Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Adventures in Indie Gaming!


(  RSS Feed! | Games! | Forums! )

Wednesday, April 08, 2009
 
Game Designers are Childish and Immature?
Man, I feel like Leigh Alexander is coming out swinging to help us poor game developers who got bullied at GDC last week.

Pixelvixen reported on Heather Chaplin's rant (which most of us are only now hearing secondhand), where she took game developers to task:
Like Wendy slapping around the lost boys, Chaplin patiently but firmly laid down the line. “It is you guys as game designers who are mired deeply in ‘guy culture,’” Chaplin said. The problem isn’t the medium: “You are a bunch of stunted adolescents.” Games avoid any of the things that separate men from boys: responsibility, introspection, intimacy, and intellectual discovery. And “when you’re talking about culture-makers, this is a problem.”
Leigh Alexander has responded eloquently to Chaplin's rant, and David Jaffe has a surprisingly low-key response as well.

In my opinion, Chaplin isn't wrong, but she isn't right either. (How's that for weaseling?) I think that in part, she's confusing cause for effect, and I think she's also suffering from a bad case of tunnel vision. I'll frame my own opinion / response in the form of an analogy:

This is about like Ms. Chaplin ranting at McDonalds for not offering fine French cuisine and a mature, classy dining experience. And then going further, and not just blaming the managers at McDonalds, but calling them a bunch of immature, provincial, ignorant, uneducated, butt-scratching American hicks. Nevermind that one of the local managers she's ranting about is using his McDonald's gig to pay his way through culinary school.

And all the while, three blocks away, there's a small French Restaurant that almost nobody - including Ms. Chaplin - visits or even knows about. But it offers - if not exactly what she is ranting about - then something pretty close. But no, that's unimportant - the important thing is trying to get McDonalds to change.

Sound silly?

Like it or not, an entire industry has evolved out of making the very kinds of games she doesn't like. Optimized to sell the most possible games, it offers the lowest common denominator in gaming - repeatedly - because that generates (as far as they know) the greatest return. Yeah, this usually means adolescent power fantasies.

It saddens me too, because some of my favorite kinds of games are no longer being produced by the industry that once served me much better. Sure, there are occasional successful diversions from the formula, with a few success stories (The Sims being an almost canonical example - though it's now been a decade since it made waves in the business). But usually an attempt to offer something outside the box in a direction that Ms. Chaplin suggests ends in commercial failure and a loss of jobs.

As far as the designers themselves: As varied as this industry is, painting them with such a broad brush is doomed from the start. I know there are several designers who match her description. Many of the companies that hire the designers pay crap wages and offer a work environment that would only appeal to the kinds of kids Ms. Chaplin seems to be describing.

But there are many others in the business who would be the choir for her preaching if she'd quit calling them names. But 99% of them aren't empowered to change anything. They aren't named Will Wright. They are being paid to do a job, and that job isn't to isn't to sit in an ivory tower and conjecture on how to provide a game that deals with issues of intimacy, intellectual discovery, introspection, and responsibility. No, their job is to very specifically to make level 8 as cool as hell, provide the player a shotgun, and introduce the player to the Battleoid Zombies. Unless said designer relishes a trip to the unemployment line with a depressingly specialized resume, he (or she) is going to do exactly what they are paid to do.

Unless the market for these games shifts (and I think, in many ways, it is starting to do just that - but it's a slow process), the industry that was built to support that market is just gonna keep going with small evolutionary changes. Right now, the mainstream games industry is simply incapable of serving the "broader spectrum of masculinity" (or femininity). It just how it rolls.

And the whole "indie thing" is one big end-run around an industry mired in it's own success.

Take a look at casual games, for example. A decade ago, these kinds of games occupied a tiny niche only being addressed by a few shareware developers and - every once in a while - the occasional bone thrown by the mainstream games industry. Nowadays? There's an entire industry that has built up around them, separate from the mainstream games business entirely but for a few points of intersection (mainly where the big mainstream publishers are trying to "cash in."). It's still not as big as its multi-billion-dollar cousin, but it's growing.

I'm kind of astonished that Ms. Chaplin would issue this kind of rant at the same convention that hosted the IGF awards literally hours earlier. The Independent Games Festival seems to have the tendency these days (from my perspective) on rewarding the weird wannabe arthouse games or the bigger-budget indie titles.

The mainstream games business is McDonalds. In time, it may evolve as the tastes of the general public drift. but if you want something it is incapable of providing, don't just rant against it, and please don't call its employees names. Instead, please take your business down the street to the little restaurant that WILL try and give you what you want. Don't get suckered into believing that McDonalds is the only restaurant in town.

Labels:



Did you enjoy this post? Feel free to share it: del.icio.us | Digg it | Furl | reddit | Yahoo MyWeb

Comments:
Amen. Very well written and a good analogy.
 
Heh - I thought you might like the French cuisine part. :)
 
Well said...!

"This is about like Ms. Chaplin ranting at McDonalds for not offering fine French cuisine..."

A perfect analogy! I'm pretty sure whatever Chaplin sees as game-worthy is completely uninteresting to me! Just like my preference for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a Coke over Foie Gras and Savigny-les-Beaune. =P
 
I agree that her criticism might be a bit misdirected: structural constraints put in place by the market have surely contributed more to the stupidity and homogeneity of games than the mindsets of their developers. And as the market changes (because of the factors you point out), we might hope for a little more maturity and creativity to emerge. But I also don't think she's completely wrong to lay some of the blame at the feet of developer/publisher culture.

I think we can look to other media for examples of how this works. Take television. Ten years ago, television was pretty much at an all-time low in terms of creativity and maturity. The remote control, widespread adoption of cable (with its hundred-channel lineup), and more competition for advertising dollars meant that each station had to try to make content that would grab a channel-surfer and instantly hypnotize them long enough to get them to a commercial break. Telling a sustained, complex, subtle story was impossible, and TV executives would justify the continued production of garbage by claiming there was no market for "smart" shows.

Then HBO and other premium channels started catching on, and they started to make exactly the kind of show that was missing: complex storylines with nuanced storytelling and mature themes. The shows caught on like wildfire and made a lot of money. Because premium channels didn't depend on ad revenue, and because they had an audience who cared enough about the content to pay for it in advance, they could make shows that required a dedicated audience instead of trying to snag channel-surfers. They also found that they could make a lot of money on DVD sales after the initial airing, and by letting ad-supported networks syndicate the shows years later.

But here's the weird thing: once the ad-supported networks saw all this money pouring in to HBO, they started making shows of their own that resembled the HBO-style serials. And audiences watched them, and loved them. Lost. Battlestar Galactica.

So it appears that there was a market for these shows all along, and that you COULD in fact have made these shows on an ad-supported network. But the network execs were so convinced that they could only make money by catering to the lowest-common-denominator, shortest-attention-span market that they never really gave the "smart show" model a chance.

Herein lies the lesson for the video game industry: they've all been making dumb, cookie-cutter games for so long that they aren't willing to believe that anything else could possibly be profitable. But they're wrong. If they spent as much time experimenting with and refining games like The Sims, or Indigo Prophecy, or Portal, or Braid as they do on Gears of Guns XIII: the Dark Lords of Elf-town, they might be surprised at how big the market for new, interesting games is. This would mean not just running the occasional "weird" game up the flagpole: they'd also have to rethink how they market games, which right now is aimed exclusively at 13-year-old boys. Having a functional gaming press, instead of an industry mouthpiece pushing product, would also help.

More deeply, I think that this attitude of the publishers means that nobody is rewarded for adding creativity or maturity to the games. So a lot of the people who want to write good stories get frustrated and leave, and the people who stay are more likely to not care that the storyline, chanracters, and artistic style are cliched garbage. And you see this reflected all the time in games where, all things being equal, a writer or artist could easily have made an interesting choice, but instead makes a boring choice. A lot of developers are actually boring people who like cliches. This may be a side-effect of market structures, but it is now the reality of the industry. And here, I think, her criticism hits the mark.
 
@Matt - I think that's probably where most development veterans are coming from. Those that haven't had their dreams of advancing the medium crushed, that is... :)

I mean, okay. Frayed Knights isn't exactly shooting for the moon in terms of advancing maturity in the medium. So maybe I'm one of those stunted development guys. But I do want more, and I'd want to create more - if I had the time and budget. :)

Actually, I have a more sophisticated, mature, and experimental RPG that I started work on about three years ago. I put it on the back burner simply because I realized I did not have the skills and experience yet to do it justice. So I backed off, and decided to work on something simpler.

Because - big surprise - going in that direction is a lot harder than it sounds. I mean, I've written how many blog posts now about having a good, mechanically interesting conversation system???
 
@ Matt:

Okay, you people that seem to get off on ripping on the game industry -- you are starting to bug me. Especially when you engage in broad generalization and conveniently ignore the fact that we all have different likes and dislikes! Clearly you and Ms. Chaplin like certain types of games. But that doesn't automagically make the games that you don't like "immature", "stupid", "dumb", or "cookie cutter"!

Likewise, the people that enjoy American Idol would likely disagree with you that they are being "hypnotized" or have "short attention spans". They watch because they like the show!

Of the examples you lauded as "interesting" games... Braid, looks "dumb" to me -- never going to play it, ditto on Indigo Prophecy. I regret having spent money on The Sims -- "stupid"-est game ever, IMO. (That taught me the lesson, never purchase a game by Will Wright again! Spore? Hell no.)

Portal was indeed fun and interesting, but it's still not something I want to play on a regular basis -- I'd rather go play Quake Live for 15 minutes than go back and play a level of Portal.

I also take exception with "...developers are actually boring people who like cliches. This may be a side-effect of market structures, but it is now the reality of the industry..."

I don't know any game developers that I would consider "boring"! Game developers tend to make games they enjoy playing, but to say they are "boring"...?!

The "reality" of the industry is that it IS, in fact, making games that people want to play, otherwise it would not be growing at the rate it is. Clearly, if "Gears of Guns XIII: the Dark Lords of Elf-town" were in development, it's because the series has been fun and people enjoying playing it.

And seriously... "Gears of Guns XIII: the Dark Lords of Elf-town" sounds way cooler to me than a game called "Braid"!
 
On a related note (if anyone is indeed still following this):

http://negativegamer.com/2009/04/12/things-we-hate-about-gaming-innovation-and-change/

(Sorry, don't know how to get the < a > tag to work...)
 
Yeah, I saw that link yesterday.

Annoying, but not entirely incorrect. If you are talking about the typical paying customer, that's definitely the point. They say they want innovation - but really they just want what they already love, only different.

Look at Blizzard. Blizzard rarely innovates. Blizzard rarely pushes the technological envelope. They are the 800-lb gorilla now with WoW, which makes them the leader on many fronts, but they didn't set out to innovate with that or any other games. They instead tried to perfect. And they did a killer job of it. Every time.
 
Blizzard is a great example! You're completely right -- they don't really ever do anything particularly groundbreaking, but they consistently make games that are, well... just damn fun to play! =)
 
Wow, there's constructive criticism that may be pretty painful to those it's addressed to... and then there's just standing up in front of a bunch of professionals and parading misguided misandry around as fact.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger