UbiSoftologist
Member
Bioware and Tim Schafer discussed why sequels blossom and why innovation stagnates in the gaming industry. The following are excerpts from IGN's article ''Gaming's Original Sin'' (link )
1) The economic logic of the gaming industry
2) Bioware's perspective
3) Tim Schafer's perspective
4) The light at the end of the tunnel
1) The economic logic of the gaming industry
For a business watching profits and its bottom line (and every business ultimately must), a lower investment matched with a high chance of payoff -- i.e., low risk -- will always be appealing. Sequels and games based on big franchises come with built-in audiences and creative assets. This means such games are cheaper both to create (developers don't need to start from scratch creatively) and to market. By contrast, an original property is usually a lot of work and a tougher sell -- though if it succeeds, the benefits of completely owning a hot franchise can pay off very well.
2) Bioware's perspective
"Developing new properties while striving to maintain commercial viability is a difficult challenge, and the results of this balancing act are starting to become visible in the video game business right now," comments Ray Muzyka, joint CEO and Co-Executive Producer, along with Greg Zechuk, at BioWare -- a studio which is now focused sharply on original properties...
But though BioWare is in the somewhat rare position of having creative freedom supported by a major publisher (in this case, Microsoft Game Studios), it still faces the particular effort of developing from wholly new ideas. The process of creating a new game setting -- new world, new character designs, new story -- can take up a full year of production time, during which there are few guideposts.
"First off," Muzyka said, "we didn't have the safety net of a rule-set or world manual to fall back on while developing the game, and second, it can be very daunting to be faced with a blank canvas: where do you start? We learned a few things, especially about the impact of world design on the preproduction phase of the project."
3) Tim Schafer's perspective
He also sees the issue in practical terms. "If you had a choice of doing something high risk or low risk, what would you do with your money? That's why I'm not saying [companies] are evil for this, just a little short-sighted. I think if it was my money, I'd be worried about risking it all."
As Tim sees it, there's an understandable tendency for big companies to be conservative with investments. Unfortunately, this also means playing it safe with sequels and diminishing original, often risky, properties. Still, there are big companies, such as Sony or Nintendo, which expressly invest a certain amount in original ideas.
"I think a big company can afford to explore [original ideas] economically, and win a bunch of awards and notoriety and maybe break new ground that will allow them to create a blockbuster version of the same game. That would be good for them and good for everybody."
During his long career at LucasArts, Tim saw the company begin with a specific mandate to create new properties -- "We could not make Star Wars games. George [Lucas] wanted the company to be able to stand on its own" -- which was eventually supported by careful use of big licenses like Star Wars and Indiana Jones. "For a while, it was a really great combination, because you had the original properties which were fun to work on -- both types of games were fun to work on."
But Tim believes LucasArts' eventual financial woes were a result of dropping most of its original properties. Many of the most creative people at the company left, he said, which hurts the quality of games, hurts morale, and ultimately affects sales.
4) The light at the end of the tunnel
Of course, given enough resources and strong licenses, a company can cruise the safe route successfully for a long time. The obvious example is Electronic Arts, which has built a business by leaning on reliable sequels and huge entertainment licenses like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings (though to be fair, EA is also incubating Spore, Will Wright's latest -- and highly original -- project). The company isn't successful because of massive deception -- gamers are buying the titles because they enjoy them. But this may not last, as any franchise eventually becomes fatiguing. This is exactly where Tim Schafer sees hope for originality.
"If everything gets very stagnant in the blockbuster arena, I think that leaves [those publishers] wide open to some cheap game showing up that's super-fun and innovative that outsells all of their games that year. And then everyone will go 'oh, we got too big and bloated and got taken by surprise by that smaller, faster-moving game.'"
If the wide marketing reach and financial conservativeness of today's game industry means sequels and franchise tie-ins are to be expected, then there may be a corrective process which is just as natural: the same thing gets, well, old. The film industry offers a good parallel, as independent studios have challenged stodgy, stale blockbusters -- even at times encouraging huge studios to mimic an indie esthetic. Essentially, audiences aren't necessarily so stupid. There's a market for freshness.
"The people making the product choices are always going to take the lowest possible risk," said BioWare's Greg Zeschuk, "but they are starting to realize they do need to take some risks or else they'll run into significant difficulty as their product line-up becomes stale."
...Are we moving into a permanent quagmire of rehashed ideas? Not so long as gamers are still interested in having fun. As Tim put it: "I think the lameness will be self-correcting."