name]

I'd bet those game design schools tout games as an "experience" rather than something to be learned and conquered.

 

[Tigranes]

I was just thinking of game design schools last night, and how from what I've seen they are just "teaching" the latest design trends. If anything, their commercials and promotional materials would turn me off of game development if I ever had the desire to work in that field. They're perpetuating the stranglehold of Xbox Generation design thought on AAA production

I'm playing Monster Hunter Freedom Unite currently. These games are quite unique if you compare them to the average sword and stats games, or hack and slash games. There are things in these games that the schools wouldn't dare advocate to their students. It's a hardcore, complicated series that doesn't check off the list of 7th generation design tropes, is entirely play focused, contains almost no aspect to which the player can only pay casual attention, the only way you can advance is to be able to rise to its challenges. They don't do things in these games because others are doing them. They do no more or less than what suits the concept. The world is only "open" enough to provide enough space and variety for hunting. There is only one town, and it serves all your needs and feels pretty good as a real, living place - as real as any town populated by small cat people can feel. There is no dramatic narrative, but, through animation and art, the series has personality to spare. On that point: compare how you go to bed in the MH games compared to Bethesda games. In one, it looks like a human being going to bed, in the other it looks like clothes being folded into luggage, purely functional.

Btw, between MH and Dragon's Dogma, Capcom is doing WAY better dragon fights than all the other AAA fantasy guys.

Point is, schools look to be directing students to think in terms of the same old 7th gen shit.

It makes sense if you think about it. You still have people who think of games as art or want to make unique games. Those people don't go to game schools, they start making games at a younger age than that and will learn on the go. But the industry still needs people who are low-line labourers for big games. For them, you now have game design schools. (The only thing, and the punchline, is that game design schools aren't even good for that...)

Film industry too needs auteurs as well as cameramen and other low-line workers. Hollywood is built on top of irregular, unprotected, low-paid, uncredited labour by such people. Of course, again, the punchline is that film schools these days produce both types, game schools produce neither...

 

[Machocruz]

Shame I was banned, would like to go in there are reply some of those comments... especially the guy going "games are iterative!"

Yeah, it's a shame, but at least the article started some positive discussion on the subject. There are a few, how do I put it, "interesting opinions", such as the one you've already taken note of.

Great article though.

There is still quite a bit of looking at tools instead of content in that thread. Yes, the interface to Daggerfall might not be the most efficient, the font might be an eyesore, but what about the idea of a detailed character creator like that? The problem with modern RPGs is lack of rich features in comparison to where we were heading in the golden age.

A general rule that I believe in: RPGs are complex, more-so than strategy games, all told [EDIT: Paradox aside]. PnP games try to simulate the complexity and randomness of life for a bunch of people sitting at a table with dice and paper. More IS mostly better. Being able to pick weaknesses for your character IS better than not being able to. It's especially a joke to complain about complexity that is optional. Why are Elder Scrolls games better with mods? Because moar (and fixes). I used a couple overhaul mods on Oblivion that added competing factions with quests, and adventurers doing their own thing in dungeons. Those simple additions made the game better. More monster variety made the game better. Harder monsters in some dungeons made the game better. More is better. Having 20 solutions to a quest is objectively better than having 1, afaic.

Even outside of RPGs. Paradox is making better strategy games than we had 20 years ago. They are more detailed, deeper, better. Someone making grand strategy games 15 years from now would be a fool to discount the features that Paradox brought to the table, no matter how bad they think the interfaces were.

EDIT: Let's compare far less complicated games, like Tomb Raider. The controls of the old Tomb Raider are outdated, sure. But what of the idea that jumping across a crevasse or walking along a narrow ledge should be fraught with risk and tension? How is auto-correcting your jump, as done in Newmb Raider and Uncharted, a modern improvement? The controls are the tools, the danger is the content/theme.

 

[Delterius]

Btw, between MH and Dragon's Dogma, Capcom is doing WAY better dragon fights than all the other AAA fantasy guys.

Brofisted just for this.

 

[felipepepe]

You would think that a guy that makes a living out of retro-inspired JRPGs like Breath of Death VII and Cthullu Saves the World would see some value in gaming history, but no, Robert Boyd replies in my article that a professional doesn't need to know its industry history because "if the movie critic or director does quality work, I doubt anybody cares what he or she watches in their spare time".

Goddamn.

 

[Infinitron]

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/FelipePe...stry_curate_its_own_history.php#comment263213

OK, which one of you assholes is that?

 

[Kane]

Shame I was banned, would like to go in there are reply some of those comments... especially the guy going "games are iterative!"

You'd only end up regretting it afterwards anyway.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You would think that a guy that makes a living out of retro-inspired JRPGs like Breath of Death VII and Cthullu Saves the World would see some value in gaming history, but no, Robert Boyd replies in my article that a professional doesn't need to know its industry history because "if the movie critic or director does quality work, I doubt anybody cares what he or she watches in their spare time".

Goddamn.

Just give him the obvious reply - that knowing more about the subject they are talking about elevates the quality their work. Add a "FOR FUCKS SAKE" in there for that extra codex flavor.

 

[felipepepe]

I was a bit more... rude:

This isn't about leisure in spare time, is about researching the history of the field you work in, which is something this industry doesn't promote.

How would you feel, for example, in having your games reviewed by a critic that have never played 8-bit & 16-bit RPGs because he finds them outdated?

The fact that he can write well doesn't excuse the fact that he's missing vital information on what your games are referencing. Sure, this is an extreme example, but you get the idea.

Another example - In one of your latest Gamasutra article you talk about how Child of Light takes its combat system from Grandia - the same system you used in your games, BTW. That comes comes from having a good repertoire, and it's something that many critics who reviewed the Child of Light failed to notice.

If they don't know the original, they can't compare how Ubisoft devs tackled it - if it's an upgrade, a copy or a simplistic version - and might even do dumb things like thinking that the game invented that battle system.

Kotaku's review calls it "brilliant" without even once mentioning it's a direct copy from Grandia:

"That's all pretty straightforward, but the brilliance of Child of Light's combat—and it is brilliant—lies in the bar at the bottom of the screen."

Same thing for IGN:

"Its biggest success is the combat system, which skillfully mixes turn-based and real-time elements."

I find this sad, and even sadder that a dev of retro-inspired games like you endorses this by saying "it doesn't matter as long as the review is good".

 

[Jick Magger]

Don't feel bad about it. Guy made an argument born of ignorance and should be called out for his ignorance. I am fucking terrified for the future of the industry if the most complex RPGs our designers of the future have to go on as a reference are Skyrim, Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

 

[Cosmo]

I was a bit more... rude.

THe guy advocated willful ignorance and self-absorbed stupidity, so IMO your reply was pretty tame compared to the right thrashing he deserved.
Also i highly doubt that those ignorant but good designers exist; at the very least, knowledge of your own field can only make you better.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Why'd you get banned though, flippypeep?

 

[SCO]

He used 'storyfag' in a comment, momentarily forgetting he wasn't on the cockdex.

 

[Delterius]

He used 'storyfag' in a comment, momentarily forgetting he wasn't on the cockdex.

Actually, he called himself a newfag.

 

[Gozma]

He said "All faggots must fucking hang" and put a cigarette out on his infant son's face

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I was a bit more... rude:

This isn't about leisure in spare time, is about researching the history of the field you work in, which is something this industry doesn't promote.

How would you feel, for example, in having your games reviewed by a critic that have never played 8-bit & 16-bit RPGs because he finds them outdated?

The fact that he can write well doesn't excuse the fact that he's missing vital information on what your games are referencing. Sure, this is an extreme example, but you get the idea.

Another example - In one of your latest Gamasutra article you talk about how Child of Light takes its combat system from Grandia - the same system you used in your games, BTW. That comes comes from having a good repertoire, and it's something that many critics who reviewed the Child of Light failed to notice.

If they don't know the original, they can't compare how Ubisoft devs tackled it - if it's an upgrade, a copy or a simplistic version - and might even do dumb things like thinking that the game invented that battle system.

Kotaku's review calls it "brilliant" without even once mentioning it's a direct copy from Grandia:

"That's all pretty straightforward, but the brilliance of Child of Light's combat—and it is brilliant—lies in the bar at the bottom of the screen."

Same thing for IGN:

"Its biggest success is the combat system, which skillfully mixes turn-based and real-time elements."

I find this sad, and even sadder that a dev of retro-inspired games like you endorses this by saying "it doesn't matter as long as the review is good".

Wait, you got banned for posting this DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD: ?

 

[Infinitron]

Wait, you got banned for posting this DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD: ?

Nah, you're confused. He was banned from NeoGAF for calling himself a "newfag". He's not banned from Gamasutra, where he posted that comment.

 

[felipepepe]

I was a bit more... rude.

THe guy advocated willful ignorance self-absorbed stupidity, so IMO your reply was pretty tame compared to the right thrashing he deserved.
Also i highly doubt that those ignorant but good designers exist; at the very least, knowledge of your own field can only make you better.

And he keeps doing it:

For example, if you want to learn about Wizardry, I'd say you're better off reading the HG101 article on the series, then playing a modern descendent like Etrian Odyssey IV. Then, if you want to go further, play one of the better games in the series like Wizardry 8. I'd say this course of action would teach you more about video games and be drastically more enjoyable while also spending less time than spending hundreds of hours playing through the entire Wizardry series. Some games have aged better than others.

"Wanna know about the Gold Box games? Play Dragon Age!"

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Well, for certain one doesn't have to play the whole game from start to finish but they at least have to install and have a taste. One is not obligated to play through the whole series, because one is entitled to not like it when playing. I'm talking about the wizardry example.

He mentions HG101... Does he think that was written by people who never played the old games and wrote about them?

Anyway, at least going to websites like HG101 is at least a minimum display of interest in oldies. What's written about those certainly can make one get interested in trying those games. But to read about an old series and play a descendent, why read it in the first place?

 

[:Flash:]

I recently read an interesting article about software development, and the reasons why many developers convince themselves that better tools that would improve their performance, are not worth looking into. It came to my mind that aspiring game developers being averse to experience older games might actually be rooted in the psychological phenomenon described in the article.
Here's the article.

I have actually noticed that I have been prone to that kind of thinking myself, and therefore I'm trying not to trust my instincts in these things, and instead investigate.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Skimming through this thread and the discussion on gamasutra I get the feeling that the main gist of what felipepe is trying to convey got kinda buried, maybe also because Felipe put a bit too much emphasize on the whole "historical research" stuff.

Let's put it this way: No, you don't need to be a walking encyclopedia of video game knowledge and you don't need to have played every [insert genre here] game in order to be a good game critic or designer.
However, it would seem kind of normal that someone who designs games or writes about them for a living is passionate enough about the field to have some appreciation of video game history and to take pleasure in playing at least some of the classics and maybe even more obscure titles that his favorite genres have produced. That's not really asking too much is it?

 

[agris]

Skimming through this thread and the discussion on gamasutra I get the feeling that the main gist of what felipepe is trying to convey got kinda buried, maybe also because Felipe put a bit too much emphasize on the whole "historical research" stuff.

Let's put it this way: No, you don't need to be a walking encyclopedia of video game knowledge and you don't need to have played every [insert genre here] game in order to be a good game critic or designer.
However, it would seem kind of normal that someone who designs games or writes about them for a living is passionate enough about the field to have some appreciation of video game history and to take pleasure in playing at least some of the classics and maybe even more obscure titles that his favorite genres have produced. That's not really asking too much is it?

But a lot of them aren't. Bester actually mentioned this in his rant against PoE's dev team recently. All you need is a compsci or computer animation/design degree to get hired by these studios, not necessarily a "love" of great games.