Spinoff - A discussion on the nature of Genius in game development*

[RancidLunchmeat]

I haven't played Gears, or UT3, and I don't necessarily believe that somebody can't be referred to as a genius because they are only expert at one thing.

I do agree, however, that Gears and UT3 look identical to every other game Epic has released in the past decade.

Maybe I'm just put off by the contrast of how great Unreal was and what a disappointment Unreal 2 was and I've never been a fan of any of the UT series.

So, to me, it does seem like Epic has just been doing essentially the exact same thing with very little variation for the past ten years. Sure, the games are prettier now, and maybe have some additional features but none of them are unique.

Now, Bungie didn't do anything really unique with Halo, either. But they were able to combine a great story and single player campaign with a well balanced multiplayer offering. I can't think of many other games that have accomplished that except for maybe SoF.

The UT series single player campaign is laughable, and while Gears is/was played frequently online for a bit, I've heard (again, haven't played it) that popular opinion is that its multiplayer mode is lacking compared to other games.

If Epic were ever able to maybe combine the story and depth of the single player campaign of Gears with the multiplayer game play of UT into a single offering, then we might not be having this discussion.

Then again, it appears to my layman's eyes, that Epic avoids this on purpose because they want to sell two games instead of just one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Epic were ever able to maybe combine the story and depth of the single player campaign of Gears with the multiplayer game play of UT into a single offering, then we might not be having this discussion.

Even if they were to pull this off, I wouldn't say it'd make them (or Clffy B) geniuses as Rangers suggests. Which leads back to the essence of the interview IMO - they're a company running on business sense, not rocking the world, not trying to rock the world, but to target a specific large-market demographic and focus on it. Actually target two markets, FPS and engine. And their efforts are hit and miss, but overall very profitable which is why they're happy. They will continue to ignore all ideas of games being comparable with movies or being high-art and won't push the gaming world towards new vistas, and doing very well for it.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

We agree on most, Shifty.

But why does Cliffy or Epic need to move video games into the realm of art in order to be considered genius?

Can't I look at their business model and say that in focusing on one thing and doing it very well and for a large profit makes them genius?

Isn't Ray Kroc considered a genius for doing exactly that?

We're not calling Cliffy an artist, just as we're not calling Ray Kroc a chef.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But why does Cliffy or Epic need to move video games into the realm of art in order to be considered genius?

I'm not saying it does. IMO Art != Genius. TBH genius IMO is vastly overused! To be a success at something doesn't make you a genius! Epic have done well. What they have done isn't genius. That's not because they haven't created arty games, nor because they stick to a genre that they know. In the case of game developers, my definition of genius would require a developer to achieve extraordinary things with the hardware, or to do some genre/game redefining, and to do so repeatedly rather than just get lucky.

The only argument here is if Cliffy B is a gameplay genius. IMO not, because he hasn't done above and beyond the natural gaming scene. And TBH I think this thread is mostly off topic! I can see how it got onto this, but no-one's really discussing the meat of the interview, the approach to the market, the positions of Epic, the use of data mining etc.

 

[MrFloopy]

Anyone who develops a new IP that sells in excess of 3 million units is as close to a genius as anyone could be called in this industry. Doesn't matter if you make a derivative shooter, a card game or a racing game.

Developing such a game places the developer in the top 1% of an industry full of some of the smartest people going around. What else, pray tell, qualifies one as a genius in this industry?

Arguing about it based on well established bias from the usual suspects on both sides with semantics is just pointless and frankly why this site is not what it used to be.

 

[tabs]

Well, it could be argued that the genius lived in the marketing department in that case, rather than the development team.

# someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality; "Mozart was a child genius"; "he's smart but he's no Einstein"
# brilliance: unusual mental ability
# ace: someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field
# exceptional creative ability
# flair: a natural talent; "he has a flair for mathematics"; "he has a genius for interior decorating"

 

[Neb]

Anyone who develops a new IP that sells in excess of 3 million units is as close to a genius as anyone could be called in this industry. Doesn't matter if you make a derivative shooter, a card game or a racing game.

And you dont think marketing and hype is a boosting factor to amount of sales?

Is the "genius" talent expressed in the game?

 

[_phil_]

So, marketing genius counts?
Genius (individual) rarely exists when we're talking about collective creation and business.

 

[Acert93]

I just wanted to thank Mike and Mr. Floopy for their posts. Devs for the win.

 

[Nesh]

So, marketing genius counts?
Genius (individual) rarely exists when we're talking about collective creation and business.

Got to agree with that. Especially when there are also other departments involved, irrelevant to the creative part of a title that contribute to the success of the project.

How many times has a wonderful game failed to succeed in sales despite awesome reviews only because of bad marketing, a platform that didnt have enough userbase or because of other external factors, while a crap game could sell millions?

 

[Cornsnake]

Good games that sell badly are often very original and at first glance not something casual gamers might like. Games like Ico and Shadow of the Collosus.
Bad games that sell well are movie tie-in. Don't know how often they will break a million though.

 

[zed]

another new IP, assassins creed has sold over 3million copies.
Its generally agreed that it wasnt that gooda game, what assassins creed did have going for it was hype + marketting, which was substantual for that title.
its been established WRT video games quality != sales.

heres another recent game with over 5million sales mario and sonic at the olympic games

 

[AlphaWolf]

another new IP, assassins creed has sold over 3million copies.
Its generally agreed that it wasnt that gooda game, what assassins creed did have going for it was hype + marketting, which was substantual for that title.
its been established WRT video games quality != sales.

heres another recent game with over 5million sales mario and sonic at the olympic games

With over 80% gameranking and metacritic scores for assassin's creed. I'd say your generally agreed characterization is in error.

 

[tabs]

Many popular review sites seem to be just as, if not more disposed to succumb to the hype machine than the gamers I talk to / read posts of.

 

[_phil_]

With over 80% gameranking and metacritic scores for assassin's creed. I'd say your generally agreed characterization is in error.

This is only valid if gamecritic business is a fair one.It very likely is not.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Many popular review sites seem to be just as, if not more disposed to succumb to the hype machine than the gamers I talk to / read posts of.

And the user review scores being the same? (350 votes on metacritic avg score 8.5, ~1300 votes on gamespot avg score 8.9) So people really didn't like the game they just said that they did. How about this for a scenario, a very vocal minority did not like the game and tries to convince people it only reviewed well because of hype.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Arguing about it based on well established bias from the usual suspects on both sides with semantics is just pointless and frankly why this site is not what it used to be.

[modhat]What messes up the forum is people calling out people for bias, contrary to the FAQ, especially when prior to your remark every opinion expressed was fairly expressed and being fairly argued with. Whether those opinions are founded in logical opinion or brainwashed fanboyism, they're all part of the debate.

As for arguing about semantics, semantics is key to the debate; you can't argue whether someone is or is not a 'gameplay genius' until everyone arguing is talking about the same thing! Just like you can't argue about whether it's a long way from my house to work until you know what context, from the POV of a walk, a drive, or in astrological terms. Are we measuring gameplay genius in terms of ability to sell units, or to invent new gameplay mechanics, or to get better than the average performance from a machine? And why are measuring it in that way? You obviously think unit sales is sets the standard for 'gameplay genius' (though does that mean consistent sales over multiple titles or just one or two big successes in a sea of failures?) but what appointment of yours says you are absolutely right on this matter, that your opinion goes way beyond subjective opinion and is Universal Fact, and anyone who disagrees with that interpretation of '(gameplay) genius' is clouded by bias?

Anyway, I've spun off this thread so anyone with an opinion on what does and does not constitute a genius in the industry, or how they (dis)agree with a point already made, can have their say while leaving the other thread free to talk about the points Mike Capps raised. I'd appreciate it (as would those wanting to actually debate a topic) if people would refrain from saying those of a certain or contrary opinion are biased/prejudiced/incapable of independent, rational thought.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd say the term Genius is too subjective to be applied to Cliffy B without clarification. Everyone's measuring it from different contexts, any one of which can be both valid and invalid. eg. Was Beethoven a genius? He didn't solve any physics problems, so no. He doesn't top the music charts, so no. He didn't any new ways to navigate the oceans, so no. Oh, unless you mean in the realm of musics development, where he single handedly redefined the scope for musical expression, in which case yes.

A game selling well, a game pushing the hardware, and a game that introduces new play mechanics, are all different facets. Measuring a developer by one and to the exclusion of all others is a very limited perspective, and as _phil points out, you do also need to factor in the rest of the teams. There are games that aren't well made and don't innovate which sell well; there are games that introduce amazing play mechanics that don't sell well and don't stretch the hardware, and there are games that push the hardware yet don't sell well or do anything special. How can we fairly call a successful developer in one of those fields a genius and not value the others? How can we ever measure the worth of an individual within a company? If a game sells well, how much is due to the marketing team, the lead artist, the engine developers, the game designers, and the producer?

IMO sells aren't important. I value developers who do impressive things with the hardware or gameplay, and those things work really well. Critical acclaim is likely a part determining that, and a title that doesn't review well is probably not going to be doing anything incredible. I wouldn't place a lot of emphasis on scores though. The creme-de-la-creme of developers will be identified by an overall top-tier achievement, making good use of hardware, introducing fresh elements to genres, and as a result probably making good sales but I wouldn't count on it!

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

That's like saying Polyphony Digital suck because all they do is GT racing sims.

If you perfect a genre, and Epic has, you deserve to be credited accordingly.

Cheers

That is something different from being a genius though. Making very good games in a certain genre doesnt automatically make you a genius.

[car antology]Its like placing the engine in the middle of your racing car for perfect weight distrobution instead of just keeping increasing the power of your front engined cars like the Italians did in the old days. That is kinda what epic does, they kept on perfecting their genre, but they never had that stroke of genius to come up with something totally different. That doesnt mean their games are bad, but they arnt genius. Every games they make is based on beefed up mariens with big guns shooting in ''alienish enviroments''.

 

[tabs]

And the user review scores being the same? (350 votes on metacritic avg score 8.5, ~1300 votes on gamespot avg score 8.9) So people really didn't like the game they just said that they did. How about this for a scenario, a very vocal minority did not like the game and tries to convince people it only reviewed well because of hype.

In that case no, and you make fair points.