Not much different, really. I mean, yeah, the blog’s published to a closed audience, which is nice, because that way I don’t have to watch out for the details quite as much, but it’s not like there was a whole host of super seekrit stuff I was holding back anyway. If there was, I wouldn’t have had to have closed the blog in the first place.

For the record, the reason for this is that in the “Blade Runner & Melancholy” post, I mentioned “arbitrary limitations set by someone who’s bascially incompetent…” and of course, the incompetent person in question happened to find my blog online, and sent me an e-mail. Suffice it to say, going back to work on the 7th ain’t gonna be a grand ol’ ball of fun. But it’s my fault entirely, and much as I’d like to be mad at someone or something, the only thing I can be mad at is me.

So, that’s fine. A pain, but what can you do?

In a sort of tangential-ish thing, though, while walking the dog, I was thinking of what I would do if the situation at my current job really became untenable, and the sad problem is that there aren’t that many really great places to work in the game industry, and most of them aren’t in the Bay Area. The sole real exception being Maxis in Emeryville. But even then, I don’t think I’d want to work on Spore ad nauseum, which is what I’m sure they’re going to be relegated to for the next few years.

The thought that I had (and this is one of the benefits of a non-public blog) is that I think it’d be really interesting to write a text-adventure game for the xbox 360. Using a system like Mass Effect/Brooktown’s conversation system, creating a game with essentially minimal visuals. The only real visuals I’d had in mind was some potential Flash-esque text animation, like this sort of thing:

I mean, obviously, text like this would make a game without voiceover really… hard to read. But something along these lines, where the text is delivered in an animated way – I’ve heard that Nightwatch has similar subtitles.

I’ve really enjoyed NaNoWriMo the last couple years (I didn’t do it this year, though). It’s been a really creatively fulfilling process, I write really goddamn fast, and frankly, one of the things that really interests me about games are the interactive stories, so this is a way to hone in on that without the extra baggage of graphics or animation, both of which are huge time/resource sinks.

Anyway. Just a thought, but XNA would allow stuff like this to happen, even possibly co-op over Live, which would be incredibly strange. So, that would probably be a fun side project over the next year or so…

The blog’s been closed to the public. Wacky fun.

In a relatively spectacular blunder, in my last post, I ended up writing about “arbitrary restrictions imposed by someone who’s basically incompetent…”

Well, after five years of more or less lucking out, I got burnt in the most obvious possible way. That’s gonna be fun to deal with when I get back to work. Ah, well. I wrote him an e-mail in response to the one he sent me, and we’ll see how it works out.

Stupid move on my part, hopefully, changing the blog to a more restricted format (I don’t particularly care whether it’s public or not – it’s more of a journal for me, and for people who might be interested) will allow me to actually write what I’m thinking without worrying about the potentially horrible consequences.

Stupid, but whatever. I made my bed. Time to lie in it.

So, I watched another of the special features discs that came with the new, ridiculous Blade Runner set that Ei-Nyung got me for Christmas. Part of me constantly marvels that the movie was ever made. The amount of detail and sheer vision that went into its creation is staggering, and given that it was, in various measures, the “vision” of Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher, David Peoples, Jordan Cronenweth and Philip K. Dick, each competing in some way with each other, the fact that it is so focused and so intricate just boggles the mind.

The problem with it all is that it’s like looking at, well, any piece of artwork in a field or genre that you’re familiar with enough to know that you’re unlikely to achieve that level of greatness. With my job, I have a reasonable amount of creative freedom. The boundaries I have to work in make the job challenging, and in many cases, rewarding. The balance between boundaries and limitations motivating creativity and stifling it can be a tricky one to walk, however…

Then there’s the “vision” thing. I have to ask myself, do I have a *vision* for a game – both the narrative experience and the interactivity – that’s so strong, so total, that I could conceivably marshall a group of people to a destination so grand? No. I’m not entirely sure that anyone does. The question seems to be more, can you look at the landscape and adapt, guided by a purpose or meaning? Can you take information where it comes – integrate it into your view, and still retain the creative values of a great core idea?

I think I can. With games, I think my single strong point is that I can see how a system interacts before it’s made, and picture why it is fun, interesting, or rewarding. I know enough about a wide variety of fields to speak competently about them. Experience with music, knowledge of music theory, experience drawing, film theory, some engineering experience, a strong mechanical background… these sorts of skills have actually happened to be exactly relevant to my job in exactly the right way for me to be in a position of being the person to marshall a diverse team towards a single goal.

Could I make something that I would put next to Blade Runner? No. Not yet – it’d be stupid of me to say that I’m in a position like that. I don’t have enough experience at this point, no question. But over the next few years, I think the goal will be to develop the skills that *will* let me take the reins – to marshall that creative vision and move it forward with the goal of creating something extraordinary – something that can stand next to something like Blade Runner. There’s no sense, frankly, in shooting for anything less.

So, I got Mass Effect a little while back. I’ve enjoyed Bioware’s RPG’s in the past, the narrative mechanics were really similar in concept to something I’d written up for the Sims back in the day, and it looked to be a game of pretty insane scope and scale in a really deep, novel sci-fi universe.

The story, so far, is interesting. It’s sort of “typical” Bioware fare, but it’s well done, the writing’s good, and the characters are intriguing. The graphics are generally pretty decent, as well. The problem with the game is that EVERYTHING ELSE IS FUCKING TERRIBLE. Seriously.

1. The Camera: The camera is about as blunt and unpolished a camera as I can imagine. when you’re walking up and down stairs, it bounces with every step in a way that’s not too different than say, a guy with an epileptic seizure. When you run, the character’s position on screen and the field of view changes in a really unintuitive way. The camera pops and snaps all over the place. Sucks.
2. The Combat: Part of me wants to just say that everything in it is complete crap and be done with it. But that’s not giving it a fair shake.
1. There’s no introduction to the mechanics. You’re left to decipher the UI on your own, after a single wall of text that tries to explain as much of it as possible.
2. I picked a class that sucks. Because you’re forced to choose your class before you have ANY IDEA how the game plays, I picked a sniper. The problem is that in this game, the sniper class is horrifically broken, as enemies can run substantially faster than you can aim, and they can run AT your faster than you can switch to a close-range weapon.
3. There are a substantial number of one-hit kills. These often occur right at the beginning of combat, where I’ll keel over dead moments after the start of combat. In one case, I died before I could even turn around after the cinematic, because I was oriented the wrong way when it started. Good times.

I’m sorry, that’s just a collection of absolutely brain-dead stupid things, and the end result is a game that I’m finding so incredibly frustrating that I’m not sure I want to keep playing, despite all the good things that other people have said. To change my class to a character that could actually be competent in combat would require me to go throw away five hours of game. Which sucks.

But at the same time, this is SO bad that I really can’t see myself continuing to play. I want to break the disc in two EVERY TIME I’M IN COMBAT. The single main mechanic of the game makes me want to destroy the game.

Augh. It’s horrible. Horrible.

Or whatever else you celebrate. Have a good couple days off (hopefully).

Cheers!

So… sort of a strange series of thoughts has been creeping in to my head. For the last few months, I’ve been very careful about building consensus on the project I’m working on. It’s gone reasonably well – people have generally gotten to contribute, yet in the end, we’ve managed to shape the project into something that has a good deal of potential.

But something’s been nagging at me recently. I’ve always hated leads who are conflict-averse. There’s a certain amount you have to push people to produce really genuinely top quality work, but to do so, you do have to push them harder than what they’re willing to give freely. This has also meant that I’ve always respected people who I think have a clear vision for what they’re doing, and can fight for that vision.

Mind you, that requires developing the trust that the vision is actually *there* first, because if I don’t trust the person fighting for their vision, I’ll eventually stop fighting and start working around them. I watched “Dangerous Days,” the making-of feature that comes with the new Blade Runner DVD’s, and Ridley Scott had something interesting to say – that it *was* “his” movie, and that he’d invited people to help him achieve his vision, but that the vision was his.

When I’ve seen game developers use that terminology – that it’s “their” game, it’s always been off-putting. Game development is an extraordinarily collaborative exercise, and it’s always bothered me when one person on the team calls it “their” game. It still does. I think movies and games are a bit different, because while a person can have a vision for the linear narrative they wish to convey, the interactivity of games means that bringing more viewpoints to the process broadens the scope of experiences you can bring to the table.

But that said, with both Ridley Scott and someone like Thomas Keller, the teams are there to do work to *their* standards, and they are the ultimate arbiter of those standards. If they let those slip, they are the ones who pay the price. For me, I’m in an odd position, because while I’m *not* the project lead, I am the lead designer. Whatever someone outside the process might think, I know that when I see a bad game, it rests on the shoulders of the lead designer. So if I abdicate my responsibility to enforce high standards, and leave it to the project lead, I still lose out in the end.

But the problem is that enforcing standards requires authority, of which I have very little. That hasn’t been a problem thus far because I’ve been able to convince people that at least to this point, what I want is what’s best for the game. But we do, to some degree, have a collection of “cool ideas” without a central unifying theme or vision. I don’t think it’ll take someone to make it “their” game to the exclusion of the rest of the team, but it will take someone with the strength and tenacity to ensure that the vision is consistent and of a high quality.

Despite the fact that I’m not in the position to be the be-all end-all arbiter of quality and the game’s vision, it’s still going to rest on my shoulders. And I’m going to have to take a more active stance in making sure those standards are held.

It’s weird, because it’s not really something in the game’s currently level of quality that’s bugging me – well, some small details, sure – but overall, it’s not bad. It’s just in my attitude, I’m finding that I’ve gotten a bit too lenient – a bit too willing to bend to the way other people want to do things, and it’s going to start being time to bend a bit less.

Huh. It’s apparently old news, but I didn’t know Matt Cassamassina (IGN’s Nintendo editor) was married to a Nintendo PR Executive. Some people are questioning whether it’s a conflict of interest. OF COURSE IT IS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

So, yeah. Further proof that your enthusiast media is rotten to the core. Good times.

And no, I don’t mean in an environmental way.

Hey, is it 1998 in here?

This has been making the rounds recently. Stuff like this really pisses me off. Would anyone care if Will Wright were going to make a movie? Or if that guy who did that space game about cats made a movie? Oh, yeah. He did. It was horrid. And as terrible as Wing Commander was, Chris Roberts at least had some limited experience directing cinematics for the games.

Why on Earth does *anyone* give a shit that Jerry Bruckheimer wants to make games? That’d be like Gordon Ramsay or Bob Vila making a game. Or Michael Jordan playing baseball.

Look, I get that games are still sort of an immature medium, and haven’t really gotten respect from the mainstream. But that doesn’t mean that someone with no experience doing this stuff has a reasonable chance of success. There are people who make extraordinary games – Valve, Bungie, Nintendo… these people understand their medium inside and out, and are masters of their craft. The people working in the game industry have dedicated their lives to making great games. Some people succeed, some do not.

Bruckheimer undoubtedly has a ton of money to throw at this. I’m sure he can hire experts to tell him how to make a reasonable game. But his input is essentially meaningless. Bank of America could “get into game” and have as much of a creative impact.

This pisses me off in particular because designers often get the short end of the stick in the industry. Sure, a lot of the “stars” of the game industry are designers – Will Wright, CliffyB, etc. But in *most* game development companies, design is the one field that everyone and their mom seems to believe they’re an expert in. Let me set this straight: You’re not.

Game design is a complex process. It is to some degree, art, psychology, and application of the scientific method. Yes, anyone can write a spec for a game. Anyone can have an idea that maybe aliens should be in the mix, and one should shoot at them. Yeah, a four year old can come up with that concept and build a game around it. Hell, some designers seem to think that’s fine and dandy.

But just because some people fucking suck at their jobs doesn’t mean that there aren’t designers who bring far, far more to the process than the wanna-be’s and the shouldn’t-have-been’s. The last thing the game industry needs are more ignorant, monied “auteurs.” Yeah, game design is fundamentally something that anyone could do. Writing a novel or climbing Everest is the same. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Feh.

N’Gai Croai, a videogame writer for Newsweek, posted about Jeff Gerstmann’s firing from Gamespot (allegedly over a bad review for Kane & Lynch: Dead Men that caused Eidos to pull ad money from Gamespot). It’s an interesting piece, though I’m not sure it’s entirely on the money.

Just to throw it out there, I have no personal stake in this matter – I don’t particularly like Jeff Gerstmann (I think he’s not a particularly good reviewer), and though I used to like Gamespot, recently, its quality has really gone downhill.

That said, N’Gai Croal’s position is that publishers hold the enthusiast press (Gamespot, IGN, and their ilk) in contempt, so they can strong-arm them into doing their will (by exerting pressure via advertising $$), where they couldn’t do that to a source they don’t hold in contempt (like Newsweek). Rather, they can’t do that to a site they’re not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on in advertising.

But the fundamental point is this:

OF COURSE they hold these outlets in contempt.

OF COURSE THEY DO.

Do you think the Bush administration thinks well of the current White House press corps? The “enthusiast media” sites are all so fundamentally corrupted by the ad money they take in that there’s simply no way they’re not obviously under the publishers’ thumbs. They blather on and on about “editorial independence” but come on – it’s obviously bullshit, and has been for years.

These “enthusiast” sites, because they don’t actually do *journalism*, rely entirely on what publishers feed them. They need the publishers to spoon-feed them their content, so when they get anything, they sycophantically praise it in the hopes they’ll get more. Every “exclusive” you see comes with strings attached, spoken or unspoken. Every bad review a highly-anticipated game gets, the less content that review site gets in the next cycle.

These sites are so obviously, so totally corrupt due to their dependence on the publishers both for their ad money and their content that it’s simply impossible to consider any of them even marginally “independent” or “unbiased.” Sure, I read some of them periodically to see what kinds of things people are being told, but do I think for a second that any of them are *honest*?

Don’t make me laugh.