A Dismantling of the Entertainment Industry

[Skrying]

I work as a graphics designer and have pride in what I do. I realize there are many things that could be done better but have to be cut back due to time constraints/budget. If a big enough company could alleviate those constraints and liberate developers to their true Vision of what their "game" could be, I would be all to happy to pay double for a truly inspired piece of art instead of the shovelware flooding the marketplace today.

WRT content library - you don't get it. High resolution content which is downsampled for current use but still viable over the next ten years for everything from cities to people to cars to every little detail within said cities. Having this library available for all involved will alleviate the majority of this content creation from these budgets. In games that aren't realistic or based in fantasy land, these libraries would be useless. But generating their own high resolution libraries of these fantasy environments would also be useful for their own and potentially other franchises. This is hardly done to this extent today and would be a huge budget/time saver for our industry. And yes I've heard of speedtree, they suck.

Magically throwing in more money will not make a better product. Even throwing in more time wont. What you say would only happen if the best of the best was working on that product. This is what I expect, and it even happens sometimes, but I would not pay double for it, and I'll tell you that your opinion is in the very very small margin, and it would takes millions upon millions of sells to justify something.

As for the library, they're already out there. They're already used, game art assets get recycled all the time. Also, would you like to see the same exact car in 5 different games? Give me a break, you wouldnt, especially since you're the same person looking for more orginal games already.

Middlware can only solve so many issues, and it would back fire in many areas. No one wants to see the same textures recycled over and over.

 

[TheChefO]

Magically throwing in more money will not make a better product. Even throwing in more time wont. What you say would only happen if the best of the best was working on that product. This is what I expect, and it even happens sometimes, but I would not pay double for it, and I'll tell you that your opinion is in the very very small margin, and it would takes millions upon millions of sells to justify something.

As for the library, they're already out there. They're already used, game art assets get recycled all the time. Also, would you like to see the same exact car in 5 different games? Give me a break, you wouldnt, especially since you're the same person looking for more orginal games already.

Middlware can only solve so many issues, and it would back fire in many areas. No one wants to see the same textures recycled over and over.

agreed more money != better product

Like I said, for those who take pride in their work and know there are things that could be done beter and have the vision to execute these ideas, I say "c'mon MS let em do they're thing!".

WRT expensive games, SF2 turbo was $70 on snes. It sold through the roof. Give people a reason to be inspired and they will happily fork over more money for a premium experience over the ho-hum.

Recycling crap gives you what exactly?

Modeling objects of our current day world to the level I'm speaking you would not care if the same Mercury Cougar was in 5 or 500 different games because it's not about the car. This car would be modeled to the exact spec as it is in reality, never needed to be modeled again because there would be no point to. You take this high resolution model and you squeeze it down to the necessary detail for your specific machine/use. But the model itself is DONE forever. So how many times do you drive down the road and say "damn another Mercury Cougar? I just saw one of those yesterday!".

Get me?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are exceptions to this rule and of course not all games are going for realism/psuedo realism. But the ones which are, need to be pushed over the edge to captivate in all aspects and not be trimmed here or there. How we get to that point I don't know. Do we ask for $100million budgets and hence ~$100 games or are there workarounds through in game ads or is episodic gaming needed to deliver this level of interaction. I don't know how we get there. But myself, as a long time gamer would happily pay $100 for a truly great experience from top to bottom rather than be stuck with the same "oh it's great, but if they would have only done x" $50-60 games.

The problems you cite aren't going to be solved by more money. It's about better producers. eg. There are expensive movies out there that are very poor, and there are cheap movies exceptionally well done. It's all about talent, and you don't buy that, short of hiring known names with experience who know what they're doing, like voice actors.

Modeling objects of our current day world to the level I'm speaking you would not care if the same Mercury Cougar was in 5 or 500 different games because it's not about the car. This car would be modeled to the exact spec as it is in reality, never needed to be modeled again because there would be no point to. You take this high resolution model and you squeeze it down to the necessary detail for your specific machine/use. But the model itself is DONE forever. So how many times do you drive down the road and say "damn another Mercury Cougar? I just saw one of those yesterday!".

I agree this is a great idea, but I dont know that the tools have been there. They might be now, but you can't AFAIK readily take a 5,000,000 poly car model and press a button to get a 50,000 poly game model. And also the cost of producing it at that quality is a massive investment. You're talking creating 10x the detail with maybe 10x the cost for features that aren't going to be seen until a few generations down the line.Now the Collada project has talked of sharing resources with movies, which would make sense. Those models created there could be recycled to produce game models. Consider the 'Hollow Man' human model. That's an ultra detailed model created for only one film. It'd make sense of those assets could be reused, scaled down as needed. If all cinema quality models could be processed and recycled, there'd be lots of 'cheap' models. But, the actual usefulness will be limited. Take the idea outside of realistic racers and WWII shooters and how many games recycle content? Games should have their own art direction, one of the quality features you're after to make games excel, prohibiting asset reuse. What would Colossus be like if the monsters were taken out of Hollywood monster flicks, Godzilla and King Kong, because they went with recycling assets instead of creating their own from the ground up?! Even something as generic as a horse can be very different based on style. Obviously a perfect fidelity model of Nurbergring can be used scaled down for every circuit racer for the next three generations successfully, but the glut of games, anything with fantasy or scifi, is going to need it's own style if it's not to be a generic game lacking in identity. I can see basic models like people having libraries (and they already do, in Poser for example) but most other things, even medieval buildings, are probably going to need to be designed specifically for an individual game, and recycling can't be more than for sequels.

 

[TheChefO]

The problems you cite aren't going to be solved by more money. It's about better producers. eg. There are expensive movies out there that are very poor, and there are cheap movies exceptionally well done. It's all about talent, and you don't buy that, short of hiring known names with experience who know what they're doing, like voice actors.

I agree this is a great idea, but I dont know that the tools have been there. They might be now, but you can't AFAIK readily take a 5,000,000 poly car model and press a button to get a 50,000 poly game model. And also the cost of producing it at that quality is a massive investment. You're talking creating 10x the detail with maybe 10x the cost for features that aren't going to be seen until a few generations down the line.Now the Collada project has talked of sharing resources with movies, which would make sense. Those models created there could be recycled to produce game models. Consider the 'Hollow Man' human model. That's an ultra detailed model created for only one film. It'd make sense of those assets could be reused, scaled down as needed. If all cinema quality models could be processed and recycled, there'd be lots of 'cheap' models. But, the actual usefulness will be limited. Take the idea outside of realistic racers and WWII shooters and how many games recycle content? Games should have their own art direction, one of the quality features you're after to make games excel, prohibiting asset reuse. What would Colossus be like if the monsters were taken out of Hollywood monster flicks, Godzilla and King Kong, because they went with recycling assets instead of creating their own from the ground up?! Even something as generic as a horse can be very different based on style. Obviously a perfect fidelity model of Nurbergring can be used scaled down for every circuit racer for the next three generations successfully, but the glut of games, anything with fantasy or scifi, is going to need it's own style if it's not to be a generic game lacking in identity. I can see basic models like people having libraries (and they already do, in Poser for example) but most other things, even medieval buildings, are probably going to need to be designed specifically for an individual game, and recycling can't be more than for sequels.

Better producers/better voice actors cost money. Known names = money. True not everything is money based. I'm saying where the limitation is "budget" if a publisher is able to remove that limitation then that can open the doors to truly innovative inspirational art.

Interesting Collada project but does it come from the angle of model once downsample many is the question. Other issue is this is limited to what is being done now rather than a massive undertaking for modelling all/majority.

High res content can be downsampled with the click of a button. It's only a problem when you're talking about downsampling to a severely limited poly budget which I wouldn't consider todays consoles to have.

Stylized content can be achieved by altering and existing hires model. Significant time savings from modeling from nothing.

Fantasy objects could also be approached with the same mindset of model hi for tomorrow and downsample for today.

As far as Art direction, This can be achieved through camera, filters, light, and shaders. This content model library would in no way be limiting the art and should not be limited to the library. Designers shoud merely be aware of the library when creating to not have to do it again years down the road.


I agree this whole concept is expensive, but in the long run would pay huge dividends especially considering labor costs for skilled modellers isn't going to get cheaper in 10-20 years. This would only be possible with either a very large corporation or via a very large group effort. The end result would be better games with same/cheaper budgets.

 

[Skrying]

It just would not work. No one is going to jump on board such a project. It'd cost HUGE amounts and those investing could very possibly never see such benefits from it.

Also, fanasty games, and those determined by their art style would have no benefit. From this project you'd have certain things you'd have to meet, and a certain style (realistic?) would have to be set.

It'd be helpful, but only to a limited number of games, and then the price undertaking probably would not be worth it.

 

[TheChefO]

It just would not work. No one is going to jump on board such a project. It'd cost HUGE amounts and those investing could very possibly never see such benefits from it.

Also, fanasty games, and those determined by their art style would have no benefit. From this project you'd have certain things you'd have to meet, and a certain style (realistic?) would have to be set.

It'd be helpful, but only to a limited number of games, and then the price undertaking probably would not be worth it.

I have no idea how much was spent in pgr3 for their modeling of cities etc.(aside from 2years) but it would not cost siginificantly more for them to do higher res models/textures than the existing res they chose. Double cost at the most. Thats just their efforts. If they were to pool those efforst with others for other games and you've got a real possibility for a significant cost savings and significantly better product.

 

[pc999]

You're going to see tools and content middleware catch up. For example, if you're making a low-cost game, you could get the "1001 Guy Swinging A Sword Animations" and "More Dirt, Stone, Wood, and Grass Textures Than You'll Ever Need" packages from a middleware provider instead of spending big bucks to do it yourself. Why isn't someone selling car models? It's not like '68 Charger looks all that different from one game to the next already, and that difference will be smaller next-gen.

I think that quite a few companys already do that, EA for example, and still not give cheaper or better games.

I thought the current/ending-gen hit a sweet spot with 3D graphics. They look pretty much fine. Obviously, they could look better, but they're like SNES 2D in that they often just plain look nice. I wouldn't mind at all if we saw some lower-priced titles with approximately that level of graphical fidelity. They need to create a sold $20-$40 video game price bracket.

I agree there should be if not cheaper games at all at least some cheaper games (OT: personally I hope that Wii can do this).

 

[Tagrineth]

If you want to put a $100 price tag on a game, there's an easy way to get it to sell -

Put the words "Final Fantasy", "Metal Gear", "Mario", "Zelda", or "Grand Theft Auto" somewhere in the title.

I bet you could charge thousands for Final Gear Fantasy Bros.: San Andreas!

 

[TheChefO]

If you want to put a $100 price tag on a game, there's an easy way to get it to sell -

Put the words "Final Fantasy", "Metal Gear", "Mario", "Zelda", or "Grand Theft Auto" somewhere in the title.

I bet you could charge thousands for Final Gear Fantasy Bros.: San Andreas!

good point -
the idea I'm trying to communicate isn't, "there should be games that cost $100". The concept is there should be another class of games that go above and beyond the everyday budget limited garbage that floods the market everyday. What it costs & how its implimented is something to discuss as well but the point is this current standard of what we call "great" isn't good enough. We need to get much better. The best games SHOULD be able to compete with the best movies as we have the ability to make it so. There are fundamental differences in what one would call a great game and a great movie as they have different targets in some cases. But, this should still not limit our industry to mediocrity because "they're different and have different objectives, therefore crappy voice acting is ok".

 

[standing ovation]

Seriously man artistry to me seems very very fine. If you want something different play Braintraining, Locoroco, Okami, or Spore. Indie devs just might have to resort to handhelds or XBLA or the PS3 download system and sell their game for $5-$10.

But that’s just it. If the industry is to grow and entertain mainstream audiences, its most creative directors need to perform on Broadway, not off it. They will need to showcase their talents at center stage, and there, before the world, succeed or fail. They will need to be lured by the same spoils of fame. :neutral:

What the videogame industry needs is a continuous infusion of ingenuity that indie developers can provide. Without it, the profit margins publishers pine over will continue to evaporate; and attempts to curtail outflow (by taking fewer risks) will only make the problem worse.

This isn't some pie in the sky notion. We are seeing its effects right now. Risk-aversive behavior is saturating popular genres with name brands (sequels) and generic labels. The same concepts are being recycled across platforms and generations.

Tell me something. What would it take for your boyfriend or girlfriend, husband or wife (or parents) to buy a new-gen videogame unit ... for themselves? Will it be another iteration of Gran Turismo or Unreal Tournament? I don't think so! :smile:

 

[TheChefO]

But that’s just it. If the industry is to grow and entertain mainstream audiences, its most creative directors need to perform on Broadway, not off it. They will need to showcase their talents at center stage, and there, before the world, succeed or fail. They will need to be lured by the same spoils of fame. :neutral:

What the videogame industry needs is a continuous infusion of ingenuity that indie developers can provide. Without it, the profit margins publishers pine over will continue to evaporate; and attempts to curtail outflow (by taking fewer risks) will only make the problem worse.

This isn't some pie in the sky notion. We are seeing its effects right now. Risk-aversive behavior is saturating popular genres with name brands (sequels) and generic labels. The same concepts are being recycled across platforms and generations.

Tell me something. What would it take for your boyfriend or girlfriend, husband or wife (or parents) to buy a new-gen videogame unit ... for themselves? Will it be another iteration of Gran Turismo or Unreal Tournament? I don't think so! :smile:

Great points about stagnation and low risk vetures. I agree indie is important, but new, unique and simple games pop up all the time (see pc/xbox arcade titles). This in and of itself will only spark the existing industry to take the concept/game from an indie dev and throw it into the same cycle that exists today.

Another avenue that needs to be addressed to push this industry into mass market is take away the embarassment factor. By that I mean give consumers the option to have interactive experiences that aren't embarassing to non-gamers in comparison to non-gaming entertainment.

The best of the best that videogames have to offer at this point are embarassing when compared to the movie industry.

 

[rwolf]

NO! Nobody wants to buy a game for $100.

That is why you need to have a subscription like WoW where you can have people pay $15.00 per month after paying $40.00 for the game.

 

[Graham]

That is why you need to have a subscription like WoW where you can have people pay $15.00 per month after paying $40.00 for the game.

Not to forget that people are willing to pay $600+ for the 'collectors edition' which gives you fabulous benifits like.... er... a panda.

 

[standing ovation]

Great points about stagnation and low risk vetures. I agree indie is important, but new, unique and simple games pop up all the time (see pc/xbox arcade titles). This in and of itself will only spark the existing industry to take the concept/game from an indie dev and throw it into the same cycle that exists today.

Sure, bigger companies will probably mimic (and refine) the offbeat success of smaller ones -- that's the nature of competition. But in so doing they will embrace new ways of doing business. :smile:

 

[TheChefO]

Sure, bigger companies will probably mimic (and refine) the offbeat success of smaller ones -- that's the nature of competition. But in so doing they will embrace new ways of doing business. :smile:

I'm sure it would but my personal opinion is the industry is aiming to low at the moment for my tastes. It seems my viewpoint on this matter isn't very popular on this board but I would like to think that given the chance, the industry could produce much better content on the high-end than what we've come to expect.