"The people who ask 'what about unions' aren't in the industry and don't care about games..."

At least, people are coming up with some doable approaches to deal with the size of the student group and the time needed for producing a decent scale of game in school. Talking directly with industrial people esp. the leading personels helps to know what games people really love and have the best sales, not so academically resourceful as expected though.

Well, that was a wake up call I guess. I mean, I also got a lot of insightful information on all aspects of the game design process (including a whole lotta business talk), but the main idea that stuck in my head is that independent games have no future. I felt a little depressed after that wed. nite, but I still think there's hope for smaller studios. EA's commitment to excellence is respectable, but there's gotta be a way to create and advertise a well-polished game without a multi-million dollar budget. I'm not expecting huge profits here, just enough for the dev team to live on for a few months :-)

I wasn't so much depressed as annoyed. I couldn't help but think that he was a bit out of touch with the goings on out there. It surprised the heck out of me that he had never heard of either Penny Arcade or Indie Game Jam; the former is a PR force (it's higher up in the alexa rankings than gamespot) that hasn't escaped the notice of PR and devs from companies like Blizzard and Microsoft; the latter has great respect from devs, and its participants are from the likes of id, Interplay, Microsoft, Sega, Sony...oh, and there's a bunch of EA (most ex-EA, admittedly) guys there, too (Marc LeBlanc, Zack Simpson, etc...)

The idea of the $100 million dollar budget just SCARES me. Is there any hope for the small studio if that becomes the norm? How about indie publishers? Fox has its Fox Searchlight, after all...

It was quite interesting getting a chance to hear the views of Mr. Gordon. His comments remind me of the notion that the game industry is currently in a similar state the the film industry in 1930. The studio system is strong, independent productions are all but dead. Yet there has been no Citizen Kane yet--games are still in their adolescence.

I am a little troubled by Mr. Gordon's alluding that he wishes our program to be a games production program with a goal of churning out more cogs for the EA machine. While a more established production system would be greatly beneficial, this is an MFA program and the focus should ultimately continue to be innovation in design. Ideally, we should hit up someone like Spielberg or Lucas to give us a chunk of money toward research in cinematic interactive experiences. This would create a nice counterweight to the EA muscle that is beginning to be flexed (not to say it's a bad thing, but balance is always preferrable).

I thought that Bing had some really fascinating things to say - yes, I disagreed and was troubled by several of them, but his point of view is definitely worth pondering.

"People who change the world usually aren't normal."
- Well, we've got a good start. My impression is that most if not all of us would be insulted by being called "normal".

"It's really hard to create something innovative for a vague person."
- OK, I don't understand how games companies think they're going to reach new audiences if they believe this. I mean, if you can only make games that you would want to play, then how does the appeal of games ever grow? How is this not self-perpetuating?

I thought Bing's comments on narrative in games were really interesting. He said that it should act as a frame for the experience, that the player should not feel shackled by a designer acting as a "creative dictator". I think he really put his finger on the conflict of interest with a narrative game - the designer wants to tell a particular story but the player wants to feel as though they are creating (or at least discovering) their own story. This discussion also really made me want to take a basic screenwriting class, since I don't know how a movie story structure works and I think Bing made a good point that games haven't learned enough from movies in that area.

As a comment on some of the backchannel discussion, it seemed like some of us think that the game industry is destined to follow the same path as the movie industry. I completely disagree. It's true that at the moment the situation might resemble the huge studio system from earlier in the 20th century, but there's no reason why games will follow the same evolution. The process of making a game is very different than making a movie, and the process of consuming a game is very different than consuming a movie, so why would the industry develop the same way?

Also, I won't bother going into it again, but I already posted an emotional rant about the whole day on my personal blog.

Getting up close and personal with someone like Bing was a very elucidating experience. I still haven't really made up my mind about how a company like EA might fit into my professional life, but weighing all the things I heard last wednesday, I'm now feeling eager to at least get a better feel for it through a summer internship.

For those of you lamenting the death of independent games, I think Bing made a really strong point that we should all consider in deciding about what kind of game-related projects we might endeavour to create: MODS. If you want to make a 3D game that catches people's attention (ie has up-to-date graphics + tech), a mod of an existing game is your best bet. Otherwise, stop knocking Flash and use it for some kind of 2D game because it does that really well.

But I think it would be really beneficial to us if our division brought in someone from Epic or Valve or iD or anyone working with their respective engines to give a workshop on getting started on a mod. Anyone else think that might be a good idea?

There is military saying (I’m not sure which branch it comes from) that states, “You either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.” Well I think that saying can be applied to EA’s strategic business thinking right now. For better or worse they are the leaders in the games industry and are extremely influential in determining creative and business trends. Since they have allied themselves with the Cinema School and repeatedly talk about the “convergence of film and games” they will try to compel others to see their point of view. Until the indie games community finds a winning business plan to market and sell their games to the mainstream (if that is really even their goal), they are going to remain in EA’s long shadow.

I thought that Bing’s comments on the platforms they are supporting were interesting, because EA as a company feels that competition is good when it comes to having different hardware available for consumers. Their decisions to back certain consoles can determine a console’s future; remember their decision not to develop games for the Sega Dreamcast system. However, later in his talk Bing alluded that competition was not as desirable when it comes to other games companies. So, they have contradictory views when it comes to hardware and software competitors, but if you look at it from a business viewpoint, these 2 differing philosophies are working well for their stockholders. And as one EA executive once told me, “It’s all about shareholder value.”

I'm not trying to come to too many conclusions about Mr. Gordon or his company, but I'm certainly not feeling at ease. On the one hand, I hear that EA wants "innovation". But from what was said, I also get a strong feeling that "innovation" really means "the next formula". But I guess this makes sense when you consider that USC is regarded as a "Hollywood" formulaic school.

Also, the idea that a monopoly doesn't affect product quality, and the analogy of a monopoly as good because it's a "marriage" rather than "polygamy" makes very little sense.

He seemed to have an overly defensive, "Show Me" attitude that I think can be dangerous in an academic setting where you are suppose to take chances, push ideas and experiment.

But he did seem to have moments of open-mindedness, so we'll see where it all goes. Isn't EA the company that wanted to make people cry with a game or something? Or was this an individual at EA? This objective just doesn't seem to jive with what I heard Weds...

Mr. Gordon's face on the posters and now on our homepage is unprofessional. It places too much focus on an individual's relation to and influence on this division. And on top of this, he's not even slated to be speaking at the upcoming events.

I've been preoccupied with the idea of games as spaces, rather than stories (but don't worry, stories happen in spaces...) A few of Bing's comments in this area had me intrigued. Being able to explore a space (on many levels) is something a game can do that a film cannot. That is to say, it plays to the strengths of the medium.

I kinda cringe whenever people say games will "be like movies" because of some of the frightening implications:
a) In one scenario they'll be linear movies-held-hostage, where you press a button to see the next processed event (happened in a big, bad way in the mid 1990's. It wasn't pretty).
b) Less extreme, although in the same direction, is where games try to unfold a story in such a way that it would cripple the strengths of the medium. In other words, why not just do a movie, or to put it another way, why make it a game?

Simulations like Civilization or the Sims (not to mention abstract games like Tetris) really don't make much sense in a typical cinematic storytelling context, but the still remain good games worth making. A lot of early (and, sadly, recent) games had stories tacked on, but the presence or absence of a narrative didn't really help or hinder the game. So where does cinematic storytelling come in?

Of course, this varies greatly on the game type, but here are a few roles:

a) Context- Why is the player doing what they're doing? Why should they care? In abstract games tangible plot is unnecessary, as the acts of playing alone usually fulfils the player's drive. More tangible games need at least some way of orienting the player, "Directing" them as it were. Instead of an actor, it's the player asking "What's my motivation?"

b) Keeping with the curve- A lot of interest about this one. Application of specific events or situations at the right times to hold and enhance the player's interest. I think this is a good idea (indeed, one so necessary and neglected even in conventional films that there's a demand for people who know how to design for it), but this can be perilous and lead towards games handicapped into trying to be films. This border is a shaky one to inhabit, necessary on the one hand, but also the capability to lessen the medium.

c) Theme-Cinema has plot, but also theme. What is the movie really about? Citizen Kane is about the death of a tycoon, but it's _really_ about the enigma and complexity of a man's life. While one could make a game where a player ditches a sled and retires to die alone in a hollow monument to a wasted life, I think a better way to go about it would be to build an environment where the player can explore the same themes that Kane did, raising the same questions that the film did, but ultimately in a different way.

Themes allow more freedom than a rigid plot, and are typically more powerful, if slightly harder to detect. Games can have a plot of some sort, but I think they should rely more on theme, bringing issues, often ambiguous ones, to the player, and putting the player in situations that explore the theme (and perhaps generate plot as they go along).

Bing seemed more cautious and commercial in terms of how games should be designed, and seemed doubtful about the future of independent gaming. As a business model, I can see his views, but the independent route is also a good way for people to show their work, and gain attention to a larger audience (this was a primary reason for working on Dyadin and submitting it to the Independent Game Festival). There is a lot work that, while not commercial, is worth attention, and the internet allows an unprecedented access to publication. I can't help but think there's something to all that, even though better folks than I have tried with very limited results over the past decade.

I agree with Brad that the Bing branding on our home page is a bit (cough) much. It is nothing personal but the EA lecture series is about something more besides Bing and even if he is entertained given his larger-than-life personality, we don't want to promote him on our revolutionary-style posters like he is Che. It was good and funny for the first lecture but come on...

As for the lecture, I admit that I have a love/hate thing going towards personalities like Bing. One the 'love' side, he is a hip, successful dad with lots of experience of success and insight and a good hunch on what is the next best thing. You could follow him around all day and learn so much. I suspect that he is much less arrogant on a one-to-one basis and more 'level'.

On the 'hate' side, his outsider view of academia is a little offensive, especially to some of us who have worked both sides of the court. Balance is important: when academia turns into a self-perpetuating intellectual masturbation, industry serves as a good reality check of facts and numbers. But too much reality dehumanizes the human spirit. We're supposed to be thinking tall-standing animals. Remember the tale of evolution? Tale, yes...for some.

All and all, Bing has a lot to say and when he is done he still has a lot to say. And I am always curious. But I am still not convinced that he is both happy and satisfied and still not convinced about that unfortunate polygamy/monogamy argument (although admittedly it was a brave analogy).

Should you all drop the independent work? Of course not. The world would be a much better place if we all volunteered some more time into experimental and not-for-profit explorations.

As for the backchannel, it sucks for people like Bing who tend to shock and amaze us with the Q&A but it works great for other lectures.

And Bing, if you're reading this, we love commentary.

Aaron - you know, our very own Peter Brinson pioneered the MOD that was Waco:Ressurection - maybe we could get him to organize some MODing workshop.

At the day of the seminar, I also went to EA@USC event. From the Bing Gorden's lecture at the seminar and the lectures from producers at the event I could learn a lot about actual process of making a game in a really organized company. I believe they're doing their best to make game that'll make money but as I always felt since when I was working in a Korean game design company, creating truely innovative games has some distance from making games which started from the idea of making something expected to be sold by the gamers in the market. I definitely understand that's truely natural thing in terms of game development as a bussiness. Maybe that's the reason EA need to support an academic group like us who can really focus on the game itself. On the other hand, thinking about games like Katamari Damacy, I'm suddenly curious about the process of the company to accept and excute a really unique game concept which seems to be difficult to expect to be sold by comparing similar kind of game before. I want to know how big organized companies are trying to make their evaluating game pitches not to be intimidated by analysing market history also avoiding too much risk.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: