By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Hilarious video : Yoshida falls asleep listening to David Cage

richardhutnik on 24 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
CGI-Quality said:

For a guy merely "being sarcastic", you sure got awfully defensive here. Not looking to taunt you on it, because I generally respect our other debates. Even in this case, your opinion is absolutely fine, always has been. You just comment about it enough (and with similar content each time) for me to believe it is significant enough for you. If I'm wrong, though, I can accept that.

Now as for "Videogame makers need to stop trying to tell stories", this is where I will always strongly disagree. I'm looking at the likes of The Last Of Us, Heavy Rain, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Bioshock, and Metal Gear Solid for recent references that the industry is far from going under based on heavily storydriven titles. 

Many in the industry seem to think these titles are worthwhile and will only continue to make them. Why............. well, there is a market for the FPS, a market for the RPG, a market for Mario, Halo, and GT, etc, etc. No issue in having storydriven games join in, they work.

This being said, game designers can build captivating worlds that are engaging, but to try to end up telling a story, isn't working towards strengths of the game medium.  Not to say it can't be done, but is an exception with very few people off to do it.  And I say this as Ken Levine is off to work on a movie.

*shrunk your post - way too long for quoting*

I wasn't upset at all - just seemed like you were doing what you've done before. You should know by now that I call you out on that every time. I also wasn't the only one who thought you were being serious, either. But then, using terms like "wannabe filmaker" while claiming to be sarcastic still makes me think, based on how defensive you got, that I was spot on initially. :P

Anyway, and more importantly, Story - I see you misunderstood what I was saying about storydriven games vs whatever else is offered in the industry. For example, I didn't mention Mario and GT in regards to a story, I said if they have a place here, then so do storydriven games. Why - because they work. They're successful. You don't seem to be much into them, which is fine, but you speak like these are games that generally fail (or will make the market crash) and the industry just can't wait to see them cease. Not even close to the case. No link/source/opposing view is ctushing that theory, right now. The Last Of Us didn't just succeed because Naughty Dog's name was imprinted on it. If the story was bad, it wouldn't have been what it was - (most reviews give speeches about its story). 

There's a place here for the experiences. Many gamemakers are "competent" storytellers, or their games wouldn't be compared with Hollywood much of the time (and even if they weren't, these guys have the "necessary ability, knowledge, and skill" to tell great stories, obviously). I'm not saying you have to embrace them, but you may as well get used to them. Cage, Kojima, Naughty Dog, etc, etc and their types of games aren't going anywhere. And there are, and will be,m plenty of genres/sub genres that won't try to mimmick the ways of these people.

Anything that is driven by a game will undermine the ability of players to act.  If the one driving things (storytelling, etc...) is competent, it can work well.  However, when it isn't, it is pretty bad actually.  The thing is that ic an work well.  But often times, it will miss the mark, and you get people very irate over things that don't involve actual gameplay.  What happened with the likes of Mass Effect 3 is a prime example of this.  People were irate because Bioware apparently dropped the ball with the ending.

As I said, the issues are there isn't enough people working in the industry to pull it off sufficiently, the medium is harder than any other medium to do stories competently in, and the costs to get it to a place to where it ends up being on par with movies for immersion causes it to cost like a movie.  The problem here is the business model for games is not the same as movies.  You can't expect them to put out games like Enslaved and sell them for $60 a pop, no matter how good the story and acting is, and expect the studio to not lose money.  And you can't do this when you don't have box office to be able to offset costs.  Heck, games don't even have the ability to get distribution through cable or TV either.

Look at where the videogame industry is, and why the are sucking up to Indies now.   You have it being said the industry can only afford to do 10 AAA titles a year.   And you are now seeing a push toward open world.  Idea now is to create a platform to create content and let players end up exploring it and doing this, and sell them more and more content.  This way, you can create a situation where players can put up with many NPCs getting arrows to the knee.  I assure you, a movie with a lot of supporting cast talking about getting arrows to the knee would end up causing the movie to be panned.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 24 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:
richardhutnik said:

Anything that is driven by a game will undermine the ability of players to act.  If the one driving things (storytelling, etc...) is competent, it can work well.  However, when it isn't, it is pretty bad actually.  The thing is that ic an work well.  But often times, it will miss the mark, and you get people very irate over things that don't involve actual gameplay.  What happened with the likes of Mass Effect 3 is a prime example of this.  People were irate because Bioware apparently dropped the ball with the ending.

//Some people disliking the ending has little to do with the capability of storytelling.  You could write the best story ever, and I might still be pissed due to the fact that I personally didn't like it.  Games don't have to driven, the only reason they are today is because of limitations to hardware and to money.  But as hardware improves, we'll be able to put more effort into making it cheaper.  I'd suspect that at some point, we might be able to instead of creating a story and everything else, we could just create characters and the world, then have the characters make the story.  (Assuming Strong AI is achieved of course.)

As I said, the issues are there isn't enough people working in the industry to pull it off sufficiently, the medium is harder than any other medium to do stories competently in, and the costs to get it to a place to where it ends up being on par with movies for immersion causes it to cost like a movie.  The problem here is the business model for games is not the same as movies.  You can't expect them to put out games like Enslaved and sell them for $60 a pop, no matter how good the story and acting is, and expect the studio to not lose money.  And you can't do this when you don't have box office to be able to offset costs.  Heck, games don't even have the ability to get distribution through cable or TV either.

//In a way the medium is easier than any other medium to tell a story, because there doesn't need to be much of a story to tell.  Look at Mario, it has this story of a princess being kidnapped and a plumber has to save her.  Video games can get away with simpler story telling because there is more in a game.  There are more redeemable properties in a game.  Movies and shows don't have to cost a lot.  Just because there are $200 million movies doesn't mean that's the way all movies are.  There are a few very small budget movies.  

Look at where the videogame industry is, and why the are sucking up to Indies now.   You have it being said the industry can only afford to do 10 AAA titles a year.   And you are now seeing a push toward open world.  Idea now is to create a platform to create content and let players end up exploring it and doing this, and sell them more and more content.  This way, you can create a situation where players can put up with many NPCs getting arrows to the knee.  I assure you, a movie with a lot of supporting cast talking about getting arrows to the knee would end up causing the movie to be panned.

//  That's not why they are sucking up to Indies now.  They are doing it, because they are able to.  Just look at the app store,hundreds of thousands of apps that can be made cheaply and sold for small amounts.  They now have a huge network to allow downloads. Indie has nothing to do with cost, you can have expensive and cheap games.  A movie about that would be panned, but at the same time, a 400+ hour movie like that would also be panned and incredibly boring.  Skyrim was never intended to be a story driven experience.  If it was, it would've worked harder on pushing players to make decisions.  I could put a ton of time into Skyrim without even doing any quests.

Read above points.

A game with a story is possible, in fact video games can allow a story that movies and books could only dream of having.  Interactivity means that instead of a character discovering something, it means I discover something.  It means that the connection between a great video game character could be better than any movie, because I'm able to spend more time with them and the interactivity can mean something.  

Read the WIll Wright article I posted.  Players create their own stories in games, and games have potential to generate stories.  This is what I was talking about here.

I would have to ask you this here: Does the holodeck in Star Trek Next Generation put participants in stories they play out, or does it put into a game world where the players create their own stories?  I could argue here also, that a game world can have a timeline that players interact with, but the best games don't have pre-canned stories, but give players potential to create their own.  Even a good RPG would be like this, at least if you consider pen and paper variety it isn't.  When players look back, they will see a story they created, BUT the story didn't come to be until they did it.  

I also write this here say this is the proper way, becaus to try to fight against this is lead to the budget issues games have today at this point.  Feeling a need to spell out all the game flow and narrative angles, and doing that with replayability means producing content players very likely will never see at all.  And tons of lines never heard, and so on.  And then you have something players play through once and trade in.  Industry loses money on it, and then wants to end rentals because of this.

As for it getting cheaper, it isn't going to get cheaper, because what you are working on ends up being very labor intensive due to being handcrafted.  It won't get cheaper, because actors will need to get paid, and handplacing everything in the world, and coming up with precanned missions, is going to be costly, likely more costly than other ways, and run into cost disease factors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease

Overall, look for, when it is all said and done, players paying over $100 for a game, with the additional DLC added that people pay for.

Note, what I speak of here is crafted levels, and gameflow and so on.  I am NOT talking about building dynamic worls players interact with.  Dyanmic worlds are environments people interact with and create their own stories.  It is not a game that is driven by a story.  Open world games with dynamic missions would fit into this also.



mjk45 on 24 August 2013
RenCutypoison said:
pezus said:

Do you have a link that says they were 100 back in 2005? I could almost believe it today, in 2013, but not in 2005.


Well, English wiki says 180 employees and the french wiki a 100. Unless they heavily fired people, or it's total bullshit (possible), and as you can't integrate 80 employees in a small time, they most likely already had 70-120 employees in the 2005-2010 period.

and there : "The studio has changed a lot after the success of Heavy Rain. We are now at around 180 people. We were at 110 maximum [for Heavy Rain]."

source : http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/david-cage-is-feeling-ambitious-for-next-quantic-dream-game-11621

 The thing is they had a maximum of 110 for heavy rain note the word maximum because the model of having a mostly permanent workforce on a yearly payroll has declined since teams went from as few as 3 -5 people , to the hundreds , gee  I remember a 20 man team being seen as large.

Today you tend to have have a core team with contractors coming in as needed usually at peak times or to do specific things , so  using empoyment figures today to work out a company's bottom line is very hard since you can't just multiply employee numbers by a wage figure pulled from no where and times that by a set number of years  and say that's the cost of production as if wages are the only factor (something I have seen done many times  but not by you here ),the same goes for integration of extra employees they are most likely  being employed on a needs basis .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

richardhutnik on 24 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:
richardhutnik said:

//I like games, because there is a wide variety of possibilities, games without stories, games with open stories, and games with closed stories.  I don't seem to have a preference at this point.  Though that'll change once some things become more possible.  

//I haven't seen Star Trek, but I get your point.  Can't say I agree though.  Some of the best games (imo) do have pre-canned stories.  Pre-canned stories mean the developer can tell me a story.  They can tell me about their experiences.  I think many of the best stories in books were ones that the writer had a heart in.  Meaning it was inspired.  Where we are currently, we can't really have the player make very inspiring stories.  The Last of Us has my favorite character from anything ever.  Ellie feels real to me, yet I don't think (right now at least) that a nonpre-canned story could've given me a character half as delightful as Ellie was.  

//Games shouldn't have budget issues, that would be a publisher's fault.  GTA V can afford to cost more than 100 million dollars, because it has been successful.  No one but the publisher (or perhaps the developer is making the publisher) is causing games to become expensive.  My point with Skyrim was not to force a specific decision. It was to force any decision.  Playing Skyrim, there is no flow.  No reason I have to take part in any of the game's quest. I could just buy a house and farm for as long as I want.  I don't have to partake in the story in any capacity whatsoever.  It doesn't make me.  

// I brought up Strong AI for a reason, it is very different from weak AI.  We'll create new technologies to allow costs to stay relatively the same while game worlds become much larger, much more immersive.  What Strong AI is, is essentially actual intelligence, albeit still artificial.  Rather than having actors, we create characters with profiles, with no actors theoretically needed.  I actually have a compound idea about an application for replacing an actor.  With strong AI, precanned missions won't be necessary.  The computer will make and remember missions as the game progresses. Though still, I doubt Strong AI will even be possible in my lifetime.  

//The video game market is massive and growing, MS thinks that eventually 1 billion video game systems could be sold.  Not everyone that buys a system will want the same type of experience.  As the market expands, so will the number and variety of games expand as well.  

So as time goes on, not only will we have the technology but also the market to make a large variety of games.  

Because it would get too confusing, I had to chop out what I wrote and get to what you wrote.  I do want to take the points one at a time:

* A wide variety of games is possible, IF you keep dev costs down, and are able to target new niches.  When doing this, you have the chance of something unexpected all of a sudden becoming a phenomenon.  So long as the videogame industry follows the AAA model, and has HUGE teams and decides it wants to emulate movies, you are less likely to get the wide variety you want.  What you will get is a narrow band of titles copying top sellers. 

Also, sales are down.  The industry is hoping for a tech refresh to fix everything: http://bgr.com/2013/06/18/video-game-sales-may-2013/

* In regards to the said best games having a force narrative and flow, I can see someone arguing that.  However, what I will also argue is that those are too few in number to have the entire industry focus on it.  Also, the industry is now going open world, because they can justify selling DLC.  Too many games like Enslaved, which did push a narrative, and got praised for it, ended up not being viable (Spec Ops: The Line also fits here).  So now, you are seeing more and more Skyrim type games.  You also have Alan Wake as another example, and a sequel not being done, because it didn't return sufficient profitability.  And that was an excellent game.  But, it just isn't sustainable.  X hours of gameplay, without sufficient replayability leads to adding multiplayer to avoid filling the used game bin.  Guys working in the videogame industry want to kill of used game sales so they can work on single player heavy story driven narratives and feel like storytellers, and be able to sell their stuff at $60 a pop, having ALL stuff sold once.  But, as seen with the XBOX ONE protests, the market revolted.

* Strong AI doesn't provide the emotional impact using humans to do the voice acting does, and drive the narrative.  That isn't about having reactive AI that acts human, and can provide dynamic worlds.  What it is about is having human actors be able to add emotional impact to telling a story, like you have in movies.  When you end up having story driven games, you push for the movie-like experience.  Sand box and open world is a different animal completely.  With the story driven side, you end up scripting about everything.  It is a different animal.

* And I did speak on the sales numbers above.  The industry is HOPING that a tech refresh will be the boom it needs.  However, if the Wii crowd is what drove sales last time, they are now playing 99 cent apps on their smart devices and isn't going to be showing up.  The industry could be in for a rude awakening.  And sales are down, a bunch.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-17



richardhutnik on 25 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:

1.)  While we are to some extent seeing a lot of that right now.  I think it'll broaden out as we go on.  Especially in the first few years, new IPs will be made.  See Knack, there aren't many PS3/Xbox 360 games like that.  Just because AAA gaming is so huge right now, does not mean that we aren't still going to have indie games and 'A' and 'AA' games.  Atlus for example is a very niche studio, their best selling game hasn't even sold 2 million.  Their second best selling game hasn't even sold 1 million.  They are getting along just fine though.  As downloads start to become larger on the new systems, we should see more niche titles.  The reason being is it's easier to publish a title, they'll be able to get away with selling smaller titles.  The Vita's problem is that there are very few AAA games, the smaller games are great, but they aren't usually the reason to buy a system.  

2.)  Of course sales are down, there is not much reason to buy much right now.  Most people that want consoles already have consoles, and the ones that don't are still waiting for the price to go down.  It seems to me that there is a lot of interest in moving onto PS4 and Xbox One.  1 million preorders for PS4, 3 months from launch and at 400$.  That's crazy.  

3.)  A company isn't entitled to exist, plenty of the best games are being made without gigantic budgets.  Uncharted 2 had a budget of $20 million, and it only needed to sell 1 million copies to make a profit.  On the other side we have Grand Theft Auto V which might have costed $137 million.  Despite this huge difference, both of these games will probably make a huge profit.  In GTAV's case, gigantic profits.   Isn't that what capitalism is all about?  Taking a risk to be able make money.  Making a niche title is a risk.  Making a AAA title that plays like CoD is still a risk.  Even though it doesn't seem like it, it still is a risk.

4.) You really don't think they'll be able to synthesize the human voice in a convincing manner by the time Strong AI is possible?  Story driven games do not have to be movie-like.  Most of that idealism has come from this gen I'd argue.  More games today are trying to become showcases.  

5.)  Based on Xbox 360 and PS3 sales, 150 million+, there is still going to be a huge market.   I don't think that the industry will be in for a rude awakening, rather a moderate sized paradigm shift.  

Let me reply to the points below here, in this section, because trying to embed them in the above will be an issue.

1. The new stuff you see is likely to be on the smaller indie side, with lower production costs involved, and experimental.  There will be some top of the line stuff, but the bigger the budget, the less risks a title will take.  What I believe you will see is open world, trying to throw as much as possible in there, pitched to investors as the next big thing.

2. The issue with sales down, is if the sales are being syphoned off to 99 cent apps on smart devices, the industry is seriously concerned.  This looks like one thing that is happening actually.  In short, the money won't be there.

3. Sure studios don't need to exist, but if you have most dying off, and people always on edge, they will end up leaving.  And you will have less studios putting out content.  Seen as not a growth area, new talent will go elsewhere.  You then face a weaker version of what happened in the early 1980s.

4. If you start seeing synthesized voices and said smart AI, you are then going to see the movie indusrty not using voice actors.  Unless you are speculating there will be a sudden boom in games where players interact with robots as NPCs, who are that.  You will see technology first in movies, because they currently can afford that.  And expect to see dead actors still being around in film as their estates peddle their images and identity.  This still hasn't happened yet.  What is today is glorified motion capture.

5.  And I won't disagree there isn't going to be a shift.  Just no one is sure what that shift is.  There will be new business models.  But you are seeing a flood of free to play.  That is likely a future possibility, as would be Playstation Plus/Netflix where you subscribe to content and not own it. 

In all this, costs will need to be kept down.  Trying to emulate Hollywood isn't going to work well, and people are going to have to figure out how to more competently try to use game medium in ways that it is meant to be, or for storytelling, which is is weaker at.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 25 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:

In all this, costs will need to be kept down.  Trying to emulate Hollywood isn't going to work well, and people are going to have to figure out how to more competently try to use game medium in ways that it is meant to be, or for storytelling, which is is weaker at.

Gamemakers have been emulating Hollywood these last few years, and with great results. I'm not sure why you continue to say it "isn't going to work well" when it already is.

The makers of Enslaved and Spec Ops: The Line would beg to differ with you here.  Also, you need to seriously look at the industry as a whole, and financial bloodshed happening.  It is not sustainable for most developers to do this.  And the numbers bear it out.  I have posted a number of articles showing it isn't sustainable.  It is your jobs to show otherwise now.

But hey, I will give on one more, and curious to see where you see GREAT results in this:

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/101793/Massive-Decline-in-May-Video-Game-Sales

Our Take

We expect video game sales to remain sluggish over the next few months. Although we believe that the ongoing transition from the physical to the digital platform will ultimately benefit the video game industry (due to the cost effectiveness), lower priced digital games have failed to offset the rapid decline in higher-priced retail sales in recent times.

Moreover, declining software sales remain a concern. We believe that the rapid adoption of free-to-play games will continue to cannibalize retail software sales in 2013. Further, the highly fragmented video game market will continue to witness increased competitive pressures, which will hurt overall profitability.

However, we believe that the highly anticipated launch of new hardware consoles from Microsoft and Sony will boost the sagging video game retail sales market by the end of 2013.



richardhutnik on 25 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:

In all this, costs will need to be kept down.  Trying to emulate Hollywood isn't going to work well, and people are going to have to figure out how to more competently try to use game medium in ways that it is meant to be, or for storytelling, which is is weaker at.

Gamemakers have been emulating Hollywood these last few years, and with great results. I'm not sure why you continue to say it "isn't going to work well" when it already is.

The makers of Enslaved and Spec Ops: The Line would beg to differ with you here.  Also, you need to seriously look at the industry as a whole, and financial bloodshed happening.  It is not sustainable for most developers to do this.  And the numbers bear it out.  I have posted a number of articles showing it isn't sustainable.  It is your jobs to show otherwise now.

The makers of those games are two out of a bunch that have been successful (though I didn't get a feel that either of those were trying to emulate Hollywood). I also didn't say EVERY developer shooting for this was successful. But the industry, as a whole, it isn't falling because of these types of games. It just isn't. They don't even make up 30% of the stuff released. Never mind the fact that we just had one of the most successful generations since its inception, and one of those franchises trying to be like movies is to thank. 

Now as for your articles, they are mainly using wishful thinking and opinion. When done right (Heavy Rain, Uncharted, The Last Of Us, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, etc....), games aiming to be more like movies do just fine. There's your proof. When they are the sole reason for a collapse, indisputably, then get back to me. With the amount of variety there is, this industry isn't going anywhere anytime soon, neither are these types of games, no matter how much you tell yourself otherwsie or try to listen to articles written by people who mimic your stance.

Go back and reread the post I did.  You are looking at forecasts of free to play to end up canabalizing things also.  You saw Nintendo express concerns over the portable arena.  

The industry is failing by having dev costs too high and not selling sufficiently.  That is why it will sell.  You end up having the likes of the Old Republic decide to throw tons of money into doing what it did, giving ALL the NPCs voice actors, and go way over the top, and then be reduced to being free to play.  EA's latest round of games didn't turn the corner either, and you had them have their head let go.

The thing is you think being MORE like Hollywood, when you don't have the same business model, is a sane thing to do.  I am telling you, as I said before, it is not.  And I believe I saw you write in the past that like 8-10 hours of gameplay at $60 a pop, is a steal.  You do realize that will get a game in the used games bin, right?  And then the games get recycled among players, and studios don't get money from it, and it is akin to piracy for them.  Your approach to push for story driven games that then end, and are done, isn't working.  Call of Duty ends up doing ok enough, but that is driven by multiplayer.  Sony can get away with pushing some, but the likes of Uncharted ended up even having to add multiplayer.  But multiplayer didn't even save Spec Ops: The Line.  And don't give me that the game sucked, which is why it bombed.  No, because it didn't have a sufficient enough hook to get people to buy it, and no amount of quality would save it.  People also lamented Enslaved also.

You want me to add Square Enix into the mix also?  Well, here you go:

http://gamerant.com/square-enix-tomb-raider-sales-loss/

 

Apparently Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, and also Hitman didn't make a profit.  So much for you and your theory here on how that approach works "swimmingly".  And please do go on how all those titles suck, which is why they didn't do it.  IF ONLY they were more like movies, they would of done better, right?



richardhutnik on 25 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
CGI-Quality said:

Gamemakers have been emulating Hollywood these last few years, and with great results. I'm not sure why you continue to say it "isn't going to work well" when it already is.

The makers of Enslaved and Spec Ops: The Line would beg to differ with you here.  Also, you need to seriously look at the industry as a whole, and financial bloodshed happening.  It is not sustainable for most developers to do this.  And the numbers bear it out.  I have posted a number of articles showing it isn't sustainable.  It is your jobs to show otherwise now.

The makers of those games are two out of a bunch that have been successful (though I didn't get a feel that either of those were trying to emulate Hollywood). I also didn't say EVERY developer shooting for this was successful. But the industry, as a whole, it isn't falling because of these types of games. It just isn't. They don't even make up 30% of the stuff released. Never mind the fact that we just had one of the most successful generations since its inception, and one of those franchises trying to be like movies is to thank. 

Now as for your articles, they are mainly using wishful thinking and opinion. When done right (Heavy Rain, Uncharted, The Last Of Us, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, etc....), games aiming to be more like movies do just fine. There's your proof. When they are the sole reason for a collapse, indisputably, then get back to me. With the amount of variety there is, this industry isn't going anywhere anytime soon, neither are these types of games, no matter how much you tell yourself otherwsie or try to listen to articles written by people who mimic your stance.

Edit: I'll humor you, an article that says much of what I'm saying, while balancing the viewpoints of both of us. After this, it's best to drop it now. You have your view and I have mine (among the fact that we are now completely off-topic). Articles won't change either side, and as long as successes continue to be released, that favor my views, I'll continue to believe what I do and buy these experiences.

I see the article is about Bioshock: Infinite.  And I could give that to someone as being a really good story driven game.  I happened to really want to like the world and the game, and I really enjoyed the original Bioshock.  Well, what killed me on Infinite was the motion sickeness it generated with me, so I couldn't be able to play it.  Of all the things, that did it it.

And note also, I do love the Uncharted series also.  



badgenome on 19 September 2013



badgenome on 19 September 2013
pezus said:

Lol. Was this at TGS?

Yeah, I think so. He just tweeted it this morning.