Grassroots Gamemaster’s Proposal
Grassroots Gamemaster has stirred up a lot of trouble and almost everyone hates him. I'm really confused why people hate him, but I think it's because they are reacting to the surface level antagonism he has. If you look past that to his actual message, it's really good. As I said before, "Sign me up."
If you'd like to know what his message is, a week ago I would have told you to read like 50 different things he wrote. But now you can just forget all that and read one post where he sums everything up. He even wrote this one without the usual antagonism, so maybe people will be able to hear the message this time.
Even still, because this is the internet, we know many people will still hate him. Many of them will show up in the comments of this very post and hate him. Here is what an anti-Grassroots Gamemaster platform would look like:
1) No passionate advocacy. Games will turn out better if there's no one behind them who passionately believes in the point of the game and drives it forward. Better to follow the lead of, say, a shoe factory. (Note: there will still be shoe factory game companies no matter what, don't worry.)
2) Geniuses really are mild-mannered and agreeable (or "we don't need the other kind because the supply of mild-mannered ones is plenty!"). Sure David Lynch and Isaac Newton are/were hard to work with, but we don't need their contributions.
3) Let's not get the best people for the job. You're going to say this is deep in the territory of straw-man argument, but it really isn't. GRGM says ignore who works which company and get the people from anywhere, in any field, who are most aligned in passion and skill with what you need. Don't have a system where you then expect them to work on whatever it is that happens to be the next project. To disagree with this, you'd have to say that it's better to use whoever you happen to have at your company for whatever project you happen to do. Or if you say you can recruit the geniuses who are exactly right, you'd have to then argue that it's fine to keep them on staff indefinitely (what if they are AI specialists or WW2 history buffs and your next game doesn't use their skills?) and that they will even accept the notion of you choosing their next projects for them.
I'm sure you'll come up with even more creative objections. Sometimes, though, somebody comes along and says some frankly obvious stuff and it's hard to say "yeah, that's pretty much right." Consider that maybe this is one of those times. And also know that even in the most rosy of futures, you'll have your movie tie-in games kicked out the door by someone, just like always. But there's money to be made by doing this this other way, too.
Discussions of how you hate GRGM are pointless. You should either discuss how he or the industry can make this happen, or just get out of the way. Don't be Fred Smith's college professor in 1965 who gave him a C on his paper a new idea called Federal Express. And don't be like Art Linkletter who in 1954 laughed at Walt Disney's advice to buy up property around a new park called Disneyland. Sometimes a new idea or new way of doing things really is good.
--Sirlin
February 29th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yeah, his ideas are all well and good, but can he/you find enough people to make it work?
I mean, I’m all for it if you can make it work, because it seems like it would only mean better games for me, it just seems like making people change would be the hardest part.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
[…] Sirlin.net â?? Your source of shocking insights on game design wrote an interesting post today on Grassroots Gamemasterâ??s ProposalHere’s a quick excerpt Grassroots Gamemaster has stirred up a lot of trouble and almost everyone hates him. I’m really confused why people hate him, but I think it’s because they are reacting to the surface level antagonism he has. If you look past that to his actual message, it’s really good. As I said before, “Sign me up.” If you’d like to know what his message is, a week ago I would have told you to read like 50 different things he wrote. But now you can just forget all that and read one post where he sums everyt […]
February 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
In some ways, that proposal reminds me of the Y Combinator methodology: http://ycombinator.com/about.html
…which is cool
February 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I think this really would generate good games but making it happen is something else.
Hopefully you find a generous benefactor to take the plunge and provide the necessary investment.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
CWheezy said:
——————–
Yeah, his ideas are all well and good, but can he/you find enough people to make it work?
I mean, I’m all for it if you can make it work, because it seems like it would only mean better games for me, it just seems like making people change would be the hardest part.
——————–
Of course you can make it work! Do you honestly believe that, in a world filled with billions of people and various resources, it won’t be possible to realistically make a simple idea like this work?
And it really is a simple idea, and a very natural one at that. What makes it difficult to implement is that so many people have resistance to ideas like this for one reason or another (i.e. fear), and that society is largely conditioned to steer as far clear away from this type of thinking as possible.
It certainly won’t be a “quick fix”, “solve all your problems in 3 easy payments of $19.95″ thing. It will actually require real, hard work — the kind that takes years of effort, dedication, and commitment. In the end, though, just like anything that’s taken a lot of work (*cough* the light bulb *cough*), it will be well worth it, either directly or indirectly. Hard work doesn’t necessarily have to be tedious and draining; it can be challenging, inspiring, and empowering/exhilarating, much like seeing someone who is more skilled then you and feeling the positive tension associated with the challenge of reaching a new level of excellent.
The goal isn’t to make people change — that’s exactly the opposite of the goal. This is about expansion and inclusion, not exclusion and forcing change to those who don’t want it (hence Sirlin’s, “there will still be shoe factory game companies no matter what, don’t worry” comment). It’s about letting people who have the passion for this type of work — or rather, this “approach” to work — be more of who they *really* want to be, instead of a conforming cog within a soulless corporation with, at best, a very shallow interest in creating lasting, meaningful value and sees such things as a means to and end ($$$) instead of worthy ends in themselves.
CWheezy, I understand from your perspective what you said probably seems very valid to you. From your perspective your concerns are very real, and I’d agree with them. However, what you must take into account is that there are other people with very different perspectives — different ways of perceiving the world and making decisions — and to these people, what Sirlin talks about is not only obvious, but the most natural course of action for them.
In fact, I’d go as far to say that *not* embracing what is natural to them will make them feel increasingly resentful, effectively draining their effectiveness, regardless of how skilled or knowledgeable they are in regards to their current line of work. You’ll probably see people who are *less* skilled and knowledgeable then our “Isaac Newtons” — people who are more internally congruent with their line of work — getting better results.
Why? Because they aren’t internally conflicted. When you see someone who is damn good at what they do getting zero results from their efforts while they watch everyone else surpass them, I bet 99% of the time it’s because what they’re doing doesn’t align with their innate talent, effectively canceling out any efforts they make. They may continue to struggle within this debilitating paradigm until they either give up, or start to feel so unpleasant in their current situation that they *have* to leave and do something else.
Right now the world is very much focused on making people fit a certain mold — a list of “shoulds” and “have to’s” – but again, it’s about inclusion, expansion, and variety, not exclusion and unquestioned conformity. Some people are comfortable within the current, pervasive paradigm (which is perfectly ok). Others, however, long to break free and be themselves, much like a square peg would feel if it was crammed into a round hole, simply because it believed it had no other choice.
But I think if you look even closer, while people share many similarities, you’ll find that everyone wants to be more of who they really are and *really* have the chance to express themselves doing whatever it is they feel drawn to. And when a critical mass of people embrace this empowering, less limiting, more inclusive paradigm of maximising personal potential and recognising that all of us are unique and will grow and be most successful and fulfilled when we embrace and cultivate this uniqueness, the physical reality of business, how people act, and what people focus on creating, will begin to change.
- Bruce
February 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“In some ways, that proposal reminds me of the Y Combinator methodology: http://ycombinator.com/about.html
…which is cool “
At first, I didn’t read that link, and I thought you were actually talking about a Y combinator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_combinator
Which made no sense. I’m not really sure why I feel compelled to post this, though.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I hate to be a pessimist, since I’m in love with the idea that a grass roots movement can start up and create tons of amazing games that would restore its originality to the time of SNES/N64 games. However, to paraphrase Gene Simmons:
“Ideas are a dime a dozen. It doesn’t matter unless you’re willing to put in the work and wherewithal to make something happen.”
February 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
We call them fools, who have to dance within the flames
Who court the sorrow and the shame
And risk the tables being turned
But you’ve got to be tough when consumed by desire
It’s not enough just to stand outside the fire
–Garth Brooks, from “Standing Outside the Fire”
February 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Damn, I didn’t think my comment was wall of text inducing, but whatever.
I’m not saying that there aren’t those people, I’m just wondering if they can find enough people that are willing to take such a huge step, and look past the “fear” that you mentioned.
I do think this is a good idea, and changing the industry in such a way would be a real positive and allow for more freedom when creating games.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
You’d really have to win the lottery to do something like this. Nobody is gonna fund it.
And if someone funded it, it would cost more and/or sell less than another Halo sequel.
We can talk about how much we need innovative new gameplay, and how much the current game industry sucks balls. Some of us have even worked there and have the scars to show for it. But even if you think the game industry has gotten worse at making games, you’d have to concede they’re doing a great job of making money.
People are suckers for any old FPS or RTS if you sell it with the right combination of graphics, cinematics, story, and setting.
I have some admiration for grassroots gamer. I’d probably want to work at his company. His game would probably be far more interesting than most of the crap I’ve played in the past few years. But I’m not the average consumer.
We measure success in dollars. By that measure, Nintendo Wii is the revolution we’ve been waiting for. Smaller games with smaller budgets, and bigger sales. Game design driven by mass marketing, rather than game design driven by an elite group of “really smart” people.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I guess everyone is familiar with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I could propose lesser internet fuckwad theory which is that making things personal, when they’re really not, is a recipe for disaster. I haven’t seen anyone who even suggested that they hate GRGM, but a bunch of people who disagree with his ideas or think that those ideas are infeasible.
It would be nice to have a ‘do what I want’ button on my computer. It’s a neat idea, but that button will never work, or, if it did, would be a disaster every other time it was used.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:41 am
This is a good point: “I haven’t seen anyone who even suggested that they hate GRGM, but a bunch of people who disagree with his ideas or think that those ideas are infeasible.” Hell, I don’t think I even fit into either of those two.
My position has always been one closer to “as a video game consumer, I think things seem pretty great right now.” Having played so many enjoyable games “recently” like Katamari Damacy, WarioWare, Super Mario Galaxy, God of War, (list goes on for more than I care to elaborate), to me the shoe factory system is working. The mass amounts of shovelware doesn’t tend to bother me because I’m pretty good at avoiding bad games (or at least games I would personally not enjoy).
March 1st, 2008 at 2:53 am
I’ve chanced upon your forum and have spent about an hour reading all kinds of posts and some of the archives, and I am so impressed! You are all so articulate and differentiate finer points with such acuity. And I thought guys were dumb!
And all of you care, to whatever degree. In my opinion, every single one of you is shaping your industry, even if your action is a mere response to someone in this forum. The future (and all the repercussive seemingly inconsequential sequalae of your actions) is in your hands. Go guys! I hope you all challenge yourselves, take your risks, and really do something.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:22 am
Thanks Clarissa… it’s all part of the fun!
As for Grassroots and Sirlin and “Shoe factory”, I think Sirlin is making wonderful games although most of them are “only” polish-ups. I think the Shoe Factory system can produce wonderful games as long as there’s a brilliant person leading the minor improvements.
Of course, I’d also like to see Sirlin create something entirely new (with Grassroots Gamer)
March 1st, 2008 at 5:36 am
Call it the Moby Dick Paradox. Critical acclaim and commercial success rarely go hand-in-hand.
The biggest obstacle to GG’s LGC isn’t the money, it’s the fear of the unknown that motivates your suits to put said money on the devils they know rather than on the devils they don’t know, even if the latter devils are offering better quality, execution, and/or just plain soul.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:47 am
“Call it the Moby Dick Paradox. Critical acclaim and commercial success rarely go hand-in-hand.”
This doesn’t apply at all to the video game industry.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:49 am
I think some people here have too little faith in humanity at the moment. I’d hazard a guess that you could pay peanuts to some real heavy hitters and the game would still get mad… and it would be great.
I’m not quite sure what people in the industry get paid, but I think if the core members just got a stipend that allowed them groceries, rent, and utilities, they’d be set. Plus the extra incentive of earnings from the game itself.
This is a creative industry. Most creative individuals just wanna create day in day out. The only problem is feeding themselves, paying bills, buying a game/purse/whatever once in a while (though families change that…). This is basically what I do. I work part time and live in a tiny studio so that I can work on games and art.
Perhaps the LGC should just be a money maker?(i’m asking to clarify what the LGC actually does) If they could find creative ways to get money I think this could be self sustainable… But not like a machine.
I enjoyed his garden/machine analogy. I think the LGC could be that gardener, rather than an engineer who designs a machine who he can walk away from forever, the gardener has to give constant care to the plants that normally wouldn’t be able to thrive in such an environment. That way these plants can flower and bloom into something beautiful. Rather than grocery store roses.
Sign me up! I work for free!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The evil you know vs. the evil you don’t is called risk management. We measure success in dollars and cents, not reviews. If it sells, ship it. In the end, what you’re trying to do isn’t to make a good game. It’s to sell a product. Lose sight of that, and you lose your capital, and then you can’t do anything. It’s a lose lose situation. As Gene Simmons said, ideas are a dime a dozen. If GRGM wants to put up the capital to actually make something out of his visions, be my guest, but at the moment, I don’t care what he says. Words are cheap. Show me action.
However, actions cost money. Money which GRGM doesn’t have. So you’re done.
This reminds me of another quote I learned in economics…
“How do you make a small fortune in wine-making?”
“You start with a large fortune.”
It takes an investment first, upon the initiating party first. So GRGM has to show he has the commitment and wherewithal to make something happen, aside from hot air. From what I see, he hasn’t. He’s shown that he has a big mouth and is opinionated, but nobody gives a rat’s ass. My recommendation for him would be to try and find a job as a game designer, work up a good reputation at which point he can try to see his ideals through, if he believes in them still.
We live in a commercially-run world. Every investment is a risk. Every time you try to deviate from the formula, you risk losing a hell of a lot of money. Investors don’t like that. They like their risk managed.
In the words of the IBM commercial…
STOP TALKING. START DOING.
Heck, from what I see, even the vaunted Sirlin himself hasn’t shown he has the guts to take up a completely new project–always reverting back to old Street Fighter.
Now while discussion is fine and dandy, I’d like to know that it’s not just hot air being blown around. Show some wherewithal and legwork, get something going, and then more people will listen. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Creating the ultimate game from the ground up not so much. It sounds nice, but everything costs money.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Ilya, your comments aren’t welcome here. You are contributing nothing. I know it looks like Grassroots Gamer isn’t “doing” anything, but getting mindshare is the first step. YOU are the one not doing anything. Also, watch yourself on what you think I’m working on or tried to work on. You really have no idea. You have no idea about how I worked at 4 startups that went out of business or the various big games I tried to put together that fell apart because of things that had nothing to do with me or anything I did.
You also have no idea about GRGM himself. “Try to find a job as a game designer”? Ha!! I discovered who he is and “try to find a job as a game designer” is completely laughable to him. He found one. He’s done it. Now we’re trying to do something a better way. And it’s not about money. His process requires less money, not more money. It’s about finding a critical mass of people who want that type of model. Talking is how you find that critical mass. Stop cluttering up the thread with your do-nothing negativity.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“1) No passionate advocacy. Games will turn out better if there’s no one behind them who passionately believes in the point of the game and drives it forward. Better to follow the lead of, say, a shoe factory. (Note: there will still be shoe factory game companies no matter what, don’t worry.)”
What? This is completely contradictory, and if it’s trying to represent whats wrong with the current system then it’s mislabeled as GRG’s opinion.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I read it that way too, but it turns out I had skimmed over this vital sentence:
“Here is what an anti-Grassroots Gamemaster platform would look like:”
March 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
While Ilya’s slander is perhaps not appreciated, I think their point about risk management and money talks, and stuff like that is good to keep in mind. A “know your self and know your enemy” kind of thing.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
lion-gv, ok yeah. The risks here are mostly the lifestyle choices of the creators involved in this. I personally am fine with those risks, and it’s a matter of having a core team that’s fine with them. But from the funding point of view (as opposed to the developer point of view), it sounds safer to have nearly no burn rate while a few leads (who are passionate and judged to be skilled have a good idea by at least someone with some connection to games) sort out the plan before going into full production. It also sounds less risky to pluck the best people for a project, rather than going with who you happen to have. Burn rate is a real killer and GRGM’s model at least goes from zero to “mostly have a plan” while minimizing that–a key difference from the shoe factory model.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
After finding a source of funds, the other large hurdle I see for an experiment like this is obtaining that legendary final cut privilege. In Hollywood, only the big-league, bank directors are asked for approval of the final cut. In selling a game outright to the intended publisher, you’d have to plan for the likelyhood that something may be altered or removed after it leaves the developers hands. If the game is violent or (gasp, ohnoes!) sexual, you can almost gurantee the publisher will get fussy about something.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Quoted from Sirlin:
“His process requires less money, not more money. It’s about finding a critical mass of people who want that type of model. Talking is how you find that critical mass.”
How do you figure his process costs less money? It sounds like they spend a lot more time in the prototyping stage… which I think all game companies SHOULD do. But dropping this stage will cut corners, and let them ship the game sooner.
I know what you might be thinking. Prototyping lets them manage risk, by testing ideas out on paper before wasting time implementing them. But if the game industry has shown me anything, it’s that the best way to manage risk is to avoid taking any. Copy the gameplay of others, and rely on proven archetypes to sell your game.
I’m interested to know how you think GRGM’s proposal will actually save money.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Dan, GRGM explains that the initial stages of this involve like 3 people working at someone’s apartment for a few months. Their real payment is percentage of backend gross, so the actual salary is very low during that time (but higher for someone with an amazing track record, sure). He actually explained at great length how cheap this phase should be. In the normal model, a company must support the burn rate of the huge team from their last project. Companies have to try to simulate this cheap prototype phase by having multiple projects going at the same time where they peel off just a few to plan the next project. This is hard to juggle though. GRGM’s plan solves this juggling problem by firing everyone by default after a project, the same way a film production company would.
Controlling your burn rate in such a good way is the save-money part. And if you had the right people, getting “fired” at the end of each project would be considered a good thing because it’s the expectation from the start that these people will go on to whatever next project they are the best fit for, wherever that is.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
That’s a really good point. I read over the proposal again and paid closer attention. The companies that I’ve worked with, transitioning between projects is usually VERY wasteful. Redoing the startup phase would really increase efficiency.
I’m tempted to say that you could use this model to create boring games too. But the best way to crank out doom clones would probably be a consistent team. I think creating a unique team for each project will naturally result in more unique products. You’re less likely to fall into patterns of behavior.
If you can make the finances add up … suddenly it’s harder to be cynical.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
This also seems like it could promote better games through competition.
If everyone is vying for a certain programmer/designer/artist, then perhaps that’s added incentive to have a great game idea to win her/him over and beat out the competing concepts.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Kicks, yep. Here’s a great article by Paul Graham:
http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html
And here’s the relevant quote from that article:
“Across industries and countries, there’s a strong inverse correlation between performance and job security. Actors and directors are fired at the end of each film, so they have to deliver every time. Junior professors are fired by default after a few years unless the university chooses to grant them tenure. Professional athletes know they’ll be pulled if they play badly for just a couple games. At the other end of the scale (at least in the US) are auto workers, New York City schoolteachers, and civil servants, who are all nearly impossible to fire. The trend is so clear that you’d have to be willfully blind not to see it.”
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
There’s absolutely no point is saying “this is what I think and nobody is allowed to disagree even for good reasons” which is what you’ve done. GrGm’s proposal has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff but why bother parsing through it if nobody is interested in feedback?
“You should either discuss how he or the industry can make this happen, or just get out of the way.”
The way to make it happen is to come up with a good proposal and a workable plan, which means identifying the weak points and improving upon them — something you’ve ruled out from the start.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
You’re living in your own little world again, James M. What exactly do you think “discuss how the industry can make this happen” means… it is completely inclusive of any statements you could imagine that start with “An improvement to this plan might be…”. You continue to criticize, and criticize, and criticize without any construction, which is completely worthless. If that’s really all you have to say, could you try taking Sirlin’s advice and “get out of our way”.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This model really is very similar to what Paul Graham talks about, and even bet his money on with Y combinator. I never really put that together until Eric mentioned that above.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
While I’m a big fan of the Grassroots Gamemaster, and love his passion and message, there is one large problem I see in the approach he has outlined.
What he suggests is making a really simple, tabletop version of the game, to “find the fun”, and presenting it to investors, who will then make a decision about whether to sponsor it further. Unfortunately, in many cases, the tabletop version simply doesn’t do a good job of approximating what the end product will look like.
Take any FPS title, or any number of fighting games. Therein lies my sole objection to his approach, although I’m by no means there isn’t a way around it, or that his model isn’t extremely attractive, or potentially successful.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
So…I don’t quite get what you’re trying to do here…
Are you trying to make a full-blown, commercially-released, publisher-sponsored video game? Or what?
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
KIMaster, that was my biggest objection too, at least before I read more material on this subject. Prototyping can be done in any number of ways - you can do a tabletop version for a turn-based game, or a flash version for pretty much any 2D game.
3D is where the trouble kind of starts. I think it’s an inefficient use of a designer’s time to learn how to make 3D environments and modify an engine to suit the game’s needs (ie, using an FPS engine to prototype a 3rd person game with lots of context sensitive actions). However, he did mention a lead engineer. To my understanding, this guy handles all the technical aspects of the game, including prototype implementation and outsourcing the final building of the game. This guy/group would ultimately be in charge of working with the outsourcers to iterate over the game as it progresses, probably with the designers too.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Y Combinator is very different from this proposal. For one thing Y Combinator is much more team based than idea based, it’s mostly an investment in people.
From business week:
“The difference, Graham says, is that Y Combinator picks people, not business plans—or even business ideas.”
That’s basically the opposite of what GrGm is proposing.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Picking passionate people with good ideas is pretty close to just picking good people when we compare either of those to the status quo of the shoe factory model. In that model, you just go with whoever you got, no matter what you’re trying to do. Maybe Y combinator would actually do better than GRGM’s way, because if Will Wright (good person) came to me with a kind of stupid idea, I’d probably still invest in it because I know he’s smart enough to sort it out.
GRGM’s emphasis on tabletop prototyping is a bit hard to embrace. For some games, this would work, but others it really doesn’t. I assume he would accept a simple mockup in flash for things that are too timing intensive to really test with board game stuff. That’s now crossing the line where you need a programmer, so I don’t know. His early 3-man team type thing could certainly have one, but it sounds like the first cut happens before any programming.
Maybe he really meant this:
1) Cull based on ideas and docs
2) With the chosen ones, go to tabletop / flash game mockup phase
3) Full production, staff up internal team to like 10, outsource the rest.
Maybe I’ve got his ideas wrong, but that’s my interpretation.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
I remember him talking about flash demos for prototyping. I think he just means using the very minimum requirements to find the fun and just used tabletop games as an example. I don’t think he’s absolutely fixed on one method of prototyping.
But I don’t really care about business, so I haven’t been reading what he’s written too closely, and maybe I imagined that.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
GRG’s model sounds a lot like a Hollywood Studio. He even borrows some of the same language (e.g. he “casts” his core team for a project). If you’re going to do a thought experiment on how to spur innovation in the game industry, why would you choose to emulate Hollywood? Try doing a survey of successful Silicon Valley startups, IMO (The real ones. Not one of the 1000’s of Web 2.0 companies whose business plan is to get bought by Google). Or look at the Cisco model of spinning off parts of itself time after time to investigate new markets.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Ponder, I think you meant it sounds a lot like a film production company rather than a hollwood studio, but point taken. How would the approach differ in the silicon valley startup model? I’m guessing it still involves “casting” a team for a single project, but maybe you can elaborate.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I for one, after having read GRGM’s posts, think that he actually has a very astute mind for the proper game production business model. Sure, his tone is probably not the most pleasant, but at the same time, you can REALLY feel the passion he has for his craft.
Essentially, his model is simple and minimalist. To sum it up:
1. Get an idea team together. These are the designers, the visionaries, the people who frankly have problems keeping the less polite comments in their head. This is actually an amazingly hard part though cuz this phase requires that each of the three man team has a tremendous amount of talent, experience, or just savvy to really contribute to the team.
2. once the idea team has fully pulled together a good idea, the team builds a prototype. I can understand why people find the pen-n-paper concept a little jarring though. But I do believe that pen-n-paper or even just a simple simulation is very helpful. While things like timing might not work out nearly as well, things like logistical flow does not need to be put to technology to figure out.
3. full blown projects: this is where you follow the typical project management path. Only, all of your work is outsourced to the appropriate companies.
Hell, in this way, the project lead can maintain a good deal of control without having to sacrifice his own vision TOO much. I think this is a good model.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am
That’s actually not his model at all. He says that some entity should solicit designs from outsiders then build teams to implement that specific idea. There is no “idea team.”
In truth if you ask ten different people what his model is you’ll get ten different answers. That’s not a good thing.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
You’re disconnection from reality is causing me to begin to fear for your life, James M… why exactly do you think everyone, including both Sirling and GrGm keep saying “the main designer does not just sell their idea and walk away, they stay for the entire project”. That is the “idea team”. The only distinction is whether you hire a designer first, on their reputation, to make an idea. Or, you can have the designers submit their ideas, and hire them already knowing exactly what they’ll work on. And honestly, I think it works just as well either way, either way the point is you hire a designer for a specific project, and build up the team as you go along.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I’m just going to ignore Claytus, it’s clear he’s merely interesting in forum dramatics.
My point here is that there is a lot of confusion over exactly what GrGm is proposing because his writing is very talky and relies heavily on analogies and diatribes.
Essentially what he is proposing is a business plan for a publisher/middleman. So write it like a business plan. Especially if someone is planning on shopping the idea around to angel investors. I can’t think of anything more constructive to say than that honestly. You have to convince the people with money to share it and the way to do that is present your idea in a way that is attractive and understandable. The typical investor may care about making good games and not just profit but they probably aren’t interested in reading verbose tangents about Isaac Newton, teamwork and thinking outside the box.
Write up a concrete plan. This was a little closer but still not that close.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:07 am
If I had to choose between a passionate, creative person with a bit of an ego but definitely a hot new vision, on the one hand, and an accountant who can write a clean business plan with precise methodical “proof” for why this game “will” make money, on the other, I would choose the former in a heartbeat.
The latter guy will have everything well-planned, will execute it methodically, and will ultimately build something wooden and dead.
The first guy may be difficult to understand, may have a touch of an ego, but he will make something breathtaking.
Unfortunately today, where the only mark of success for a game if financial profit (ignoring that a good game that could be sold as a library title could become a cult-classic, if we had a system that supported that, rather than dumping things into the “bargain bin” if they aren’t immediate, short-term hits).
March 7th, 2008 at 2:07 am
This kind of game design layout has definitely piqued my interest, but I am wondering what amount of finances it would take? Sirlin, you said that ultimately it would cost less to produce a game using this model (well, at least that’s the pulse that I’ve gotten from it) but how much less would it potentially be? Is there a rough, even ballpark, estimate of cost with this kind of project?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:45 am
James M, your complaint still doesn’t make any sense. Sirlin and GrGm both seem to agree that the industry has major problems and they’d prefer this model in a general sense, but that they’re both fairly comfortable at their current jobs. I doubt Sirlin would just dump SFHDR tomorrow to go work in a new company like this, even if the business plan was fully formed right now.
So, why exactly are you requesting a complete business plan… they’re not ready to act on it… you clearly aren’t going to act on it. The truth is, what’s been said so far is pretty much sufficient for layman discussion (since it seems that none of us are lawyers or businessmen). You sound like you’re telling everyone else to do a whole bunch of extra work with no immediate benefit. What’s so wrong about discussing these ideas as they are now? You’re still not adding anything to the conversation, all I’m hearing is “please clarify everything down to the tiniest detail, GrGm, so then I can talk about this without having to actually do any thinking myself.”
March 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
“If I had to choose between a passionate, creative person with a bit of an ego but definitely a hot new vision, on the one hand, and an accountant who can write a clean business plan with precise methodical “proof” for why this game “will” make money, on the other, I would choose the former in a heartbeat.”
False dichotomy. And writing up a business plan for the production model has nothing to do with writing a “proof” that a game will make money anyway. The business plan isn’t about the games, it’s about the methodology.
I still need clarification on this point: does your plan require charity or is it supposed to be profitable? (Or at least break-even)
Claytus:
Sirlin asked how to make this plan a reality. The answer is to write it up in a way that is attractive to people with money. Before I wasn’t being constructive, now I’m directly addressing the central question with a concrete suggestion but that STILL isn’t being constructive? It seems like the only “constructive” comment allowed here is “yeah I agree awesome!”
“Sirlin and GrGm both seem to agree that the industry has major problems and they’d prefer this model in a general sense, but that they’re both fairly comfortable at their current jobs.”
Maybe we should let them speak for themselves?
And speak for yourself about not being a businessman. I certainly know enough about business to understand that if you have a plan for a business formalizing it with a business plan is an appropriate step.
If GrGm wants to make his plan a reality that’s what he’ll do. Or wait to win the lottery. He even talks about looking for potential angel investors. They’ll probably want to see a more formalized writeup.
It’s not like I’m just inventing crazy practices on the spot. This is well-established procedure. I’ve talked to VCs and to angel investors, a blog post is not going to sell them on an idea most of the time.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
James M: First off, I agree that GrGm’s latest response was a little far out there, and I’m not sure what to make of it.
For the rest of it, it’s about tone… if you really were just asking for clarification, that would be fine… but what you do is throw out veiled insults at GrGm masked as questions. Meanwhile, if anyone else does try to clarify you say things like: “In truth if you ask ten different people what his model is you’ll get ten different answers.”, and just call us liars because it’s possible that GrGm didn’t mean exactly the same thing we did. Honestly, I haven’t found anything in Sirlin’s post so far that is self-conflicting… so how about you respond to the model he’s described regarding use of VC, if you really don’t like GrGm that much.
What you’ve provided is still not constructive, because what we should be talking about is singling out the vague points in GrGm’s model that you keep accusing him of having, and discussing what possible solutions there are, and things like how to implement those solutions. All you’ve said is that GrGm should just go away unless he can provide you with all the answers in the first place, and masking that argument as asking for a business plan is just saying the same damn thing in a different way. Either tell us what you think the business plan should look like, or get out of the way, and let some actual discussion happen.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Okay, obviously I have to write another post to address this stuff.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“The first guy may be difficult to understand, may have a touch of an ego, but he will make something breathtaking.”
No, the first guy _could_ make something breathtaking. He could also fail spectacularly. Both guys, in fact, could. But the second guy, the one with a solid plan, is less likely to fail.
And yeah to James M, it’s a false dichotomy. Passion doesn’t mean you can’t have a solid business plan and the ability to make your milestones. You can wax on about the purity of the vision in the movie industry’s great artistic successes, but those still had producers, APs, and ADs running around coordinating all the various parts going on day-to-day and sticking to the budget.
Personally, I think the key difference between movies and games is the unsettled, unstandardized nature of game technology, at least as far as restructuring our industry along their lines goes. They can hire any DP and any cameraman, any director, any sound mixer, etc, and get them going pretty much right away. Can you say that about hiring a game artist? Well, that’s actually getting to be more the case, but programming incurs a month or two of ramp-up time, at least. Minimum.
Sirlin: “Geniuses really are mild-mannered and agreeable (or “we don’t need the other kind because the supply of mild-mannered ones is plenty!”).” OK, but on the other hand there are a lot of non-genius assholes out there who seem to think acting like assholes will cover for their lack of brilliance. Frankly, the supply of actual geniuses is very very very limited; people need to be able to create good work without one on the team, and they’re better off by far if their non-genius doesn’t think he has license to act like a prima donna just because he’s the leader.
GrGm: have you considered Tom DeMarco’s books on teamwork? He makes the entirely plausible claim that a team that has learned to work well together is far more productive than one thrown together without regard for team dynamics. The team is not merely the dry, on-paper sum of its parts. Again reaching back to Hollywood for metaphors* — yes, each movie arranges its own team. OTOH, sub-teams like the editors and assistant editors, or the stunt teams, are entire companies that are often hired as a group and work together for many years… and some directors do build up a company of people they work with over and over, even when the genre and core concepts of the movies aren’t the same.
* since Hollywood already basically does most of how you describe LGC would work, I feel it’s valid
March 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
It’s pretty clear reading GrGm’s stuff that he has no technical abilities, does not want to learn, so his strategy is to paint increased competence as a downside. Being good at a lot of things is actually a negative in his book. Of course it doesn’t make any sense — it’s pure rationalization.
It’s hard to imagine any technically competent person wanting to work with GrGm given his obvious contempt for them.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Some people seem a little too quick to dismiss this “Hollywood” methodology for game development. It’s not about empowering (or holding the hands of) flighty artsy folk so much as allowing creativity to see the light of day… you know, the fantastic stuff that scares publishers because it’s simply different and doesn’t fall into expected projections of past proven successes. I think today’s video game design is pretty stagnant. There are many highly rated games that I simply have no desire to play because I already played them a decade or two ago. Also, it’s not like this new methodology will replace the current one… EA will still make the next Madden so don’t get your panties in a knot about that.
It will be interesting when “stars” rise from this new methodology. Right now, the stars are the companies… nobody (outside the industry) really appreciates the individuals that had there hand in a particular game. I’m not talking about the Will Wrights out there… more so lead artists, level designers, GUI designers, physics programmers, etc. This new development methodology will really expose more of the talent already in the industry.
So… how does this move forward and become a reality? It can’t happen at the major publisher level yet until it’s proven to work (you know, when it starts taking a piece of their pie) so it has to start at a smaller scale. However, independent developers (the people most willing to try this out) are probably spread too thin and the talent disparity levels might be too much to weed through. Maybe there needs to be a collective testing ground where individuals can prove there skills to other like-minded people (other developers). Could something like Koster’s Metaplace showcase talent well enough to bring a competent team together? Unless there are a bunch of professional freelance developers out there, of course. Aside from the “angel investor”, I’m not quite sure how else it could happen, off the top of my head. Maybe a large publisher with a little cash to burn could formulate a small team based off an employee’s wild idea? Right now, I think the elite of the industry simply need to be shown before they adopt a radically new methodology.
In a slightly depressing way, I wonder if the Portal guys will ever build something new… or will they be sentenced to keep building the next sequel until the consumer can’t stand it any longer. In that regard, I was happy to hear about Bungie severing their ties to Microsoft after the third Halo. I find it interesting that I stopped really caring about Bungie after they released the second Halo. I had followed their offerings in the Marathon/Myth/Oni days religiously and immensely enjoyed Halo, but I have no desire to play Halo 2 or 3… and it sounds like they have no desire to make a Halo 4. In that respect, artistry and business don’t mix; there has to be a balance between the two. Right now, I think the industry is too business orientated.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:46 am
It isn’t a false dichotomy. It’s intellectually fashionable to reject dichotomies now, but the vast experience of history shows otherwise. In the real, practical world, many dichotomies are real. I think this is because people increasingly live in a microwave world - a world where technology takes the price out of doing hard things. Prose and poetry are opposites. You say that one can be a methodical engineer (like a programmer) on the one hand, and yet have a brilliant insight on human feelings, know how to write good dialogue, and have a sense of spontaneity and fun (like a game designer) on the other. However, history doesn’t bear this out. In the Meyers-Brigg, establish polarities: Perceiver, on the one hand, and Judger on the other.
It is simply true that a focus on methodical execution - which is usually an analytical, judgemental approach - can crush the perceptive nature of the creative. You might dispute that, but history doesn’t bear you out. Bean-counters and myopic quantifiers simply do not become good artists and creators and qualifiers. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein said it for a reason, even though it implies a dichotomy.
At the end of the day, you are presented with a dilemma. To say that a methodical/ analytical person will choose one while an artistic/ visionary/ creative person will choose the other is simply realistic. History bears this out even if, in theory, it is not provable.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:53 am
James, the very fact you smear me with “has no technical capabilities” and “does not want to learn” shows your myopia. You’re like the patent office manager who said “Nothing is left to be invented, so let’s shut the patent office” (as mythical as that story may be, it contains a grain of truth). You have the standard response of trying to crush the new voice to conform it to the conventional wisdom. When Rembrandt painted paintings that made heavy use of darkness and splashes of light - they ridiculed him for not using contemporary style.
The method I am trying to espouse is to simply allow people to go beyond existing forms, and discover the new. That’s what visionary creativity is. And the first step to doing that is to let go of the notion that everyone has to conform to existing forms.
In my case, I have come up with design concepts that simply defy existing ways of doing games. That’s where my frustration comes from. I’m not interested in making yet another first-person-shooter, but this time with a new gimmick attached. I want to do fundamentally different games. Since I see that the industry is not set up to foster this, I’ve set about, through GRGM, to try to change this - for the good of all of us.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:08 am
ArC: interesting post, but I think you missed a few of GrGm’s points.
1) the actual programming work and such is being outsourced, not random people hired by the same company that’s in charge of the design work. So, you’re issue about people not having worked together doesn’t really apply… all the programmers come from a company that does programming, and have a history together, while all the audio/art guys come from an art company that have worked together, and then it all works out.
2) Remember that people are already working in a very similar model whenever designers simply decide to start their own company. Mistwalker is a good example… Sakaguchi made his own company to do all the design work he wants, and then hires a second company to do all the technical implementation of the game. GrGm’s only difference is he wants a company not owned by a specific designer like that, so that they can use the same model to create interesting games by people with less money than Sakaguchi, who otherwise couldn’t make their own company.
James M: Grats on moving past the stage of veiled insults into actual insults… however, since you still have no idea what you’re talking about. GrGm isn’t biased against technical people… but they belong in the companies he outsources, too… he doesn’t need to hire anyone technical directly to get this to work, so it’s irrelevant.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:52 am
OK, Claytus, I had missed point #1.
I’m not sure how far you can split up the duties into fully separate teams, though. Even in movies, FX houses have artists and programmers together. Similarly with game development, technical constraints have in my experience usually required a lot of communication between art and code. (”So we’ll outsource to combined art/code houses!” Yeah, except that’s like one designer or wannabe designer away from turning into a full fledged developer, really.)
Last night, thinking about the current system in the game industry vs the current Hollywood system (and vs the old Hollywood studio system, where directors, stars, etc, were all under long term contracts) I was actually thinking about another tech team management book I meant to read, something about comparing tech teams to (repertory or local) theater companies. I can’t remember the name of it for the life of me right now.
“GrGm’s only difference is he wants a company not owned by a specific designer like that”
Well, one can theoretically do that right now, as you say. Wideload Games (”Stubbs the Zombie”) works like that. I don’t think it’s just money that’s the distinguishing factor, it’s the credibility, the track record, and (at least for Mistwalker) the ‘brand appeal’. Anyone can have a good idea. Frankly, that’s a lot easier than executing it over a full production cycle.
GrGm: “In the Meyers-Brigg, establish polarities: Perceiver, on the one hand, and Judger on the other.”
When I take M-B (clone) tests, I usually get INTP, but am apparently pretty close to the border on that last one, cause I know I’ve scored INTJ before. Point is, even on M-B, it’s a spectrum, not binary choice.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:29 am
If you claim with a straight face that people who know how to write code are creatively impaired I do not think you will be taken very seriously–this is probably an exaggeration of GrGm’s position, but it is how it comes across. I think you could persuasively argue that some of the most innovative games being designed today are being coded by their designers. Spontaneity and lightheartedness do not somehow get sucked out of you. I think you will encounter similar difficulty if you say that people who have vision cannot concretely articulate that vision and present it to possible investors or generally interested people.
At least I expect one can see how an observer predisposed to be critical might get the impression that GrGm is rationalizing a lack of technical skill.
I would suggest GrGm produce a more concrete scheme which can be concretely attacked and defended. Not necessarily formal or exhaustive, just concrete. Presumably he has, at least mentally, a more exact idea of what he would actually do if you were given $1 m and told to make any game he chose. If I were going to sink a million dollars on a project, I would want at least to be savvy to this plan (not that I would expect an investor to come of this, but in the name of open and fruitful discussion).
March 9th, 2008 at 6:58 am
ArC: The outsourcing model does work… basically all you need to do is look at the movie industry. There are hundreds of tiny little CG companies that get hired to add special effects to big productions, and don’t ever produce movies by themselves. I don’t know much about Wideload, but I completely agree that there are companies moving towards GrGm’s model already… there just aren’t very many, and they haven’t gone all the way.
Paul: You’re thinking of it completely in black and white, and I don’t think that’s what GrGm meant. There are people who can design and code very well at the same time, and many of them are quite successful, but we can ignore them, because they don’t need to use GrGm’s model, they’re already making independent games. The problem is, there’s a much greater group of people who can design well, but not code (Sirlin, it seems), and people who can code well, but not design (me, sadly;;). And there’s no way for those people to pursue ideas they’re passionate about except hanging around in the “shoe factory” model, and hoping they get enough clout to force a good idea past a bunch of suits who want to kill it. (Or learning the other skill, the way Sirlin keeps mentioning he’s learning to code… that just shouldn’t be the only answer.)
March 9th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Wideload proved that you just need to start with a small team to prototype, and once full production begins, outsourcing works. It’s not like you’re passing complete control of the game to the outsourcers though - what starts off as a prototyping team (a few designers and coders) turns into a management team. The designers and coders work with the outsourcers to iterate on parts of the game until it’s polished - from what I read, the coders at Wideload even trained their outsourcers on the tools they used to create art assets, etc (since no other third-party ever really used the Halo engine).
March 9th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“You say that one can be a methodical engineer (like a programmer) on the one hand, and yet have a brilliant insight on human feelings, know how to write good dialogue, and have a sense of spontaneity and fun (like a game designer) on the other. However, history doesn’t bear this out. In the Meyers-Brigg, establish polarities: Perceiver, on the one hand, and Judger on the other.”
You clearly don’t understand the purpose of Meyers-Brigg — it’s a relative measure only. Second your point only amounts to that being good at two things is harder than being good at just one.
Pablo Picasso was both a painter and an engineer. Will Wright is both a creative person and a programmer/engineer/manager. Many well-known game designers are also highly technical. Richard Feynman was good at a whole lot of different things. So was Isaac Newton. Imaginitive fiction author Cordwainer Smith was also a CIA spook and a leading expert on psychological warfare. Yes, being good at multiple things is hard but that doesn’t mean it’s undesireable. You are literally arguing that LESS TALENTED people are better.
“It is simply true that a focus on methodical execution - which is usually an analytical, judgemental approach - can crush the perceptive nature of the creative.”
No, that is not “simply true”, that is your moronic assertion. Having technical abilities does not make one a “bean-counter.”
March 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am
By the way, it’s neither a smear nor an insult to say that GrGm has no technical abilities and sees becoming more technically skilled as a negative. That’s what he himself argues quite explicitly.
“There are people who can design and code very well at the same time, and many of them are quite successful, but we can ignore them, because they don’t need to use GrGm’s model, they’re already making independent games.”
Spore is an independent game?
And we can’t ignore them because GrGm’s point is that those people don’t and can’t exist. He argued that very passionately. Stop reading what you want to read and start reading what he is actually saying. This is what he said:
“Bean-counters and myopic quantifiers simply do not become good artists and creators and qualifiers.”
His argument is that talented programmer/designers literally can’t exist.
What kind of engineer wants to work with a person who views all engineers as “bean-counters and myopic quantifiers”? I’m not the only one who has made this point, Inkblot said something very similar as has Paul above.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“Spore is an independent game?”
Um, no… Everyday Shooter, and Braid, however, both are, and are both actually relevant to this discussion, cause we know that one guy basically designed and coded by himself. Do you spend everyday hanging out with Will Wright watching his design process… no, so stop commenting on it, cause for all we know he doesn’t need to write any code at all. The same way, Sirlin clearly isn’t writing the code for SF:HDR, yet somehow that doesn’t exclude him from being part of the process.
I still think you’re just reading what you want to see in GrGm’s posts. He’s trying to fight against the businesspeople. The “bean-counters” are the guys who sit around telling people to just make one more FPS, because it’s a small guaranteed profit, and refuse to even entertain the idea of doing something new. Noone but you is even talking about people who write code, for example… they don’t make design decisions, and they don’t get any veto power the way the management does. Noone’s saying designers can’t be techncial, but the technical people are pretty much irrelevant to the entire argument, they don’t need a special new company to entertain their ideas. Management tends to be scared of new types of gameplay, but they’re always in support of shinier graphics, cause it’s proven to be a safe way to raise sales, so the technical people are doing just fine in the current model.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
“Noone’s saying designers can’t be techncial”
“Management tends to be scared of new types of gameplay, but they’re always in support of shinier graphics, cause it’s proven to be a safe way to raise sales, so the technical people are doing just fine in the current model.”
So are the designers. Do you think that all technical people want to do is create shiny graphics? Engineers have no more freedom than designers do. If they are doing fine then so are designers. Both get paid to do a job. I’m curious, what do you mean when you say designers aren’t doing fine? They aren’t getting paid?
Do you spend every day hanging out with bean counters, watching their management process…no, so stop commenting on it.
Lol.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I’m going to be the bigger man and stop arguing with Claytus. I’m sure it’s annoying to everyone.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Do you spend every day hanging out with bean counters, watching their management process?” Um, yes… yes, I do, because I’m a software developer, and I have a manager telling me what to do…
Man, you’re dense, James M. GrGm just said it in his last post: “I’m not interested in making yet another first-person-shooter, but this time with a new gimmick attached. I want to do fundamentally different games. Since I see that the industry is not set up to foster this[…]”
All he wants is to create an accepted industry model for fostering the ideas of developers who haven’t either a) spent 12+ years making FPSes to earn some street cred, or b) struck out completely on there own, and founded their own company.
Technical people are not involved. The designer says how a game should be played, the art guy says how a game should look, the technical guy just makes the game they told him to make. There is cross-over, but it’s still not relevant. GrGm’s company doesn’t need to ever directly higher technical people for the sake of their technical skills, they outsource their game to companies that hire technical people… they might occasionally benefit from getting designers who can do more prototyping than just pen and paper, but even that’s not relevant to the point you’re trying to make, because those people are still designers.
I love how you’re ranting about GrGm’s dichotomy between creative/analytical people, and then turn around and create you’re own dichotomy between designers/engineers. I’m sorry, but even though you meant it rhetorically, the answer is that yes, there are some engineers that just want to create “shiny graphics”. The best guy in the world at writing shaders, is going to continue writing cool shaders because that’s what he likes to do. And if they look good, then yes, a current production company will use them. A designer cannot create some extra game designs on the side and even expect to get his own company to glance at them… that’s why designers are worse off than engineers.
(”I’m going to be the bigger man and stop arguing with Claytus. I’m sure it’s annoying to everyone.” - HAHAHA… I doubt that’s even possible, but for the sake of argument, why did you feel the need to tell me this, instead of, maybe, just not posting anymore… I’ve even suggested it in the past.)
March 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“All he wants is to create an accepted industry model for fostering the ideas of developers who haven’t either a) spent 12+ years making FPSes to earn some street cred,”
OK, so still with the Hollywood analogy: in today’s world, game designers are all combination writer-directors. That is, they both come up with the concept (or sometimes have it handed to them by execs, but then again, I kid you not, the idea for “Lost” came from the execs, not the writers) and they execute it through pre-production, production, etc.
And in Hollywood, anyone can write a script with no more investment than one’s own time. Some of those even get picked up and turned into real movies. But I don’t think anyone ever gets to be a _director_, even of something they wrote themselves, without paying some dues. A director is responsible for a multi-million dollar project.
So bringing it back to our industry: who’s going to fund a no-track-record designer? No one. Anyone can be a designer who has a good idea — the ‘writer’ in the analogy. He could even come up with a great design doc. But can he get a prototype made? (which I’m going to call the analogue to ’short films’.) The Portal team did it in school, which is certainly helpful — everyone’s building a resume there, not needing to get paid.
So, I dunno. Basically it comes down to a revolution as large as the overthrow of the studio system in Hollywood… but that started with an antitrust suit. Otherwise, I don’t see what’s in it for publishers to take flyers on unproven designers with unproven ideas when they have in-house devs that can generate (relatively) lower-risk profits.
And as Forty wrote up in comment 12, it’s not like we’re really facing a complete creative wasteland right now anyways.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Hmm… interesting… I think one major issue is this statement: “And in Hollywood, anyone can write a script with no more investment than one’s own time. Some of those even get picked up and turned into real movies.” That never happens in games because there is no existing system to submit design docs to publishers.
Another is to remember that noone expects the next Halo or w/e to come out of this system. We don’t necessarily have to be talking about multi-million dollar production values, just something that’s high quality enough that it will be able to sell. With some of the cheaper distribution methods like XBL and Steam, there’s definitely a market out there for small but extremely original titles. Just something to keep in mind.
Not trying to disagree with you or anything, ArC, I think you make a number of valid points.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:39 am
“That never happens in games because there is no existing system to submit design docs to publishers. “
I agree there isn’t.
But come to think of it, THQ saw ‘de Blob’ at a student show and bought the rights to have developed by one of its internal studios.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:43 am
That isn’t an easily repeatable process, though. The students didn’t shop their idea intentionally - they basically lucked out that the right person discovered them.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“2) Geniuses really are mild-mannered and agreeable (or “we don’t need the other kind because the supply of mild-mannered ones is plenty!”).”
Don’t let Grassroots Gamemaster’s affinity for prima donnas interfere with the strength of his ideas. This is a personal preference, not a vital component of the Lottery Game Company (LGC).
James M: “The way to make it happen is to come up with a good proposal and a workable plan, which means identifying the weak points and improving upon them — something you’ve ruled out from the start.”
Nobody’s ruling that out. This is, however, the wrong time to demand a plan from GRGM. He’s not ready.
If he was, I’m sure he wouldn’t wait to tell anyone.
Let him work. Let him breathe a little. It’s not going to cost you anything.
Grassroots Gamemaster:
“You say that one can be a methodical engineer (like a programmer) on the one hand, and yet have a brilliant insight on human feelings, know how to write good dialogue, and have a sense of spontaneity and fun (like a game designer) on the other. However, history doesn’t bear this out.”
History does bear it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
That’s a short list of extraordinary individuals, and there have been many, many more who never achieved that level of notoriety. Think of people in your life who are technically, creatively, and emotionally competent. Where these qualities exist, one does not come at the expense of others: instead, they reinforce each other synergistically.
P.S:
Clarissa: “And I thought guys were dumb!”
Some are, but others probably enjoy Clarissa Explains It All for the same reason I did.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
This recent interview with Cory Barlog (God of War 2) and this response by David Jaffee (God of War 1) are somewhat related to this discussion and worth checking out:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2008/03/11/the-cory-barlog-interview-part-i.aspx
http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2008/03/saw-two-things-today-that-got-me.html
BTW, since the last time I posted concerning GRGM LGC production models, and proclaimed that these alternative structures will become ever more present over the next five years, I have attended GDC 2008 which has strengthened this resolve. The writing is on the wall. I’ve got a list of companies that I’ve been compiling that just keeps on getting larger, all of whom are perusing or have successfully pursued similar, though varying, models.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 am
That David Jaffe article, especially, is really, really good. Thanks for the link.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
This really lit a fire under my ass. Sirlin, you never fail to open my eyes.
Not that anyone reads two month old blog responses, lol.