Anyway, I was interested in her background because she was formerly a stay at home mother of 3.
So her books have been on the top sellers lists for an amazingly long time. In fact her latest book "The Host" is the current #1 best seller found here http://www.nytimes.com/pages
The key thing that go me is this. She never planned or had dreams of becoming a writer. She didn't write the story to be sold or even to show it off to friends. She wrote it because she loved the process and loved seeing where the story would go. It reminded me of something an art teacher once mentioned. He said he paints for himself. He doesn't paint to please other people. It also goes along with that Brad Bird of Pixar said in an interview here:
http://gigaom.com/2008/04/17/pixars-brad-bird-on-fostering-innovation/
He makes movies for himself, to satisfy his own creative vision.
Here's a video of a talk Stephenie gave at BYU (former grad there) , the last few seconds are the best part where she talks about "true writers":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
So now where I'm going with this.
People in the games industry are getting way too caught up in "innovation" and "the next big thing". We don't need people focusing on that stuff. We need people focusing on making a wonderful vision become a reality. A vision with meaning. We need people who care about the game and care about what kind of experience they are giving out there. We need less worrying about what's hot and more brilliant passionate vision made reality. Disney was able to get people excited about his films and "make them their own". We need people that care more and believe in what they're working on. As a head of a project, if the people on your team don't have the vision for your project, you need to help them catch it and make them believers. I think that can be done for most anyone. Even if a game is not their ideal, they can catch the vision of the experience the game is trying to give.
As far as where innovation fits in, it's a means to an end. Great innovation is the byproduct of progress towards a clear goal. I've had lots of innovative things happen on my personal projects, but it was never because I wanted to innovate for innovations sake. It was because I wanted to do this, or have the player feel like this, or experience that. With that goal in mind, I would come up with ways to make that happen. Innovation that does not lead towards the goal of the game is pointless and should be thrown out with anything else that doesn't contribute to the desired player experience.
On Caster, I'm focusing on making it the game I want to play, the experience I want to have and want to convey to others. It needs to go out the door with my seal of approval and none other.
I think that's why I've been hesitant to consider publishing deals. After I've made the game, I'm done. Anything after that is work and gives me no motivation.
Anyway, just some scattered thoughts...
What's your take on it?
2 comments:
The phenomenon you describe is called the 'autonomous artist' and it simply does not exist. When we are dealing with cultural entities, such as art and entertainment, the idea of 'doing it for yourself' is so wholly and completely intertwined with culture and society that it is really a very shallow statement. Even a cursory analysis of the idea demonstrates that.
In fact, I see the complete opposite of what you described as an ill in the game and movie industry. Popular franchises, whether Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Sopranos, etc., get less popular exactly because the creators pay less attention to what people want and spend more time following their 'creative vision.' This is somewhat less of a factor with books because the audience, manpower, and cost is generally lower. The fact is, the games we have the most fun playing generally go through an extremely exhaustive design and QA feedback process. You could get 10 great game designers and end up with a crap game. The games that will be the most fun, such as Valve's, are the ones where the team is humble enough to listen to feedback and strong enough to only release what they are confident with- but their confidence is less about 'their creative vision' and more about feedback from players telling them what is fun. If you want an example of games fulfilling creative visions, go play Jericho or one of the other creative-mind-controlled games from someone who doesn't understand what I just described for Valve.
The other thing I don't agree with is that people are even looking for 'innovation' or 'the next big thing.' Both those things are muddled by money and seeking profits. We are in an industry, not an ivory tower, and the market speaks to what works- and we will make the games that sell, whether that means they are genuinely good or just have a sports figure on the cover (or both). I wish more companies were actually interested in innovation- but just look at the dearth of crappy MMO's which have all fallen to the might of WoW, all multi-million dollar efforts that thought they were really innovative or fresh.
Also remember that it is far easier to be risky in books or indy games than in a AAA title. I know you are more versed in the indie community than I am, but I think it is in somewhat of a golden age, with all the development and distribution avenues, no? If you are hoping for creative vision and true innovation where millions of dollars and the careers and livelihood of many people are involved, you are looking in the wrong place.
Have a good memorial day weekend.
Well put Rob.
I think we actually agree on most of this stuff.
Effectively, I'm promoting what Valve and other's are doing. I don't think they cared so much about the next big thing or making that quarter's profits as much as making their vision for their game a reality. They didn't make the game just to make a buck, they cared about the game--they took pride in their work. They treated it as a work of art rather than a mindless production.
I've been on projects where I didn't care about what I was working on and other projects where I did. Whether or not I like to admit it, the quality of my work for projects I cared about was vastly superior to the work on the "whatever" projects.
The projects I cared about got more than just my 9 to 5 work. They got my idle thinking cycles. If my employer was good, they didn't force or even ask me to work extra hours. What would happen then would be my mind was fresh and these idle thinking cycles became a gold mine for brilliant ideas that would have never happened otherwise. So in the end, those special projects got my heart as well as my work and were much better for it. With these new motives, I wasn't working on the project to "move up in the company", or "put it on my resume", or "get a nice bonus" or even "get money to pay the bills". I was working on the project because I cared about it, I cared about and believed in the vision of what it was.
Anyway, based on your feedback, it seems I came off saying "it's my game, my vision, it's all me and that's what's important". Yeah, games like that don't tend to do too well in the market. What I was really trying to say is "Hey, this is my game, I care about it, I have a vision of what I want to share with people. I'm not going to break that vision for something that will not improve it towards that vision. And since it's an indie project, I only have myself to answer to".
Really, everyone is saying that the indie scene is where all the innovation is and that they can do that because of less risk. But really, I don't think that's it as much. It's that the indie scene is where a lot of passion is and that's why they're able to make some pretty great stuff that happens to have some interesting innovations.
As far as marketing and publishing go. As a 3rd party developer, I'd rather not worry about new IP or original game play ideas. I'd rather just take a project that the publisher wants done and make it the best game possible. Now hopefully I'm not bound down by a bunch of restrictions about what has to be in the game and what the game should be exactly (that alone can kill any game). This is how I would proceed with making the game:
1) Take their goals into account and from that create an appropriate vision of what the game should be.
2) Get something up and going as soon as possible and take copious notes about peoples experience with the game. What they liked, what they didn't, how they felt, etc.
3) Filter through the feedback and see what fits within the context of the vision (for example, comments related to killing the bad guys in a game focused at little girls are probably not with the vision of the game). Take the great ideas and feedback and apply them to the next version of the prototype.
4) Repeat 2 - 3 until time or money for that phase of development runs out.
5) Build the final version of the game based on the core discovery of the now more refined vision of the game.
Here's an example of this. When EA announced we might be working on the Littlest Pet Shop, I got very excited while most everyone else rolled their eyes. I could see EA's goals for what they wanted to do and also saw a vision of what the game could be. My vision pleased marketing, but it wasn't based on marketing so much as how I wanted the girls to feel when playing the game. Now a lot of the guys at the studio moaned about the potential of working on a game like this and some of them in the design group tried to come up with a different vision for the game, one more centered to what they would like to play I imagine. However, this was the wrong vision because it didn't coincide as well with the vision of the franchise (and thankfully, the franchise owners killed those ideas). This was a game for little girls. After discussing my vision with some more open minded of the design group, they were able to catch on to my vision of the game and then the ideas just started rolling in. My initial idea was good, but the new ideas coming in took it to the next level and just kept making it better. All of this was still in tune with the initial vision of how I wanted players to feel while playing the game. The excitement went up and people started to really believe in what they were working on. Thankfully, those that never caught the vision were moved to a different project that they could get behind.
Iterating and prototyping went on as much as possible until what started off as "fun" became "really fun".
Now obviously there were tight time constraints and not everything made it in, but that's okay. Hopefully the most important things did make it in. Hopefully the vision was maintained.
Now this reply is waaay too long, but last thing.
Looking around, I think I stand corrected about the games industry. Yes, there is a lot of shovelware out there, but more and more I'm seeing great games--even licensed games--that have heart behind them. I think most people want to care about what they work on, especially in the entertainment industry. I think publishers are recognizing this and letting developers do a little more to make better games.
Also just to emphasis: market research, play testing and feedback are invaluable, but only when checked against the vision for the game.
So stay humble, but don't lose sight of your vision.
Post a Comment