Sigh, why could I expect this man to say this?

Really, he should form a league of righteousness with Jack Thompson and that moron Cliffy B.

Is he fucking serious???

Not buying but my brother is getting it from Gamefly at some point(yes, he reactivated his account)

I think Malstrom's comments on Dennis Dyack are coinfirmed for me by this article:

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/thirst-for-prestige-shows-an-over-riped-industry/

(scroll down until you see a picture of Dyack with two women)

Fable 2 and Gears of War 2 will be great.

Infinitate Unidscovery is still questionable but I'm looking forward to it.

One of the most innovative games on 360?? There aint much innovation in 360 games anyways so yeah, he is right.

You dont need to innovate to make an brilliant game. Just make the game fun and engaging aaand thats where TH fails. Did GeoW innovate? NO but it was still the best game of the year. Innovation does not equal great product. Just look at the wii

Innovation seems to be a real industry buzz word these days. It gets thrown around far too easily and often when there really isn't a case for it.

Dennis Dyack certainly like to talk a lot. Maybe he should let his game speak for itself. He is making things worse with his stupid comments.

That is probably what he is afraid of.  It is sitting at 68 and 69 on MetaCritic and GameRankings respectively, which is not awful, but it is not good either.

  mariozeldametroid said:
I think Malstrom's comments on Dennis Dyack are coinfirmed for me by this article:

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/thirst-for-prestige-shows-an-over-riped-industry/

(scroll down until you see a picture of Dyack with two women)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a really good read.  Below is the part about Dyack and his conclusion which is very good:

And last is Denis Dyack. Where does one begin with this character?

In the book industry, there are ‘tons’ of writers out there who all believe they are ‘great artists’ because they have a book published… even though they still can’t quit their day job. (This is why writers like Stephen King among others say true writing talent is being able to make money with writing and pay your light bill). I have encountered numerous first novel writers who follow this bizarre formula:

-First, the writer finds a mythology that hasn’t been mentioned much with his or her genre of fiction. Say African Mythology.
-The novel itself will be mediocre. However, it is infused with this ‘African Mythology’.
-The writer runs around saying how brilliant the work is because it has ‘African Mythology’.
-Book is not well recieved.
-Writer blames the readers. Calls them ’stupid’ and that ‘they didn’t get it’.

This writer is almost always a shortish fattish balding male with a goatee. When I saw a picture of Dyack and him going on and on about Norse mythology, I said to myself, “How did he wander into this industry? He is supposed to be the typical failing writer!”

There is something I call the “Richard II” Disease. In Shakespeare’s play “Richard II”, King Richard II loves poetry and can’t stop quoting it and giving every speaking encounter an occassion to sprinkle airy charms. Richard might love poetry but poetry overpowers him. Instead of him understanding it or controlling it, he submits himself to it. This makes him into a ‘weak king’, and he is overthrown. (This is also the way of things with men being so enchanted [overpowered] with a woman that the woman percieves the man to really be weak.)

A person with a ‘Richard II’ disease is someone who is overwhelmed with the poetry and cannot control its power. In the examples with the first time writers, they found their new mythology so exciting and fun to ‘immerse’ themselves in, they forgot they were writing a book for readers. What is fun for the writer does not always translate to being fun to the reader. So while they were ‘in awe’ of their mythology, the reader sees a pitiful book. Hence, accusations flare that the reader is ’stupid’ and ‘doesn’t get it’. The writer thought his work was fun and cool because he FELT it was fun and cool himself. One’s own feelings don’t always translate to the reader’s feelings.

Super Mario Brothers is really about ‘Alice in Wonderland’. But Miyamoto was not overwhelmed by ‘Alice’. Most people have no clue the huge influence that ‘Alice in Wonderland’ had on Super Mario Brothers for they see the end product itself, the game. Final Fantasy has many intertwined mythologies in them. But the designers were not overwhelmed by the mythology itself. God of War has mythology in it, but Jaffe wasn’t overwhelmed by the mythology. Many would say that Jaffe ‘broke’ the mythology. In a similar way, Super Mario Brothers is a shattered Alice in Wonderland. But does that matter? These are games. They are software that is to be boxed up and put on a store shelf.

But Dyack does not see his game as being a product boxed up and put on a store shelf. While he mentions many various books, economists, and philosophers, it appears he is overwhelmed by them. So much so that they have interfered with the game itself.

How does a designer like Dyack, or a new writer, make this mistake? The hard, tough lesson for the new writer is that he or she begins the novel thinking that it is the greatest thing ever written. It will make them famous, it will be cited everywhere, people will recognize them when they go to the bathroom, that sort of thing. Part of the reason new writers think this way is because they have invested so much time and emotion into their book. It is their baby. Of COURSE it is wonderful! Someone criticing their book is like someone criticizing their baby. They become product orientated. They might say, “But look at the new features this book has! It is writing in a way that has never been done before!” But the experienced writer is more customer orientated. They don’t see the end result being the book or the feelings they have to the book. They know it depends on the customers, that they define the quality of the book.

The problem is not that these developers are talentless. They do have talent. Nintendo would not have worked with Silicon Knights if they thought they didn’t have some sort of promise. Miyamoto would not have gone to the Too Human booth at E3 to check out the game if he felt it had no promise. The game community would not have noticed ‘Eternity Child’ if Bernard was not good at making interesting illustrations. And ‘Soul Bubbles’ would not have been noticed by the hardcore unless there was a solid game inside.

The problem with these developers is that they did not appear interested in making customers and, hence, make money with their games. They appeared more interested in ‘prestige’, to be known as ‘artists’, as expanding gaming ‘culture’, or whatever else. When someone is interested in becoming famous, or making ‘revolutionary art’ that will create fame, they become ‘product orientated’. They focus entirely on making the ‘best’ product possible. They focus on the quality of the product.

“But Malstrom, what is wrong with that?”

The problem is that THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT DEFINE THE QUALITY OF THE GAME. Customers define the quality. When the game fails, the developer asks customers to look at the game through HIS eyes. Can’t you see the problem here? What the developer should have done was look at the game through the customer’s eyes.

“But they did this, Malstrom! They added hint boxes, they did other things too like tutorials, and…”

No! I think they might have looked through the customers’ eyes and realized they would have to totally redo parts of their game. Since they have already made their original vision, they fall in love with what their hands and minds created, it is their baby, and the baby is already beautiful. Pleasing the customer means more work to the developer. Customers don’t want ‘culture’ and ‘great art’. They want a fun game. By fun, I mean fun ALL THE WAY. When there is a part of the game that isn’t fun, from a tutorial to a segment of the game that gets boring, it isn’t fun because the developer didn’t do his/her job there.

Bad games don’t appear solely because of lack of time or talent. Often, bad games appear because the developer was more interested in having the fun instead of the player. Making the game fun for the player instead of the developer means the developer doing things he or she would rather not want to do! The three developers mentioned above appear more interested in them having fun instead of the gamer. They mistook the notion that if THEY were having fun, then so would the gamer. It doesn’t work like that.

The game industry attracts MANY young men and all believe they are the next great game designer. (”I am so creative!!! I have SO MANY IDEAS!!!” Bah.) I think the above developers should be a sign to the up and coming ones that your job is not to create games. Your job is to please customers. Don’t be product orientated. Be customer orientated. Don’t be afraid to destroy your game, or parts of it, if customers won’t like it. With how many games are bloated these days, don’t be afraid to prune off the poor parts. “But we are pruning, Mr. Malstrom! We ARE thinking about the customers.”

You will know when you are customer orientated when you are gutting parts of the game you think and believe are ‘good’ because customers get bored or get stumped by such content. What customers find good and bad will always surprise the creator. Always.