Game Loyalty

[Devonix]

Recently I was browsing the Escapist forums when I found a thread about weather or not Capcom made better Zelda games than Nintendo.

Now the crux of the argument hung on the Oracle games and the Minish cap games Developed by Capcom.

Well Fubiyashi was the director of those games as well as head writer. He's no longer even at Capcom and works for Nintendo Making Zelda games and has been the head of the franchise since 2007 Being the head writer for Phantom Hourglass as well as director for Skyward sword

My main question is that why do we give our loyalty to the company and not the people.

I mean when was the last time you said. I can't wait to see thi new Universal Studios movie. It's usually I wanna see this new Speilberg or Ron Howard or such and such.


And we don't say we hate those Lions Gate movies We say we hate a Michael Bay movie.

But in gaming we say we hate EA or another company and not the people.




My question is do you do this and if so why?

[Tebryn]

Recently I was browsing the Escapist forums when I found a thread about weather or not Capcom made better Zelda games than Nintendo.

Now the crux of the argument hung on the Oracle games and the Minish cap games Developed by Capcom.

Well Fubiyashi was the director of those games as well as head writer. He's no longer even at Capcom and works for Nintendo Making Zelda games and has been the head of the franchise since 2007 Being the head writer for Phantom Hourglass as well as director for Skyward sword

My main question is that why do we give our loyalty to the company and not the people.

I mean when was the last time you said. I can't wait to see thi new Universal Studios movie. It's usually I wanna see this new Speilberg or Ron Howard or such and such.


And we don't say we hate those Lions Gate movies We say we hate a Michael Bay movie.

But in gaming we say we hate EA or another company and not the people.




My question is do you do this and if so why?

Because a single person doesn't make a video game more often than not while the writer/director has a more personal touch on the movie that comes out and are certainly a bigger profile in the movie itself than say...a video game.

Video games generally don't showcase their writers or workers.

[Devonix]

Game directors usually pick much of the development team and if you are the director as well as head writer of a series well you have quite a bit of control over the final product.

[Tebryn]

Depends on the company you work for, just as the movie analogy. Executive meddling can hamper a lot of things. It still comes down to most big named games not being written by -one- person but by a team. The team may well be hand picked by you but it can pull things in directions you yourself didn't intend. Dragon Age 2 is a prime example of this. David Gaider is the main writer for the Dragon Age series but he didn't write the whole game or even a quarter of it on his own.

[warty goblin]

Quick observation: those annoying videos that play when you launch a game? They usually don't say 'a game by Bob McBobberson.' There's a publisher logo and a developer logo, and (frequently) and Unreal Engine logo. I have no idea who makes most of the games I play, but tend to know the companies pretty well.

[Devonix]

Then there are people talking about the Resident Evil franchise and it's downward spiral since four.

Well damn near everyone who worked on games 1-4 now work for Platinum games and a few other companies. These things matter.

[Tebryn]

Quick observation: those annoying videos that play when you launch a game? They usually don't say 'a game by Bob McBobberson.' There's a publisher logo and a developer logo, and (frequently) and Unreal Engine logo. I have no idea who makes most of the games I play, but tend to know the companies pretty well.

This is also a big thing. Tack on that you generally are given the chance to skip through the end credits of most games and you never need see the people who took the time and effort to make the game at all.

[Devonix]

I understand the layman not knowing about this stuff. but we're the internet. We should know better is all I'm saying. It's not hard to find out, but I always here people wanting such and such and so and so company to do something without looking at the people.

I think once people start looking at who makes their games, well then companies will have incentive to keep good employees more and we'll get more creator driven masterpieces rather than having those creators struggling under oppressive overlords.

[Tebryn]

I understand the layman not knowing about this stuff. but we're the internet. We should know better is all I'm saying.

Should we? The Internet isn't a "thing" as far as an organized group of brains goes. There isn't a "We". No one is the internet just as no one is a library or a wal-mart of a pet shop.


It's not hard to find out, but I always here people wanting such and such and so and so company to do something without looking at the people.

Because that's not how the gaming industry, or any industry works. The people only get to do what they do because they've got massive companies or...a lot of time and luck behind them. People are -right- to petition the publishing companies because that is what is looking for the people who can make them the most money. When the masses want X, asking people with no money to make it isn't the right way to go. Going to a company that wants to make what people want is where you go. The company then hires the people who know how to make X and the fund it so they can then sell it to us at a profit.


I think once people start looking at who makes their games, well then companies will have incentive to keep good employees more and we'll get more creator driven masterpieces rather than having those creators struggling under oppressive overlords.

The above works for this too. Sadly, this isn't how masterpieces are made either. Publishing companies aren't evil whip holding monsters either for the most part. Their businesses. If you want games with a more personal touch I suggest you look to the indie market. Games like Bastion from Super Giants or anything made by Double Fine.

[warty goblin]

This is also a big thing. Tack on that you generally are given the chance to skip through the end credits of most games and you never need see the people who took the time and effort to make the game at all.
And even if a person does watch the credits, they are about ten miles long for most games, plus it's very hard for somebody not involved in game development to tell who does what.


I understand the layman not knowing about this stuff. but we're the internet. We should know better is all I'm saying. It's not hard to find out, but I always here people wanting such and such and so and so company to do something without looking at the people.

I think once people start looking at who makes their games, well then companies will have incentive to keep good employees more and we'll get more creator driven masterpieces rather than having those creators struggling under oppressive overlords.
I know the names of some people who make games: I know Clint Hocking did Far Cry 2 for instance. And that certainly makes me more likely to buy another game he's involved in, but the vast majority of the time I have no idea. Which about 90% of the time works out swimmingly for me; I see a game by a company I've had good experience with in the past, read a couple reviews, maybe watch some gameplay, and give it a whirl. Faith-based buying is generally stupid.

On top of which, a majority of the names I know in regards to game design are notable jerks, so I'm fine with fewer 'creator driven masterpieces.' Most of the time I read something some big name game designer has said, and cringe hard enough to strain something.

[Tebryn]

And even if a person does watch the credits, they are about ten miles long for most games, plus it's very hard for somebody not involved in game development to tell who does what.


Also this yes.

Not to mention, the creative force behind the game may or may not be why the game is -good-. If a movie's story is bad then the movie is kinda a lost cause. Same goes with a book. If the story of a game isn't, most consumers don't seem to have a problem with that. Hence why Madden and carbon copy FPS's are pumped out like they're going out of style (No sign that they are). What matters in a game comes down to controlling well, looking good and being generally fun to play regardless of what "Creative Genius" made the game. That is a big list of people. Whole different departments in fact.

[Krade]

I don't tend toward a scompany loyalty so much as keep an eye on new games by a company that has made one or two that I have enjoyed. Supergiant, for example, has only made one game I'm aware of (Bastion) and it was fantastic. You can be sure I will be giving their next game a more than fair shake.

As for people saying that they hate EA specifically, it's not so much the games they publish as all the BS they pile onto them. From 'always on' DRM to online passes to 'every game from now on having some form of multiplayer', there's something for everyone to hate.

[Tebryn]

'every game from now on having some form of multiplayer', there's something for everyone to hate.

Well, this isn't what they actually said. They said every game had to have an online component. The Bioware forums are pretty good source for info on this. The Dragon Age 3 team had a long talk about this.

[Bling Cat]

Well, it's also due to the lack in the gaming industry of major personalities. For example, you've presumably heard of Peter Molyneux? When you think of Fable, you think of Lionhead, but you also think of him. In fact, he basically just sold a Kickstarter on his name. He's a polarising figure, but he's a figure.

If you play indie games, you probably know Edmund Mcmillen. He was the artist and lead creative type on Super Meat Boy, and was involved in The Binding of Isaac. He's also making a new game about cats or something. When I think of Super Meat Boy, I think of him.

There are some others, Ken Levine for instance, and the heads of EA and Activision (Whoever the new head of EA is). But the reason you see so few is partly because the creative designers aren't promoted, after all, the publisher owns the company, not the man, so they don't want to bank too heavily on his influence, he might leave at some point after all, while they can use the company name on whatever they want. Also a problem is that from what I've seen lots of game designers are startlingly lacking in charisma. This makes putting them on a stage answering questions not a particularly tantalizing proposition if you're trying to sell your game.

[GloatingSwine]

There are certainly a lot less big name game directors around than there used to be.

And it's largely because there's far more money involved now, major publishers are now the norm rather than one or two whales in a sea of minnows, and major publishers are very very stupid creatures.

Creatively they are amazingly risk averse, everything needs to be focus tested out the ass in order to ensure that it appeals to the maximum number of people, but that makes everything amazingly generic and it turns out that if you make a lot of very similar products, people will only buy one of them and the rest will all underperform.

Except because they made sure it will appeal to the most number of people, they then spend stupid amounts of money on it, which inflates the sales expectations far beyond the realms of sanity and causes the publisher to believe that they didn't take enough of the interesting and unique elements out and make the next one even more generic. See also: Dead Space.

That means that in much of the gaming market there simply isn't room for a strong creative vision, anything that looks like it might be unique or interesting gets ruthlessly stamped out in the quest for the next Call of Duty.

And so, the age of the developer you can actually name is over. Back in Ye Olde Days it was possible for the Chris Roberts', Peter Molyneux, and so on of the world to exert a fair amount of creative control on a game without it being put through the sausage machine of the major publisher and turned into more of the same.

The only place that can happen now is Japan, because Japanese publishers seem to work differently when it comes to creative control, which is why people like Suda 51 and Atsushi Inaba get to go on making glorously bonkers nonsense.

[factotum]

I think companies tend to produce the same sort of games, and that's why people are loyal to them. Obsidian, for example, has a reputation for producing superbly-written and immersive RPGs (we'll sweep Dungeon Siege 3 under the carpet for the moment) which are generally bug-ridden as all heck on release. EA has a reputation for producing cookie-cutter FPS that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Assuming you were some sort of fantastic RPG game creator, which of those companies would you prefer to work for?

TL;DR version--the good game designers tend to gravitate towards good companies where they can do their work without too much management meddling. Hence you might as well use the company rep to choose your games.

[Craft (Cheese)]

My question is do you do this and if so why?

This is really only true in the AAA industry, which is deliberately designed to give credit to companies before people. With very few exceptions, when you complain about an EA game you have no choice but to blame "EA" because you have no idea (and no way discover) which individuals are actually responsible for the problem you're complaining about. The film industry, on the other hand, is set up to popularize individual directors and actors, which is why we see film reviews peppered with phrases like "Spielberg's gorgeous cinematography work" and "DiCaprio's emotionally charged performance."

Indie and mid-sized developments don't really have this problem and such games are often spoken of in terms of individuals, not companies. In these games you really do see phrases tossed around like "Avellone's character writing" and "Edmund McMillen's creepy artstyle."

Really, I think this is more of a PR problem than a fanbase problem.

[Tebryn]

Is it a problem though? The reason the indie market has more big names in it than the Triple A sector is because the indie companies are smaller. The story boarder/writer/lead programmer may very well be the same person so he's going to get more of the fame. A Triple A game has whole teams of people to write the game, program the game, quality test the game, market the game etc. It's harder to stand out when you're just one fish in a very large lake. If you want to be recognized, you have to do something worthy of recognition. How many innovative writers do we have in the Triple A market now a days? I honestly don't know, as I've left that industry more or less behind so that's an honest question. Ed McMillan is a big deal because Team Meat is 2 dudes who made a series of video games that did super well. Notch is a big deal because he created a game on the market that wasn't there quite like it was before. They both -added- something to this media genre and for it they get acclaim. It's that simple.

We don't have a problem for not noting every line chef in the kitchen afrer all. Video Games aren't books or movies, they're their own media style with it's own trappings. You're not going to be a Tolkien in the video game industry unless you make the game by yourself or with a relatively small group of people. Sure it sucks not being recognized for the hard work you put in, but when you're working on a Triple A game you're not Michael Bay. You're Camera Man 1 or Assistant Character Designer. There are plenty of people in plenty of jobs that go unrecognized every day and we don't lament their obscurity. I would actually find it strange that most game designers had a following over a big publishing company.

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's a problem because of how it distributes responsibility. Take a look at the Aliens: Colonial Marines fiasco. Everyone was trying to salvage their own reputation by trying to pin the blame on everyone else. If you have a single entity at the top that responsibility can be piled onto, then when stuff goes wrong they actually have to answer why they didn't fix the problem instead of try to shift the responsibility onto someone else.

Not to say this kind of top-down designer hierarchy is perfect: If whoever's at the top happens to be an idiot, he/she can sabotage or nullify the much better work of his/her subordinates.

[Tebryn]

It's a problem because of how it distributes responsibility. Take a look at the Aliens: Colonial Marines fiasco. Everyone was trying to salvage their own reputation by trying to pin the blame on everyone else. If you have a single entity at the top that responsibility can be piled onto, then when stuff goes wrong they actually have to answer why they didn't fix the problem instead of try to shift the responsibility onto someone else.

Not to say this kind of top-down designer hierarchy is perfect: If whoever's at the top happens to be an idiot, he/she can sabotage or nullify the much better work of his/her subordinates.

That's just how big industry works. It's not a Video Game industry problem, it's not even an industry problem really. Finger pointing and blame shifting is going to happen regardless of what kind of model your company uses or makes when crap hits the fan. People generally don't just own up to their mistakes, not when a ton of money is on the line and they're the ones who have F.U.B.A.R'd it to kingdom come. Usually at least. That's just how business works. To hold video games as an exception is silly, they're an industry the same as the dude who started the horse meat fiasco or any other big PR debacle. The only difference, besides their service, is the level of media blow out these things get. The Video Game industry is rather insular when it comes to it's news because the wider world doesn't care just how bad the newest Alien game is.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That's just how big industry works.

It's not how every other artistic medium works. It's not how films, music, television, or books work. Even though all of these other mediums also have lots of people (from several dozen to literal thousands) who go into production and distribution, they're also built around an individual or a small group of collaborating individuals called "the artists."

[Tebryn]

It's not how every other artistic medium works. It's not how films, music, television, or books work. Even though all of these other mediums also have lots of people (from several dozen to literal thousands) who go into production and distribution, they're also built around an individual or a small group of collaborating individuals called "the artists."

Except in a lot of cases it is. It's the whole reason "Executive Meddling" is a thing. Directors get fired from big budget movies all the time, more than one director sometimes. Scripts are re-written or abridged or just dropped in favor of what people think will sell better. Entire sections of books are torn to shreds because the publishing house is afraid it'll scare off customers. When fallout occurs it's not Madona who gets fired, the "central" genius of her music. It's her publicist or any slew of other people that work under her. Let's not even get into manufactured boy bands or almost the entire major music industry in the East where singers are swapped out when they're not appealing to the demographic the company that funds them is looking for. The big video game industry isn't any different than any other big industry. It's a bunch of suits looking to make as much money as they can with as little cost as possible. Sure, you can get say...an Ed McMillan or Steam Powered Giraffes or any number of indie movie festivals. But they're exceptions, not the rules. The successes are big because they're rare and despite the market. Not because of it.

[Devonix]

For a long time the Film industry had the exact same problem but we grew out of it. Film had a very real difficulty being seen as "Art" because of the whole too many cooks argument.


My main thing is that if you love the beautiful visuals of a game we should be looking to the great Level and art directors of a game the same way we look at great Directors of Cinematographer

We should look at Directors of story and head writers like we do at screenwriters and such.



It took so long for film to do it, and in truth film still has a long way to go. But I know that when I follow these specific people from game to game that I'm going to get similar experiences.

Games do have a style that people bring to them when they are in charge and it's not just in the Indie games.

Bioware games felt the same for so long because they had many of the same people for so long. Same for other franchises.





Just don't go giving CAPCOM pats on the back and expect them to make the same types of games when none of the people who made them work at the company anymore is what I'm saying mostly.

[Morph Bark]

Video games generally don't showcase their writers or workers.

I think this is as much or even bigger a reason, really. Whenever you see the basic information about a game, they always state the developing company and the producing company (the guys that fund it, basically, afaik), but never the head writer/artist/director. Only in cases where someone does that for multiple great games or for an entire series (usually one they invented the concept of themselves) do they really jump out, like Shigeru Miyamoto, Keiji Inafune, Hideo Kojima, Sid Meier or Clive Barker (and the last two only because their names are in their games, too).