The Auteurs of Gaming, what do you think?

[Jumplion]

Films are worked upon by hundreds of people at once. From designers, to actors, to producers, to writers, to make-up artists, you've got a million different things worked on by a dozen people at once, and that's only the surface of the workforce behind a film. Yet, many times we idolize the main person behind this production; the director. People like Steven Speilberg, Tim Burton, Daron Aronofsky, all all that could be described as auteurs as their primary vision is what drives the production.

Similarly, video games are also the work of hundreds of people. You've got animators, writers, coders, all that good stuff. Yet we don't have many central "directors" in the industry. It's a large, collaborative effort which, in some cases, can just lead to an unfocused hodgepodge of a game with a mix of pretty much everything the entire team could think up of, leading to unfocused development or games (3D Realms, anybody?).

Sure we've got our Cliffy B.'s, our Sid Meiers, Kojimas, and Molyneux (oh Petey, how you tease us so) but these people are more figure heads than auteurs. They're a face to put on the company so that consumers are more friendly with them. While their visions and whatnot might be a strong force in the development of the game, most of the time it is a collaborative effort among many. Whenever Cliffy here speaks of Gears of War 3, it's always "It's the game we have been wanting to make," "It's all action and fun, something that we're always aiming for" "We always want to keep the player's enjoyment in mind, so I think we've succeeded in that goal," and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (read: nothing wrong with that), I do have to wonder how the game would change if it was Blezinski's ideas coming through the most.

Now, please note, I am not saying that video games should strive to be like movies in every way. I am simply suggesting the concept of the auteur in films to be applied to video games. I am not trying to sound pretentious here (even though I probably am). I don't think every video game developer should have a single director to abide by or whatever. But I would think that having a more central, visionary point would make a lot more games focused rather than a hodgepodge over action set-pieces and blase mechanics, both in storytelling and gameplay. Of course, it would all depend on how competent the director/auteur is, which is essential for anything in this industry.

So, what do you think? Should video games adopt a more "director/auteur" style of development, with a single person, or a small group of people, putting forth the main ideas and direction? Or should we avoid that so that we can keep this tightly-knitted developer system we have now and not shoot down the talents behind the scenes in favor of one person generally "taking the credit"? Expand on that, please do.

 

[GiantRaven]

I think it's important to have a figurehead/guy who is director/overseer of the game that the public can latch onto. I do think that there are a bunch in games already, like Hideo Kojima (regardless of whether or not people like him) or Chris Avellone.

 

[badgersprite]

In answer to this, I give you Peter Molyneux and John Romero.

The thing with giving too much artistic control to one person is that if that one person has the wrong idea, then shit goes badly, especially when, as in the above examples, they're kind of behind on what gaming as a medium has grown into.

I really think games work better as a group project. There's no reason group projects can't be over the top, original and awesome. The whole "one designer" model just feels to me like a remnant of a bygone age that isn't really feasible anymore. It used to be that a great, high selling game could be made by one guy in a basement (see also: Minecraft) but in the mainstream gaming industry today, that's really just not feasible, in my opinion. And I say this as a lover of Tim Schafer and so many other great minds of gaming history.

I don't think auter direction is the answer. I think having less corporate and marketing interference - that is, interference from people at the top who know next to nothing about making games - is the best solution. We don't get hodgepodge generic games because there's multiple people with visions for the game. We get them because there are marketing guys and CEOs in suits saying, "Hey, these games sold well. These games had X, Y and Z in them. Let's make games like that so we can make money," and completely disregarding the voices of the actual people who work on the game and have ideas for it.

 

[Jumplion]

The thing with giving too much artistic control to one person is that if that one person has the wrong idea, then shit goes badly, especially when, as in the above examples, they're kind of behind on what gaming as a medium has grown into.

Of course, it would all depend on how competent the director or whatever is, as is with many thing in the entertainment industry.

I really think games work better as a group project. There's no reason group projects can't be over the top, original and awesome. The whole "one designer" model just feels to me like a remnant of a bygone age that isn't really feasible anymore. It used to be that a great, high selling game could be made by one guy in a basement (see also: Minecraft) but in the mainstream gaming industry today, that's really just not feasible, in my opinion. And I say this as a lover of Tim Schafer and so many other great minds of gaming history.

I don't see how it's not feasible, it works many times within films and books. It's not as if the director/auteur (I really want to use a less pretentious word...) will throw any other idea other than his/her own under the bus and pursuit only their vision, the project would fall apart if that were the case. A recent article on L.A. Noire [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279986-Writer-Says-L-A-Noire-Melds-Story-and-Gameplay] shows some central thinking in a huge project.

I don't think auter direction is the answer. I think having less corporate and marketing interference - that is, interference from people at the top who know next to nothing about making games - is the best solution. We don't get hodgepodge generic games because there's multiple people with visions for the game. We get them because there are marketing guys and CEOs in suits saying, "Hey, these games sold well. These games had X, Y and Z in them. Let's make games like that so we can make money," and completely disregarding the voices of the actual people who work on the game and have ideas for it.

It's a mix of both things, really, with both the publishers and the developers lack of desire for innovation or challenges other than making sure their game sells well enough to put some bread on the table. But even if the developers were allowed more control with less interference, I would imagine that it would be just as much of a hodgepodge (I do love that word) as if they were controlled by the higher ups.

It's a balance, for sure, one that few developers can manage. I think the first God of War with David Jaffe as the head is a testament to that, as he kept the game focused to what he believed it should be with the group helping out.

 

[Sixcess]

In answer to this, I give you Peter Molyneux and John Romero.

I'd like to add Warren Spector to that list.

I think one problem is that these people tend to easily attract attention and talk up what they're working on at too early a stage of development, leading them to promise things that just don't happen in the finished game (see Epic Mickey and everything Peter Molyneux does these days) and with fan expectation riding so high the backlash is worse than it would be otherwise when they don't deliver.

Kojima seems to be one of the few who can actually pull this off - god knows how, since I'm reasonably convinced that he's completely out of his mind. Is he still trying to kill off the MGS franchise so he can focus on other more interesting projects?

 

[AyreonMaiden]

No. There's room in the world for EVERYTHING and everyone and all their styles. I don't think every dev should be an auteur. I don't think every dev should be just a figurehead. I like having everything in this world.

 

[Ghaleon640]

I've been researching what it takes to get into the gaming industry lately, and I feel that if the creativity was taken completely away from the team and given to only one or two people, it would make it incredibly hard to rise in the ranks. It would take away the imagination and creativity that makes making games a dream for a lot of people.

Overall, I feel that it would offer us little, but make it much more of a hell for the people actually making the game.

 

[badgersprite]

The thing with giving too much artistic control to one person is that if that one person has the wrong idea, then shit goes badly, especially when, as in the above examples, they're kind of behind on what gaming as a medium has grown into.

Of course, it would all depend on how competent the director or whatever is, as is with many thing in the entertainment industry.

I really think games work better as a group project. There's no reason group projects can't be over the top, original and awesome. The whole "one designer" model just feels to me like a remnant of a bygone age that isn't really feasible anymore. It used to be that a great, high selling game could be made by one guy in a basement (see also: Minecraft) but in the mainstream gaming industry today, that's really just not feasible, in my opinion. And I say this as a lover of Tim Schafer and so many other great minds of gaming history.

I don't see how it's not feasible, it works many times within films and books. It's not as if the director/auteur (I really want to use a less pretentious word...) will throw any other idea other than his/her own under the bus and pursuit only their vision, the project would fall apart if that were the case. A recent article on L.A. Noire [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279986-Writer-Says-L-A-Noire-Melds-Story-and-Gameplay] shows some central thinking in a huge project.

I don't think auter direction is the answer. I think having less corporate and marketing interference - that is, interference from people at the top who know next to nothing about making games - is the best solution. We don't get hodgepodge generic games because there's multiple people with visions for the game. We get them because there are marketing guys and CEOs in suits saying, "Hey, these games sold well. These games had X, Y and Z in them. Let's make games like that so we can make money," and completely disregarding the voices of the actual people who work on the game and have ideas for it.

It's a mix of both things, really, with both the publishers and the developers lack of desire for innovation or challenges other than making sure their game sells well enough to put some bread on the table. But even if the developers were allowed more control with less interference, I would imagine that it would be just as much of a hodgepodge (I do love that word) as if they were controlled by the higher ups.

It's a balance, for sure, one that few developers can manage. I think the first God of War with David Jaffe as the head is a testament to that, as he kept the game focused to what he believed it should be with the group helping out.

Good points. However, I will say that it's much easier with film because film actually hasn't changed that much as a medium. Even CGI has been around longer than I've been alive. Directors are already handed finished scripts, and are usually given a small team of other people who micromanage other aspects of the production. A lot of directors never need to get behind the camera or tell the camera guy what to do in 99% of the shots, because they have a great cinematographer. They don't need to be in the editing room because they have a great editor.

Never mind the fact that the design process in games is radically different from the design process in films. Anyway, I don't want you to think that I'm anti-auter, because, honestly, I'm quite in love with the idea of people having complete ideas for awesome games and creating them because they want to, and not because some big wig said, "We're making an FPS. Get it done in a year." But, alas, I think that, with the exception of indie developers, which are often still collaborative, it's just not realistic.

Unfortunately, we live in a market driven, corporate society where amorphous suits who never so much as touch the game design process get more of a say than the people making the game. I don't like it either, and I do secretly wish for a return to the days of independent game devs with bright ideas and a dream of growing the medium, but, hey, I also wish Little Fockers hadn't been made. You can't always get what you want.

 

[peetwee]

Speaking as someone who has a little more experience with films than video games I would say that a film director doesn't set out to be an auteur, s/he has a distinct style that stays with them throughout their career and eventually people/critics pick up on certain traits or patterns and then the label gets given. (I suppose you could set out to be an auteur but anyone who does that would very quickly forget why they are in the film amking business.)
Over time these auteurs will probably find a team they work best with and then you get Team Auteur. For an easy example Tim Burton has a distinct style but this isn't solely his doing, at lot of his early films vary in style, tone and look because he wasn't able to pick his team. Now you see an advert for a new Burton flick and you'll know it will have Bonham-Carter and Johnny Depp in it, Danny Elfman scoring it and Henry Selick designing it. This is Team Burton making a 'Tim Burton' film.

I'd take a guess that gaming will get auteurs, its still a reletively new entertainment medium in the grand scheme of things and while 'Games are Art' argument is becoming even stronger we'll get people coming into the medium who will become someone around a distinct team can be built. It's happening already with the people you've mentioned. Its all about reputation and being able to say as soon as you pick up a pad/keyboard/iphone/whatever 'oh so-and-so made that'.

Its not that video games will be like films, you find auteurs in other entertainment mediums, it'll just happen, though suspect it'll be more the case that studios themselves become the auteur name rather than anyone person. Personally I think it can only be a good thing, having auteurs won't mean team projects will cease it'll just mean when academics discuss gaming they'll have a name to discuss and focus and pronounce an 'artist'.

wow that was a bit of a ramble. i'm off to bed.

 

[GiantRaven]

I've been researching what it takes to get into the gaming industry lately, and I feel that if the creativity was taken completely away from the team and given to only one or two people, it would make it incredibly hard to rise in the ranks. It would take away the imagination and creativity that makes making games a dream for a lot of people.

Overall, I feel that it would offer us little, but make it much more of a hell for the people actually making the game.

I think the idea is less having one person call all the shot and more having one person be the public figurehead of the project who refines everybodies contributions and makes them the best they can be.

 

[peetwee]

dammit so many people posted while i was typing. now i really am off to bed.

 

[Jumplion]

I've been researching what it takes to get into the gaming industry lately, and I feel that if the creativity was taken completely away from the team and given to only one or two people, it would make it incredibly hard to rise in the ranks. It would take away the imagination and creativity that makes making games a dream for a lot of people.

Overall, I feel that it would offer us little, but make it much more of a hell for the people actually making the game.

I think the idea is less having one person call all the shot and more having one person be the public figurehead of the project who refines everybodies contributions and makes them the best they can be.

That's a great summation of my thoughts. Again, it's not as if that one directer/auteur would have draconian rule, if that were to happen the project would fall apart whether it be a movie, video game, or a book. The job of a director is not only applying their central ideas, but also listening and working with others to see how that idea can be improved upon. I'm mainly suggesting a more focused aspect of that on video games as it is generally one big amorphous blob making the game.

 

[blankedboy]

Notch
/thread

But Notch is a money-obsessed stuck-up douchebag D:

 

[Flac00]

I think it is a good idea to have a leading factor, but there is nothing wrong with having a Cliffy B or someone like that. They can add focus, like a lightening rod, but they don't take over or take too much credit. That is one difference between movies and games, movies have everyone working for one single goal, to make a compelling movie. While in gaming everybody works towards making smaller, important, parts of a single game. This can make the process disjointed, but it can lead to games with stunning sound design, graphics, gameplay, story, etc.

 

[Flac00]

Notch
/thread

But Notch is a money-obsessed stuck-up douchebag D:

Who is notch?

 

[blankedboy]

Notch
/thread

But Notch is a money-obsessed stuck-up douchebag D:

Who is notch?

CEO of Mojang. He does about 40-50% of the work on Minecraft at the moment.

 

[Trivun]

This is quite interesting, as I'm working on a game myself, with a team of other people. I'm writing, along with two others (including the guy whose idea it was originally and who's basically in charge of the team), and also doing level design. And through the whole process, everyone's ideas are considered and discussed openly, despite us all doing different things. The programmer's battle system (it's an old-school RPG) and the composer's score are sent to everyone so we can all discuss them and give feedback. It's a collaborative effort, totally, especially with ideas and such.

On the other hand, I'm also involved in films, having done a few short films with friends and fellow film-makers at university. I'm producing one at the moment, produced another a while ago and hope to start editing soon, and I've edited and filmed/directed a few trailers for plays. Not to mention (potentially) three short screenplays I'll be writing in the near future. So I also have experience with that sort of method of creativity as well,with the producer being in overall control of pretty much everything, and the director in control of the actual shoot (sometimes with a secondary Director of Photography, who's responsible for camera angles and setting up shots and is kind of the second-in-command of the director when on set).

Getting back to the main topic, therefore, I would personally (after experiencing both ways of doing things) love to see more experimentation in the process of game making, and would like to see a few games (the more the better as it gives a more accurate idea of what to expect) mad using the suggested way of having a 'director' in overall control. Then we can objectively look at games, good games, made in the different styles, and see what would work best. It would be a good little experiment in terms of developing different ways of doing things, and has plenty of potential for people to get something a bit more interesting and a bit more diverse than what we usually see, particularly with the way games are becoming more generic now. Maybe with a more visionary director of games we could start avoiding the usual cliches and such. It's worth a try, if only to see what could be...

 

[BRMXJzjsoawk321]

-