Gamasutra - The Ministry of Hype

[Couchpotato]

Felipe Pepe published a new article on Gamasutra where he talks about a conversation he had with a game design class. He calls the article ,"The Ministry of Hype."

Recently I was asked to give a short lesson about CRPG history in a game design class of about 30 students. I started by asking how many had played Skyrim. All raised their hands. Then I asked how many considered themselves to be really hardcore fans of the Elder Scrolls series. About 60% kept their hands raised. The next question: "how many of you played Oblivion"? Now only 20% still has held their hands high. Only two hands remained in the air when I asked about Morrowind, and none at all when I asked about Daggerfall and Arena.

That was not a casual audience. Those were students of a game design school, people who decided to bet their future on gaming. More than half of them had professed to be "hardcore fans of the Elder Scrolls series", yet not a single one had bothered to learn the origins of the series. I'm not talking about watching obscure foreign documentaries or reading huge and rare books - I'm talking about playing games, at the very least trying them out for like 10 minutes. And free games even! - both Arena and Daggerfall are freely available for download at Bethesda's website.

When I confronted them about that, they were somewhat embarrassed, but also claimed that those were old games, that had dated badly and were outclassed by newer releases. Now, let's stop here for a moment.

None of them had ever played Arena or Daggerfall. They don't have any first-hand experience on its gameplay and couldn't come to that conclusion by themselves. So where did that prejudice come from?

Well, from the gaming industry itself.

More information.

 

[Deleted User]

I will copy and paste my thoughts about this article from another thread:

Felipe, I love you. No, seriously. What you just put into words in that article is EXACTLY what I've observed and felt about gaming for some time now. Thank you so much for writing that. I hope others will read it and learn a valuable lesson from it.

Excellent work, man. Truly!

Edit - However, I would have ended on a more positive note. Instead of being cynical, let's continue doing what we do and spreading the knowledge of older games as much as we can. Let's hope that the future will start to realize that games of the past have lots of value. Heck, let's even press the fact that old games can still be fun today! (Something I've been saying for a long time, now)

I hope by playing these old games, showcasing them on sites like YouTube and the like, new gamers will become curious about these old games and try to learn more about them, watch them and play them themselves. Who knows, maybe someone will even be inspired by these old gems and look to build something new in the same spirit. I can hope and dream, right?

But yeah, let's push the idea of gaming is art every chance we get. It rests on our shoulders now, so we should try to progress as much as possible. The book you're working on is a step in the right direction.

 

[joxer]

Those were students of a game design school, people who decided to bet their future on gaming.

And only 20% of them played Oblivion?
Thank god, 80% are still happy not knowing that utter boredom does exist.

Sorry I won't be reading the whole article as the title is about hype but I don't think Bethesda ever created Destiny hype - the game he should talk about with those students on that topic is Destiny.

 

[Terry]

Ha I had to laugh this article made me think back to the Wasteland 2 KS and how Fargo portrayed "modern" producers as ignorant punk kids who had no clue about gaming's rich history. Apparently Fargo is not the only one who feels this way.

I hope with the current resurgence of smaller indie developers going back to what made those old games fun it might shine a bit of light on those old games, and bring them to a new audience. And having GOG still selling many of the classics means that they are easy enough to track down and play.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

When I confronted them about that, they were somewhat embarrassed, but also claimed that those were old games, that had dated badly and were outclassed by newer releases. Now, let's stop here for a moment.

None of them had ever played Arena or Daggerfall. They don't have any first-hand experience on its gameplay and couldn't come to that conclusion by themselves. So where did that prejudice come from?

Well, from the gaming industry itself.

After reading the article, pretty unclear whether the conclusions are valid or not.
If they are valid, then the gaming industry conveyed valid conclusions.

Relatively to Morrowind and Oblivion, compared to Skyrim, the conclusions are valid.
Arena and Daggerfall are a different business as they came with meaningfully different goal and approach.

The lack of first hand perspective show more in other departments like the revival of the "ugoigo" turn sequence.
That sequence is outdated and was given up because of limitations.
After playing a few iconic titles from the revival, it appears that, not only the limitations are not conquered, but that the newer titles start on a lower position on the ladder, compared to older titles. Older titles made more of that sequence than the revival titles. That is a reboot restarting not from the previous end point but from an even further point.

Players who did not play the old titles can not measure this though. They come to the revival titles with a fresh mind, without knowing that better already exists.

That reboot is nothing more than an excuse to remake what was already made in the past and made better.

Applying this to Skyrim, playing Morrowind or Oblivion only show that Skyrim is an improvement in many, many ways.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, hype can sort of work in the opposite direction as well, where people can hype the past because they were so much more impressionable back then.

 

[rjshae]

The fact that most players haven't played the old games also means that those titles could potentially be successfully rebooted using a new engine and improved gameplay elements.

 

[Silver]

Felipe is right about the media not identifying flaws in these AAA games until a new release comes along. Just look at the difference between user and "professional" game reviews on metacritic; Also wasn't there some guy from Gamespot let go for criticising a promoted game?

The big thing that has changed in modern games imo compared to older games is a sense of everything fitting together. Games used to be made by smaller teams and functionally things felt and looked like they fit together. Now with bigger production teams being the norm for AAA games it is rare that the same sense of cohesiveness exists within a product. This is particularly a fault of 3d graphics and there steep requirements and now we have the plague of day 1 patches.

In modern AAA games favour is UI improvements over older titles; but that is because they are remaking the same game over and over again. Older games were more experimental and solid UI rules hadn't been worked out yet. A modern indie example of an old school developer is Larian. They innovated on Divinity Original Sin by including co-op in the campaign but ran into a lot of ui issues in doing so i.e how to manage inventories, conversations with distance etc. That was to be expected because the game wasn't just a copy-paste like a AAA game largely is.

With the Oblivion to Skyrim example Bethesda largely just simplified and streamlined everything. If you have not played Oblivion you cannot appreciate the changes and why they were made in terms of pro's and cons.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

The thing is that a serious game designer wouldn't go into a "game design school", that's what a hipster kid would do. He would simply learn programming and become a master of his craft without needing other hipsters to tell him "how to game design". "Game designing" is pretty much useless, abstract and vague, it's not something that can be "taught". It's all nothing but a gimmick. Either you are a good programmer, or you are a good artist, or you are riding others' coattails.

If you really are a brilliant mind with unique ideas you would never go in such a school. For instance the ones who go in such a school in Montreal, and there are many, simply become drones for the likes of Ubi Soft. They don't become the next Sid Meier.

So in these schools you will find people who are riding the wave and who will follow current trends and not go much beyond.

 

[rjshae]

Umm... really? Unless you already have some released games to your name, it's hard to demonstrate that you're really a "serious game designer". Educational credentials can help demonstrate at least some level of competence.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

In the form of a computer science degree from a reputable university, not from a "game design school" or "game design course".

 

[Sacred_Path]

Either you are a good programmer, or you are a good artist, or you are riding others' coattails.

I heard Garriot claim the same thing and didn't agree there either.

In the more professional development world of today, people with applicable knowledge of architecture, linguistics, history and geography can definitely enhance a product. You can't put huge cities in the middle of deserts next to arctic zones and call everyone Crag Hack or Trebor anymore.

For me, PoE is a study in case. The project lead is a guy with a background in the humanities who professed to be just a guy who "played a ton of D&D". Of course programming knowledge doesn't hurt there either, and taking design classes by itself isn't going to turn you into a renaissance man, and even in the best circumstances there's limited demand for this kind of people. But I don't have any doubt that CRPG's especially can profit from this. That kind of remark seems to come often from cranky old developers who are used to wearing several hats though (Guido Henkel said something very similar ).

 

[Swann]

IMO a game designer -especially a RPG designer- who has never played Daggerfall is like a writer who has never read Shakespeare. Daggerfall perhaps is not a very good game to play but is a treasure of innovative design ideas - all put inharmoniously, true ...
And, about "Game Design Courses". Game design has two sides. Technical side can be learned, but creative side can not. Carlyle said "The greatest university of all is a collection of books." Well: the best game (creative) design course is a collection of games (and books, too.)

 

[Ripper]

If I recall, you've been a game designer, haven't you HHR?

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I heard Garriot claim the same thing and didn't agree there either.

In the more professional development world of today, people with applicable knowledge of architecture, linguistics, history and geography can definitely enhance a product. You can't put huge cities in the middle of deserts next to arctic zones and call everyone Crag Hack or Trebor anymore.

For me, PoE is a study in case. The project lead is a guy with a background in the humanities who professed to be just a guy who "played a ton of D&D". Of course programming knowledge doesn't hurt there either, and taking design classes by itself isn't going to turn you into a renaissance man, and even in the best circumstances there's limited demand for this kind of people. But I don't have any doubt that CRPG's especially can profit from this. That kind of remark seems to come often from cranky old developers who are used to wearing several hats though (Guido Henkel said something very similar ).

And David Gaider used to be a hotel manager. To be honest though, I doubt either David Gaider or Josh Sawyer are people that will be remembered in a few decades for their contributions to the milieu.

I think it's pretty much like art: you can't be taught to be a good "artist" in an artist school. You either have it or you don't.

 

[Sacred_Path]

And David Gaider used to be a hotel manager. To be honest though, I doubt either David Gaider or Josh Sawyer are people that will be remembered in a few decades for their contributions to the milieu.

Possibly. But then fewer and fewer people in the industry will be remembered as time goes on and team sizes and budgets grow. The reason Garriot will be remembered isn't that he used to program his own games, but that he was there at the beginning.

I think it's pretty much like art: you can't be taught to be a good "artist" in an artist school. You either have it or you don't.

Even analyzing on your own where other games shone or failed is bound to make you a better designer than someone who doesn't - so I don't think it's something so intangible.

 

[Ripper]

You will find very few great artists in history who did not receive serious formal training and/or an apprenticeship. And in the days of the great painters, the standard method of training was literally to exactly copy the works of the masters - until you slowly started to develop your own style and ideas.

If you want to be an artist or a game designer, get taught properly, or you will very likely become a crap one.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

You will find very few great artists in history who did not receive serious formal training and/or an apprenticeship. And in the days of the great painters, the standard method of training was literally to exactly copy the works of the masters - until you slowly started to develop your own style and ideas.

If you want to be an artist or a game designer, get taught properly, or you will very likely become a crap one.

To a point, teaching cannot replace raw natural talent and only so much of it can rub off on the student. My mother wanted so hard to make me a piano player as a kid, but in spite of years of lessons I could never rise above mediocrity.

 

[Ripper]

That's a slightly different point. I'm not saying that getting the training WILL make you a great artist or designer. I'm saying that most great artists don't become great artists without going through proper training first.

Rejecting the people who teach you as hacks and storming off to create great works of genius is something you do AFTER the teaching.

 

[DArtagnan]

IMO a game designer -especially a RPG designer- who has never played Daggerfall is like a writer who has never read Shakespeare. Daggerfall perhaps is not a very good game to play but is a treasure of innovative design ideas - all put inharmoniously, true …
And, about "Game Design Courses". Game design has two sides. Technical side can be learned, but creative side can not. Carlyle said "The greatest university of all is a collection of books." Well: the best game (creative) design course is a collection of games (and books, too.)

You need to distinguish between the first time you, personally, saw something in a game - and an actual original idea

Daggerfall had a bold vision - but the execution was really poor - as you say.

The concept of a seed generated world had been seen many times before, and Frontier is probably a good example.

Dungeons generated from bits and pieces is the core pillar of rogue-likes - which predates Daggerfall quite significantly.

As for almost all the rest of the game, you can check out Legends of Valour - which was a game from 4 years earlier - with a similarly ambitious scope. Not quite as bold - and not quite as flawed.

Of course, all those games have drawn inspiration from somewhere else, which is really my point.

Being nostalgic about a game you played that was the first of its kind TO YOUR MIND - is not the same as the game actually innovating.

That's kinda what I meant by hype working in reverse, and people get confused because of nostalgia.

That's not to say Daggerfall didn't have amazing aspects - it certainly did - but it was basically a completely broken game with a lot of ideas taken from other games.

This whole concept of "youth" missing out and being part of history as a requisite for understanding is a joke.

Every great idea can be traced back thousands of years - which means none of us would have the experience required for "true" enlightenment.

No, that's not what it takes to understand.

Really, all you need to understand is interest, focus and a capacity for rational thinking. Oh, and the ability to set aside ego and agenda in an effort to see things for what they really are. Which is why understanding is extremely rare in human beings

This whole thing seems to be about people wanting games to be like they were in the mid-90s - when their personal interest in gaming peaked.

But "real" game design isn't about any set period in time. It's dynamic and it can change according to the audience. The casual audience has as much of a right to what THEY want - as people who played games in the 80s and 90s has a right to what they want.

Thankfully, there's a ton of Kickstarter and indie projects that seem determined to provide "old-school" fans with exactly the kind of stuck-in-time throwbacks that so many of them seem to want.

Personally, I want true evolution, which is what's truly rare - and I prefer to let the past be the past.