The Change in Game Creation

Alpha Protocol 2010

If you are in your mid-twenties to late thirties, chances are you grew up playing many great games from the earliest days in gaming, to the current high tech era we live in today. Great games have not disappeared, and many recent games offer some sort of fantasy fulfillment. But, it is not in the same way that we had even a generation ago. Then again many things changed during the last decade of gaming. Gaming went from being obscure like comics once were, a wonderful artform that had a dedicated fanbase; yet, it was still more or less a nerds hobby. Now it has become a huge mainstream phenomenon, rivaling many other current art forms.

This attracts big money; as gaming went from making solid numbers, to rake in as much or more cash than any other form of media. Gaming was never the money maker that film, or even music was around a decade and a half ago. But, all that has changed now, which brought the same types of changes to the industry, that film, music, and all other art forms have faced. The name of the game is not creative and passionate game designers bringing their ideas of fun to the screen; but, what the "accountants" think will drag in the most revenue.

The Thing The Game 2002

Money is needed to make games, to make anything in our world, but ticking boxes to make that money is not always a sure thing. The reason why most things sell and thrive, is rarely the box that the "accountants" think need ticking. The main reasons why most games are so successful is the effort that went into creating that experience, and the reasons why those efforts were so motivated. Nine times out of ten that reason, was a developers passion for a genre, theme or idea.  The whole reason they went to create these experiences, was because they wanted to have those experiences.

It just brings a different sense of work ethic to the project. These designers were influenced by film, novels, comics and many other art forms; they wanted to craft an experience that reminds them of something they admire. This led to Halo, Half-Life, and many other games, made by people who loved films like Alien. There are far more examples but the point is this, games were created out of the spark of an idea, for an experience that would be rewarding and fun. This led to games we adore and games that made the medium what it is today. The recipe for success is not that last game did this specific thing, and that was what made it so incredible.

ShellShock Nam 67 2004

We got a couple of amazing Vietnam shooters back in the early 00's, and we got so many more after that due to the idea being that the setting was key to the game's success. It is not the setting, it is not the mechanics, or even the themes and atmosphere; it is how all those elements come together that created the incredibly memorable games we love to this day. Much like other forms of media, it is not uncommon for the "money men" to get art wrong; they see trends and think that is what makes money, sadly this is not true.

Following trends can create some good games, but we lose out on the games that would have been made instead, games created out of that spark of creativity; not the inclination to check a box in hopes of big numbers. That rarely works well, sums of money get lost, mediocre games are made and the "money men" scramble to figure out what went wrong. Well, you told the artist what to make instead of giving the artist the means to create. Because of this we lose variety in our games, gamers start losing interest, and the medium survives based on chasing trends and finding more and more ways to milk money out of the common gamer.

BlackSite Area 51 2009

What strikes me so odd, is that there is a much better way to make the numbers these companies want. As a matter of fact, there are two ways that are near surefire recipes for success and bank. First much like when VHS, DVD & Blu Ray debuted, it was not just to release the latest films, it was to preserve and provide the entertainment so many love. The argument here, is that only a seldom few games aged well enough to be worth playing in this era. This is really not true, while there are the "Classics" that are timeless, there are other games that may be rough around the edges, but would still be loved by many. 

The risk is nill, all it takes is getting the rights for the project then porting it to the latest tech. It may take a bit of design work to get these games running on modern hardware, and it would take a bit of money to remaster them; yet it is surely a better use of resources for both the fun these games offer, and the history of experiencing something that inspired your favorite recent release. The second and perhaps even easier way to make big bank, give designers the freedom to create what they are inspired to make; also just a thought give them the time needed to polish the experience. 

But what about the recent examples of just that being done, and the game failing to sale?

Mafia III 2016

Mafia III is perhaps the poster child for this sad and frankly, strange turn of events; as the game did not get bad press, the game was also a masterpiece. So why did it not make huge numbers? This game has an easy answer sadly, controversial subject matter; what makes it strange is that Grand Theft Auto can thrive on the same practice. I am sure that is a major reason why the game was able to be made, it was a semi Succesful franchise and could follow in the same steps as the biggest game in history. Yet it has now nearly killed its developers, this is also the case for a great number of other games and development teams. 

The people in charge assume all the wrong reasons for these games failures, most of these amazing games that fail to meet their potential, are due to the time of release and product awareness. If you release your game in a window that is full of other games, or when a huge game is about to hit that has so much attention, you are setting yourself up for a bad time. Worst of all, sometimes these release dates being pushed would have allowed more polishing, either nullifying game bugs or making the experience that much better. 

It is why gamers are now finally coming around to many great games that are only a few years old, games that may have been seen as failures at launch, now finding whole new fan bases. However, while gamers benefit from this in the short term, they suffer in the long term. A game's success is not seen based on marathon principles, its based on sprinting for the gold. The game has to sell huge in a very short window now for it to be seen as a success. This puts many great game makers in danger, look at how many incredible studios have shuttered in the last decade due to the "accountants ideas".

The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim 2011

Thankfully some games have not seen the same bad luck, in fact, some games have gotten the treatment that all games deserve. Being preserved and brought to a wider audience, one that either loved it upon release, or perhaps missed the chance to experience it all together. As gamers our worst issue this generation is the lack of variety in our games. Rereleasing older games would remedy this, and it could save some studios from shutting down. It also could inspire trends that are actually profitable, because they are providing solid entertainment and perhaps planting the seed for the next great gaming experience.  

As the medium evolves it surely will undergo another change, while many hardcore gamers see the future as grim; I think that we are seeing things slowly turn around in this industry. For every misstep there is one in the right direction, the wrong direction is to solely cater to seemingly profitable trending ideas. Sure games like PUBG are big today, much like modern online shooters were a decade ago, it is a trend that will dominate the online gaming space, like the modern and future settings did. But when we look back on those games, it is the trendsetters that are remembered, because they were not following an idea, they were following their ideas.

PUBG 2017

Now games like PUBG are made following an idea, then we get the waves of imitators, it would be fine if these games were other designers copying these ideas out of their love for the idea. Yet, we know that is not the case, it is not the designers choice, their sole choice most of the time once owned by a huge company, is do what you're told to stay open. In that time you hope you make something good enough, that you are given the freedom that only a select few have, to create the experience you so want to bring to the gaming public. So while gaming is in a state of flux, support games that are made well, by passionate people bringing new ideas and experiences to the table.