Because most games are designed by committee to the point that the influence of the individual creators is not perceivable to the people playing the game.
You could remove any one developer from a team and nobody would be able to tell just by playing the game.
Art still has to go through an art director for the style and direction (i.e. Borderlands). So you have certain key people making the decisions, like the project director - so it's not solely by committee. So maybe not programming, but what about the actual gameplay design?
I know Yahtzee has complained about QTE in games, I'd find it funny if there was one designer that moved from studio to studio, so games that previously did not have QTEs had them after he (or she) joined then all subsequent games had them as it was put in as part of the gameplay bible.
The people who work on most games get credited in a long boring list in the back of the manual, or during the boring credits at the end of the game, but who pays attention to that?
Which goes back to my question, why not? I think it would be interesting to track developer progression, we have sites like www.mobygames.com to assist in this.
Why people don't read the boring credits? Or why the name of the stars don't appear on the box? The first should be obvious the second is probably because, well lots of reasons. Zhukov mentions one of them. Game developers don't have roles as distinct as actors, writers or musicians. We see actual actors in a movie but we rarely see game developers in a game unless they have a role as a cameo.
I'm also guessing that studios find it unfair to highlight a few people if hundreds were involved with development. Small studios and single person productions tend to highlight individual names more than big productions. Jonathan Blow made Braid, but who made Sims 3?
Especially in regards to the topic, see a studio's development history and compare it against its employees, and if and when a particular franchise as "jumped the shark".
Kind of how some people say a TV show is going to die when Ted McGinley joins the cast [http://popcultureaddict.com/television/happydays2/], is that true of games too? People have made jokes about Peter Molyneux having an anti-Midas touch. Or when bought out by a publisher, like so many have claimed of EA.
I think that phenomenon is something fans do after the fact. When fans are waiting for Half Life 3 or Ultima Seventeen they start looking up all the little details they can find and make comparisons and things like that. Or when we are disappointed we try to rationalize by tracking down the ones responsible. "Peter Molyneaux designed the main menu, no wonder the game sucks". Someone left the Dragon Age team, thats why DA2 was so bad.
As an example I just bashed X-Com Interceptor in my previous post, and then I wondered what incompetent studio had pilfered the IP for a moment. Turns out no one did. MicroProse published that game, and then I got all fanboyish and thought maybe I didn't get it, maybe I should replay it. The power of branding...
The point being all this happened in retrospect, and I think thats usually the case when we get emotionally involved on this abstract level.
I think we should realize that knowing who made a game is a fan thing. But I think it would be great if games got more of a personal artistic touch, and if 'star' developers got more credit. It's good for both us fans and the publishers.
For both film and games i think it would be the same story. The lower people on the totem pole will not be missed if they are replaced. I think it would only be noticed if the person at the very top had changed (director or equivelent).
I'd say the director of a film probably has more sway over how the film goes rather than the creative director/ whatever for games. Since most of the time for games the ones on top delegate, while the director of a film is usually more "hands on".
This probably isnt as well explained as i wanted it to be, but oh well
* oh also yeah, long running series remaining good is the exception to the rule. Just like films, most of the time the idea tap just runs dry.
I'd say the hitman series has progressively gotten better, peaking at blood money IMO with only the recent absolution being devisive. I really enjoyed it but still think blood money is the best so far
Yes. Of fucking course. Everything gets worse "sooner or later." If you asked, hey, within a year will this franchise get worse? Or, in a decade, will this franchise have gone downhill? That's a question with meat on it. But just "sooner or later"? Why, yes. Because everything gets worse. I do, you do, games do, artists do, franchises do. Everything gets worse with age except maybe wine and cheese.
I made a thread just a few days ago where i admitted to recently having gotten into fighting games, and while it's not something i've actively followed the things i remember from older fighting games compared to today franchises like Tekken and Street Fighter at least seem to have been getting better. This despite Tekken having 6 main games and quite a few spin-offs.
I guess it's easier to keep a good face when your target audience doesn't really care about the story. An aspect of a game that's nearly non-existant can't really go stale, right?
But apart from that i don't really think you can keep running with the same idea for all eternity, because you'll run out of ideas to keep things interesting. Re-invention would be the key so you don't get locked down with the same motions for so long even the dev team wants to hang themselves. It's why Doctor Who is still running, isn't it?
but its also that a complete "set" like LOTR or the orginal starwars trillogy or even nolans dark knight are enjoyable as one big expereince, with ME now the enjoyment gotten from replaying has been diminished...because you know where its all going to end...in fact from the very first games there was a huge emphasis on the ending
Well, you know where anything is going to end once you've seen, read, played etc. I don't think ME3 was bad, I just think people got too caught up in the words "Everyones ending is going to be different". If Casey Hudson didn't say that, I don't think people would have been so butthurt about the ending.
ANYWAYS, OT:
So far, The Elder Scrolls series has kept up as a series that has always been above average in terms of it's series run, however looking at the new 'Elder Scrolls Online', I feel as though THAT game is going to be the game in the series that a majority of people would like to forget. Yeah, those spin-offs like Redguard were average, but they still had some form of enjoyment (Granted I played most copies of TES games by borrowing them from friends so I never had to fork out money for them till Skyrim).
I'd also say Saints Row has been pretty consistent in terms of being a good game series. The first one was GTA only a little more crazy, second game was so brutal that the only thing stopping it from being on par with GTA was the damn side missions, and the third game was over the top, no bar, no limit action that the game came out and said it would be. That being said, it's so far only a trilogy, but Violation have announced that there will be a fourth, so I guess we'll wait and see if SR can keep up it's streak.
One series that somewhat dropped in quality was Tekken. Tekken 5 and 6 were okay, but the focus on 3d fighting (Not 3d figures/environment, I mean you would run down corridors and it kinda felt like the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games, only the combat sucked both gameplay and visually) for the campaign mode was really annoying. The old school one on one side camera fighting was and still is top notch though, so I'm still buying the series, just at cheaper prices.
Hmm, I guess you could also say that Resident Evil didn't technically drop in quality, but certainately...platowed (I have no idea how to spell that word, so I just wrote it phonetically) in many ways in regards to the main series. RE6 was not bad, but it was definately lacking not so much horror as gameplay. That being said, I enjoyed the game, even though I missed the ability to shop and buy weapons, and that I knew when the protagonists' story lines were close to ending as they all only had 5 levels. The side series has definately had it's spikes and drops with multiple games being THAT game people like forgetting.
Assassins Creed kinda faultered with Revelations, but then sorta kinda averaged out to Brotherhood level decency to kinda pick the series back up. I may be looking past a lot for AC3 because I REALLY liked Connor as the assassin of the century. I loved his story, I enjoyed playing as him from age 5 to 20 something, I liked that they made him a more focused assassin, and I enjoyed how his relationship with Achilies and Haytham evolved. I liked Ezio, don't get me wrong, but he spent too much time being flirtatious and somewhat unfocused. For example,
when you finally get up to the pope and are ready to kill him, he's just like, "Eh, you totally orchestrated the killing of my father and brother's, but I'm feeling tired and wanna look at this god thingy"
I understand they're following history, and that's why they couldn't make Ezio kill him, but come on Ubisoft! If you can't kill a guy because of history, then don't make him an enemy.
That's about it from me really, I can't think of any other game series that go past the 3 game point that I've played so I'll leave it as is.
Assuming that companies keep making games so long as the last one did well, usually. A decrease in sells often reflects a drop in quality. Thus they get made until they slip however long or short that might be.
However, saying that the quality of a game is somehow related to where it is in a series is a case of chronology equals causation. A game isn't bad because it happens to be 3 in a series, the reasons for game quality are far more complex. That's why the same team can make a good game and then make a shitty game, while an entirely new team can make a game that's just as good as the last one.
Making a good game is hard and its a bit of miracle every-time it works out. Trying to have lighting strike repeatedly numerous times in the same spot is a recipe for eventual disaster no matter how good you are.
I would say yes and no. Keep a series going long enough, and it will stagnate. Keep it going longer AFTER that though, and it will find it's feet again.
Case in point, Mario games, Driver games, Halo games, XCOM games.
Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?
Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.
Mostly because there's hundreds of them, and that's damn hard to track. The vast majority of developers who are known became so in the early days of the medium, when a team of 1-6 guys could turn out a "AAA" game.
Every once in a while, one particular developer (typically the lead developer) will stand out, such as CliffyB and Avellone, but that's by far the minority.
Every series of anything will wear down in time. Some sooner than later. This "wearing down" functions almost in the same way as fatigue on the human mind. Eventually, the writers and general "creative idea" people just run out of steam.
This is why all series should be set to a strict timetable with a strong beginning and a definite ending. Series are much better when they have a definite end.
Theoretically, any series can go on an infinite amount of times and still be good. However as 90% of everything is shit, the odds are against every installment to be good. The only way a series can last is by a miracle the entire team making the product is made out of people incredibly good at their jobs with proper business support. In a perfect world it can happen, but it probably won't in our world.
Well, you know where anything is going to end once you've seen, read, played etc. I don't think ME3 was bad, I just think people got too caught up in the words "Everyones ending is going to be different".
what?....HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT!!?? WHAT THE FU- *ahem* pardon me
[quote/]If Casey Hudson didn't say that, I don't think people would have been so butthurt about the ending.
[/quote]
no, thats not the only thing wrong with it (not by a longshot) I could write paragraphs on it but I'm sure no one else wants to hear it for the billonth time
Though I think gamers are a dramatic bunch. I never understand cries of "RUINED FOREVER" when it comes to games, especially when the older games that people loved so much aren't retroactively removed from existence just because Metal Gear Solid 4 or Mass Effect 3 might have been a huge disappointment.
Anyone who utters/types that phrase without even a hint of irony needs a good smack upside the head.
OT: Nothing can possibly remain good forever. Eventually every series/franchise will begin to stagnate lose it's charm. This is esp. true if those involved in producing it lose interest. This can be prevented if fresh talent is brought in to work on it, but that tends to result in "They changed it now it sucks."
Heh, yep, in a E3 interview if I remember correctly.
Vault101 said:
no, thats not the only thing wrong with it (not by a longshot) I could write paragraphs on it but I'm sure no one else wants to hear it for the billonth time
I'm sure we could both write long paragraph essay like reasoning that would result in the two of us making the internet people mad and I think I've defended EA and Bioware enough on this website, Youtube, and real life to the point where I just feel apathetic about arguing with people about something not being very bad, due to a majority their opinions being clouded by poor focus on continuity (due to the series HUGE universe and comic/novels extending the backstory, that's the dev's fault), poor choice of words by developers, and a majority of people hating EA. I honestly think that if some of those factors weren't included, and we ONLY had Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 with absolutely NOTHING else to factor in, the game series would be seen as a generally good series with an okay/good ending.
Butthurt was probably the wrong choice of words, maybe livid would be a better pick? The state of Biowares forums right now also make me feel ashamed to play games, seeing as how it seems a majority of gamers/geek culture become quite entitled to the point that after almost a years passing, there are still people dedicated to beating a quite literally dead horse.
I honestly think that if some of those factors weren't included, and we ONLY had Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 with absolutely NOTHING else to factor in, the game series would be seen as a generally good series with an okay/good ending.
.
I disagree there, I'm a huge mass effect fan (still thourght ME3 was great right up untill the actual ending itself) but I never dived too deep into material outside of the main games, I dislike EA as much as anyone but their name on a product wont stop me from buying it...and I still maintain my liking for bioware but remain cautious as to their future games
[b/]in my opinion[/b] and regardless of ANYTHING else (brand name,EA, my attatchment to charachters,ect) from every single perspective, gameplay, story,logic, THE GAMES OWN LORE whatever the orginal ending is absolutly awful (I have not played the extended cut..no spoielrs), there are in depth articles that explain it better than I can
my point is the reason people fan rage over things is not always arbitrairy reasons (like EA,hate,not being happy enough or whatever) you dont have to agree but understand somtimes people have valid reasons to be pissed off
Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?
Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.
I think we're getting there gradually. As Zhukov says the average, or even the well informed, gamer is unlikely to notice changes in the 'back end' crew, regardless of how essential they are to the finished product. But to go back to my cinema parallel, who other than real afficionados and people in the same part of the industry take particular note of who did the make-up, or the lighting or set design or whatever. Even special effects is pretty much a group/studio effort these days.
So the creators we know about are the equivalent of big name directors (or notable eccentrics/auteurs), and sometimes the writers if the writing is a prominent part of the game (usually RPGs, I find) or even the leading 'actors' in the case of some well known voice actors like Jennifer Hale.
In some cases it's even a positive draw - yeah, we all like to have a chuckle at the latest strangeness coming from the likes Peter Molyneux and Richard Garriot, but there are a few names who I think call sell games on their name alone, so yeah, I think we're getting there.
Everything that has a beginning has an end neo....
Everything dies, everything ends, death comes to us all. Even games, like singers if they die while they're popular people will always remember them fondly, or they can die when they're old and fat and people will try to forget they ever looked that way.
It's the same with games, even now I'm trying to forget diablo 3 ever happened.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
