Gamasutra indie article

[andyb]

Interesting article on the future of indie dev over on Gamastura -> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050721/pfeifer_01.shtml

Can't find it linked anywhere else but feel free to flame if it's already been mentioned ;)

[soniCron]

Interesting article on the future of indie dev over on Gamastura -> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050721/pfeifer_01.shtml I read this article when it came out a couple days ago, and I most whole heartedly think it's all filler.

First, it introduces us to the auteur, a single mind behind a massive creative project... and how it's been missing from video games, with few exceptions. He suggests we're about to reach the age of the auteur, as if it's bound to happen, likening the game industry to the film industry. I'm not sure if the author is familiar with how the film industry works, but there is roughly the same percentage of auteurs in both industries, and I don't think either is going to change significantly any time soon.

The author goes on, for half of the article, about how independent game development is cheaper. Really? He suggests the most common ways for independent game developers to obtain funding are self-funding and external investors, and will likely remain that way. Again, really? His thoughts on distrobution? Online. Really?

Now, the author makes a good point about community. The indie game development community is just too small. He believes it would fare better with more festivals. I can't argue with that. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Then the remaining 1/3 of the article discusses how indie effects the mainstream industry. Mainstream development will cut the bloat, follow their indie brethren with auteur branding, and develop more multi-dimensional experiences; that is to say, deeper gameplay and stories. Thoughts:

Cutting the Bloat - Not. Gonna. Happen.
Auteur Branding - Sure. If it'll make them more money. But only if.
Multi-Dimensional Experiences - They'll be influenced to use deeper gameplay and storytelling because indie developers do? Anybody been to a movie theater this summer? In the last 20 years?


In summary, the author enlightens us with a handy timeline of events that enumerate the independent developers' rise to stardom. I'll comment on a few:

3 Years - First definitively successful indie game in the retail outlet - I suppose the Oddworld series wasn't "successful" enough.
5 Years - An indie developer gathers lots of mainstream press for unique, not easily repeatable funding model - This is pure speculation, based on absolutely nothing concrete.
8-10 Years - Multiple instances of cross-media indie success (independent game promoted with a comic, film, animation/TV, as Foundation 9 is attempting with Death, Jr.) - If this is indicative of a successful title, then I must have missed the memo. Cross-media branding == $$$. You have the money, you can get the brand.
10+ Years - The balance of companies in the industry shifts to more of an equilibrium between internal publisher studios and independently owned developers - Well, with a date range like "ten plus", I'd say we could even predict the fall of mankind and the destruction of the world.

Simply put, his "timeline" is nothing more than wishful thinking. Of course, I know even less than he about the current state of the industry, but I have a hunch there's no solid basis for the arbitrarily selected dates.

And he concludes with a charge to support the indie development community by buying their games. Hear, hear! Definately the only thing I agree with.

[Anthony Flack]

The mainstream Japanese industry seems to have had a strong auteur culture for a long time now. And it shows.

[mahlzeit]

Heh, I just read a wonderful bit in William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" and according to him the whole auteur theory is bullshit. He says that Jean-Luc Godard, one of the originators of the theory, "said the whole thing was patent bullshit from the beginning, an idea devised by the then young scrufflers [the French filmmakers of the sixties] to draw some attention to themselves."

In the making of a movie, any movie, so many people are involved it is impossible to point out one single "creator". Too much creative input from too many people. Now, "auteurs" probably exist in indie games, since, ha ha, most of those games are made by a single person. In any case, the auteur theory in moviemaking mostly exists for... marketing purposes.

[dislekcia]

I kept thinking "Wait, isn't the lead designer always an auteur by this definition?" as I was reading it. Maybe some games have requirements set by the market, but it's still the designers who have to interpret those requirements and make the calls on how things fit together. Their vision shapes the game... How is that anything new?

-D

[Anthony Flack]

I'm not sure, because I don't know how far the job description of "lead designer" goes. Are they responsible for overseeing the graphics and the music, for example?

[Robert Cummings]

In the making of a movie, any movie, so many people are involved it is impossible to point out one single "creator". Too much creative input from too many people.

Can't agree there. Lets take a look a George Lucas. He oversees every single aspect of his films and is a pest even when he doesn't direct. Peter Jackson. David Twohy.

Should I say Antony Flack isn't the creator of his game because Mark Sibly made blitz, and Adobe made photoshop? Who is doing his music?

Where does it end? I say the creator is the guy who's vision and control made the product what it is... that is, the result most closely resembles his decisions.

[Robert Cummings]

And as for that article saying an Auteur has been missing from retail games, well thats a crock of shit too. There are plenty of games where the lead designer says this goes there, that goes here, and the buck stops with me.

It could be the producer, a dedicated designer, whatever, but most successful games will have a single strong vision, or they don't work. Even if it's the product manager.

You can argue "oh it's the product of the marketing team" but thats just ideas - and everyone will get ideas, no matter the source.

You can also argue "oh it's the result of all that concept art" except someone is there rejecting and approving the concept art. At the end of the day, the buck stops somewhere, always.

And thats always one man.

[soniCron]

Should I say Antony Flack isn't the creator of his game because Mark Sibly made blitz, and Adobe made photoshop? Who is doing his music? While I agree with you, that's a terrible example! Adobe and Mark Sibly have no creative input with Ant's games.

[mahlzeit]

Can't agree there. Lets take a look a George Lucas. He oversees every single aspect of his films and is a pest even when he doesn't direct.
Sure. But that's not what the word "auteur" means, at least to my knowledge. Every project needs someone who calls the shots. How much of George Lucas's creativity goes directly into the design of the clothing of his characters or the makeup or whatever?

When you see a film that was directed by George Lucas -- without knowing so -- would you instantly recognize it as "his"? ("This movie truly couldn't be have done by anyone but George Lucas. It *must* have been him!")

That's what the auteur theory claims, more or less. Not that it matters any to me; I'm just trying to point out that some people do not believe such a thing as "auteurs" really exists in the world of movies.

[Anthony Flack]

When you see a film that was directed by George Lucas -- without knowing so -- would you instantly recognize it as "his"? ("This movie truly couldn't be have done by anyone but George Lucas. It *must* have been him!")

But there are lots of other directors who you can say that about.

[Robert Cummings]

When you see a film that was directed by George Lucas -- without knowing so -- would you instantly recognize it as "his"? ("This movie truly couldn't be have done by anyone but George Lucas. It *must* have been him!")

I think I could recognise most of tarantino's movies...

[simonbowerbank]

In the independent film business just as in the independent game business there are more "auters" because of the reduced size of the crews.

The film and game industry have a lot of similarities.

[simonbowerbank]

I think I could recognise most of tarantino's movies...

Or Peter Jacksons, or Bryan Singers, etc...

[mahlzeit]

Well, I meant without reading the titles. :)

Anyway, regardless of whether the auteur theory, or critiques of it, are sound, what I was really railing against is that games people often draw parallels with the movie industry while their only knowledge of that industry seems to come from "making of" and other "behind the scenes" material, i.e. the glimpse into this strange world provided by the press and the marketing folks, not necessarily people who actually know how movies are actually made; a group that also includes me, since I don't have any direct experience with Hollywood either, but from what I've learned so far (from a brief foray into the world of screenwriting, which doesn't count for much; even most writing pros aren't privvy to the inner workings of the film business), it doesn't really make a lot of sense to draw such analogies since both worlds only appear to have a lot in common--yet they do not, which is my point. Long sentence, eh.

[soniCron]

Anyway, regardless of whether the auteur theory, or critiques of it, are sound, what I was really railing against is that games people often draw parallels with the movie industry while their only knowledge of that industry seems to come from "making of" and other "behind the scenes" material, i.e. the glimpse into this strange world provided by the press and the marketing folks, not necessarily people who actually know how movies are actually made; a group that also includes me, since I don't have any direct experience with Hollywood either, but from what I've learned so far (from a brief foray into the world of screenwriting, which doesn't count for much; even most writing pros aren't privvy to the inner workings of the film business), it doesn't really make a lot of sense to draw such analogies since both worlds only appear to have a lot in common--yet they do not, which is my point. Long sentence, eh. Spoken like a true screenwriter! :D

[simonbowerbank]

Well, I meant without reading the titles. :)

So did i


Anyway, regardless of whether the auteur theory, or critiques of it, are sound, what I was really railing against is that games people often draw parallels with the movie industry while their only knowledge of that industry seems to come from "making of" and other "behind the scenes" material, i.e. the glimpse into this strange world provided by the press and the marketing folks, not necessarily people who actually know how movies are actually made; a group that also includes me, since I don't have any direct experience with Hollywood either, but from what I've learned so far (from a brief foray into the world of screenwriting, which doesn't count for much; even most writing pros aren't privvy to the inner workings of the film business), it doesn't really make a lot of sense to draw such analogies since both worlds only appear to have a lot in common--yet they do not, which is my point. Long sentence, eh.

I have experiance with indie film making and i can tell you its very similar to indie game making. As for blockbuster movies and games i wouldnt really know.