Companies have tried VERY hard to distance the people from the product. That is why you rarely see an artists name on a piece of artwork in general consumerist world (advertising? concept art? all lacking the artists signature typically). It is so the people become interchangeable for the company (giving the company all the power). The company wants to build worth in the IP (that they own completely), sharing that spotlight with the creators (which they don't own) is something they avoid. And, well, consumers buy into it. They rush to purchase the next (insert franchise name here) or support (insert studio name here) but they don't seem to care (outside of a few exceptions) who the creators of it are (or if the creators that made them love the studio / IP are even still around).
Ivory Oasis Well-put. That's kind of what I was alluding to at 0:57 - it's absolutely in the best interest of most major publishers to minimize the contribution of individuals and maximize the awareness of brands and franchises. Slightly disheartening, isn't it? -Nick
Rev3Games Though to be fair, on larger teams it is kind of impossible to hold everyone out to the public (teams get big fast). Luckily the indie space is really changing things up :D People know more about the people behind the games (which can be good and bad). Such a tricky subject.
True! It IS intentional and it looks like they are acting like childish, not being ready to take a responsibility for their own products. Great example - BioWare with Mass Effect 3.
This is an excellent topic that no one ever talks about, so kudos to you, Nick, for bringing this up. Personally, I'm constantly thinking about this, and I honestly don't really have a solid opinion on the matter except that the people who make the games I play do definitely matter to me, in one way or another. More and more these days, I like to pay close attention to the people that actually make the games, and not the publisher or company name that is attached to something. It really disheartens me how often people confuse publishers and developers, often ignoring the actual development studios of games and ignoring the talented individuals responsible for bringing a game to life in favor of giving all the credit to a big faceless company that only cares about money. I think an interesting case is Nintendo's first-party IPs such as Mario and Zelda. The original creators of these series such as Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka still of course have a hand in the newer titles, but mostly in an "overseer" kind of way. The Mario and Zelda teams are always changing, and the people that, say, made Ocarina of Time are largely different than the people that made Skyward Sword. It's interesting that Eiji Aonuma, who had absolutely nothing to do with the first four Zelda games and didn't start working on the series until Ocarina of Time, is now largely in control of the Zelda series. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, only an interesting point to notice. I don't really have concrete thoughts on all this, but this is definitely a topic I'd like to hear discussed more, or discussed at all for that matter.
Interesting, I just wrote about the same thing. Aounuma wasn't involved until Ocarina, but ALttP was his favourite game, and he made an SNES game heavily inspired by it (I don't remember the name, it was only released in Japan). So he was "worthy" you could say. xD He wasn't the only one though. He directed Ocarina, Majora and Wind Waker alongside Koizumi, who had been involved since ALttP, and who didn't participate in any more Zeldas because he created his own studio, where he makes the 3D Mario games. That is a weird case. Weirder than the Aonuma one. Koizumi has always worked on Zelda, I think he even came up with things like the three godesses, but all it took him to leave the series for Mario was to do some animations in Yoshi's Island and to co-direct Mario 64. Also, it annoys me when people want to include the Capcom Zeldas in the timeline (which is kind of an inside joke of the original developers, but has now turned into something else). Oh, and Phantom Hourglass, good game, but I don't accept it as a WW sequel. xD
Yoshiaki Koizumi has been responsible for a large number of my most cherished Nintendo-developed games, and was involved heavily with most of my favorite Zelda games. Personally, I think his influence is missed very dearly when it comes to the Zelda series. As for the "Capcom Zeldas", it's all personal preference, but I don't mind them at all being regarded as official because, quite frankly, I think they're all fantastic (with the exception of the original Four Swords, which I still think was a neat idea and is a decent multiplayer experience, but is still a "side thing" for me and not on par with the full-fledged Zelda games). The two Oracle games are in my top five within the series, and I adore The Minish Cap. I'm guessing you disagree? Or is it because Capcom had a hand in them? Or more specifically, because it was Flagship, an outside Nintendo EAD studio, who developed them that you don't regard them as official? Hidemaro Fujibayashi, who directed these three titles, also directed Skyward Sword, which is a Nintendo EAD title, so how does that factor into things? Now personally, I still think the Zelda timeline and how everything connects and whether there's a canon or not a canon or whatever is whatever each player makes of it, so if the Capcom Zeldas are something separate for you, that's totally fine. I guess when it comes down to it for me in regards to these legacy series like Zelda and Mario, each title just needs to be treated as a separate work with the particular people who worked on that specific title being the authors, but also paying respect to the person who originally came up with the concept for Zelda (Miyamoto) and the original creators of the first title in the series (namely Miyamoto and Tezuka). As for Phantom Hourglass, I accept it I guess, I like the game, but it isn't quite that console Wind Waker sequel I was expecting before Twilight Princess was announced, so if that's what you mean, I agree with you there.
Green Hat Hero I haven't played the Capcom titles yet. I just think they don't fit in the timeline because the developers didn't even have it in mind I suppose. Skyward Sword is a great game, but I'm not sure if Fujibayashi was the correct choice. It's weird. A director who has always worked on handhelds works on Skywards, and Shikata, who has worked on all 3D Zeldas, and co-directed Twilight Princess, directed ALBW. xD "I guess when it comes down to it for me in regards to these legacy series like Zelda and Mario, each title just needs to be treated as a separate work with the particular people who worked on that specific title being the authors, but also paying respect to the person who originally came up with the concept for Zelda (Miyamoto) and the original creators of the first title in the series (namely Miyamoto and Tezuka)." That's a good way to look at it. "As for Phantom Hourglass, I accept it I guess, I like the game, but it isn't quite that console Wind Waker sequel I was expecting before Twilight Princess was announced, so if that's what you mean, I agree with you there." It's just weird accepting those are the events after Wind Waker. Something like that? "Personally, I think his influence is missed very dearly when it comes to the Zelda series." Instead we got a tragic story in Mario Galaxy. xD "Now personally, I still think the Zelda timeline and how everything connects and whether there's a canon or not a canon or whatever is whatever each player makes of it, so if the Capcom Zeldas are something separate for you, that's totally fine." I suppose it's kind of a bold statement, but I think I know the timeline as it was supposed to be. Are you interested in hearing my version?
I can see where you're coming from in regards to the Flagship titles. Although, while the devs probably didn't have the timeline in mind too much, I do think the Oracles fit in fairly nicely. Even before the Hyrule Historia, I always thought of them as being placed where they are in the book. But the whole "Four Sword saga"-The Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventures-does seem like a separate continuity from the rest of the series. In any case, you should play the two Oracle games and The Minish Cap, they're great! At least I think so. :) As for your timeline theory, sure, I'll hear it. :)
Green Hat Hero Oh, I will play those games too. I have heard nothing but good things about them. :) I'll try not to make this too long. I think the key to understanding the timeline is to look at the games released one by one, in the order they were made. The first game to do something weird was ALttP, which is a prequel to the first Zelda. So that already confirms that there is a timeline. Link's Awakening is a direct sequel to ALttP. And when they had to come up with a new story, they just did the same. A prequel and a direct sequel. Three generations of Links, each one with two games, but we were going back in time. People will say that OoT doesn't portray the Imprisoning War. But that's the fun thing. On the one hand you can ignore OoT and enjoy ALttP as it was released, on the other hand you can see OoT as the prequel, which would mean a lot of time passed and people remember things differently in ALttP. Now comes the problem though. Miyamoto and Aonuma talk about how there are two timelines after OoT. And Wind Waker shouldn't exist. xD There's no problem with TP, but we already know what happens after the adult ending of OoT. ALttP. Nintendo, did you forget about the first four Zelda games? Probably not. It's just that they don't care enough. The timeline is a fun little easter egg, at least that's how I enjoy it. I don't need a scientific explanation, or a perfect timeline with no holes. All I need to know is that these games are related. So it would be Skyward Sword, OoT-MM-TP OoT-WW OoT-ALttP, etc. Why are there two alternatives for the adult timeline? I dunno. xD But I don't care. I prefer to not have any answer rather than having the answer that HH provides. In which OoT is not a prequel to ALttP (what it was originally intended to be, the reason it is how it is), and what happens before ALttP is an alternative version of OoT in which link dies (how horrible!). BTW, Ganon is dead in every timeline as far as I know. I find reviving him like in FSA a little boring. There has always been a valid excuse for him to be there. But not anymore I think. I think the new Zelda should happen years after Zelda II or TP, have a new antagonist, something like a reboot that also helps with innovation, and get away from the craziness that is the OoT ending. xD Which doesn't mean Ganon couldn't come back in some years. But he's a little more complex than Bowser, and if he continues showing up it'll hurt the character I think. And about the Oracles being set between ALttP and LA, I just don't like it because it was probably not intended. And they have OoT elements, so they feel a little out of place maybe. ALBW really maintains the spirit of ALttP. I see how it could work though. What do you think? Feel free to disagree.
I forget who it was, but I remember someone (maybe totalbiscuit) arguing that people should be more exposed to the people behind the games, similar to how the film industry works, instead of just attaching the development company's name to the product. This would allow consumers to be better informed about what to expect from a game. For example, consumers expected a certain pedigree from Bungie, and lots of people were disappointed with Destiny as a result. But when you think about it, the team that worked on Destiny was probably composed of very few of the same people that made up the original team of creators that worked on Halo. His point was that looking at game development from such a broad perspective can skew our expectations, especially with such large dev studios.
MisterGutsy108 Yeah, for sure. It's easy to fall into the trap of personifying game developers. I think TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit is 100% right on that point. -Nick
I love thinking about who created the game, it has a huge impact for me on a series. I find it exciting to follow directors and when stuff is passed on to see who now holds the reins, it has a significant effect on my excitement for a game. What I also find when following directors a lot is that you can find little things in games that certain people really like to use.
Really great video, I love when a different director takes over and takes a series and gives it a unique different feel. Look at majoras mask, when miyamoto gave eiji aonuma the lead, he created a zelda game like no other. That's why people always argue about it, it's certainly off putting and that's why I love it. But then you get to the spyro games and without insomniac the other games don't feel as polished as the original 3. Bayonetta is a different story though as many of the original developers of the original returned for the sequel.
Sometimes new teams doesn't really add new visuals or value. It mostly leads to reskins of the same game you bought the year before. They don't necessary take their time with a game because they are only there to make a deadline...Thus having the game lead to crap. I think its safe to say masterpieces shouldn't be rushed. Some teams actually do a good job tho.
***** Hah, that's a great example - it's hard to imagine being excited for LoK if it wasn't a Platinum joint. Here's my preview of that, by the way! Platinum's THE LEGEND OF KORRA Hands-On Impressions! Combat, Pro Bending and More -Nick
I think it matter when the quality of the game goes down like how the Modern warfare want down after a large portion of Infinity ward left and having what I loved from the series show up in Titan fall. It may not be THE creator you are looking for but the team. I love Atlus because while they change who will lead a project, the whole team, new or old, are willing to put in the work for their fans.
metalsnakezero Oh yeah, the Infinity Ward situation is a fascinating example. That situation is especially weird because even though Infinity Ward *technically* made MW3, it sure didn't feel like an Infinity Ward game. A super interesting, very unique situation, for sure. (also: P5 hyyyype!) -Nick
I think the people who make games deserve to be recognised, obviously for their hard work but also because it would be better for everyone who loves games. When all the credit goes to a company and not the people who really worked on the game it's easier to push creators around, make changes for the sake of profit instead of quality, or even cut people out entirely.
I try not to let who makes the games skew my opinion when I play them, but I find when it's not the original teams making a new game in the series it suffers more often than not. Most recent example would probably be Arkham Origins, also Bioshock 2 was another big one.
I know that Satoshi Taijiri directed Pokemon Blue, Red, Yellow, Green, Gold, Silver, and Crystal but all other Main series Pokemon games were directed by Junichi Masuda with Satoshi as a producer
I like hearing about the developers behind the games I love. Especially what lead them to their ideas and what inspired them in the first place. I think they deserve as much appreciation as their games do.
Hey Nick, interesting topic to bring up. I actually really do care about or constantly ponder the authorship dynamics in video games as well. I'm a filmmaker and sometimes this issue arises in both the indie and studio systems as well. Because the two art forms rely so heavily on collaboration it's hard to say when authorship matters in a game or film. I personally have started paying more attention to video game writers recently. I think the more people start paying attention to the creative people involved in making the game (like in cinema), the easier it'll be for game devs to one day "own" their projects over the publisher. Popular opinion towards certain game developers might someday hold influence over how projects are run and so forth and I'm all for giving game developers more creative freedom.
Great video and interesting idea! I think, for one thing, players begin to care about creators of games as they mature personally and in familiarity with the media. I didn't know who Miyamoto was for years until maybe Pikmin. As time went on, I began to understand and appreciate the signatures of certain individuals. In film, studios like Pixar and Disney cultivate a particular vibe that clue into this. Tarantino was the first director I noticed a trend with. I think also social media plays a huge role. I know who Anthony Burch is not only from HAWP, not only from BL2 credits, not only from streaming, but also because he's on Twitter all the time. Marketing and socializing has a personal touch now that allows people to interact with and recognize figures in the industry. You're quite right in your final points that we will be entering an era soon where Mario, Link, DK all have to live without their creator. I don't think those characters will have such a hard time making the transition, but something is always lost in these situations. Maybe more is gained; we'll have to see. I don't know if I have a loyalty to individuals as much as I do studios. I skipped BioShock 2, for example. I feel like quality and personal preference might supersede individual loyalty, as much as we'd like to think the latter is valued. If the next Katamari after its creator left sucked, people wouldn't get it. If it were totally different, some would try it and like it, new people might show up, and others would be dissuaded. If it were great, well, I think most people would keep on rollin'. This is a great question, and one that I may think differently on as I mental peruse game series. Edit: Minecraft certainly didn't quit when Notch left. Maybe because it was on relatively good terms?
directors and producers in gaming have as big an influence over the final product as they would a movie. It definitely matters who is involved with a game. Could you imagine how much personality and polish would be lacking in a super smash title if Sakurai wasn't at helm? That guy puts 100% of his life into his games and you can really tell by his product.
It's also worth noting that a lot of creative decisions in games which feel very important to the overall "vision" are often made from the bottom rather than the top. There are some game directors who absolutely have a profound effect on the artistic presence of their games, but it's not always all on them, either.
I do and don't. I hate marketing manufactured "director's vision", but I appreciate it when it's real. Maybe not necessarily as an aspect of the game, but as a cultural arts kind of thing. If a game is good, I'll enjoy it... even if I have all these idealist feelings about corporate, assembly line entertainment. If a game is good, and has a familiar soul in it, I will probably endear it to myself more. I can develop a cult following love for a studio or a developer, and it'll lead me to check out whatever they make, and probably like it more than most people would. Even years after I've played games I love, the talents involved start to become more known through editorial and new projects, and I gain retroactive appreciation for them and the game. The marginal contribution thing has value too imo. It's like if you have a favorite musical artist, and they just featured on something, or were the member of a lesser known band... it's still an essential part of their body of work to a super fan. Great editorial idea.
SotNist I like the way you use the word "soul" to describe whether or not a game is spiritually in line with its predecessors. Kind of the perfect metaphor, I think. -Nick
Mmm, the Nick's "Something"s are starting to feel pretty good. Nice open conversation about different concepts that occur through the industry. Glad to watch something this directly stream of conscious and thoughtful.
The best example I can give off the top of my head for wanting a game franchise to stick with its original developer would have to be Final Fantasy. Yes, it's stayed with the same(relatively, give or take a business merger in the late 90s) company since its beginning, but it hasn't been with the same director for nearly as long. It started as a creation of Hironobu Sakaguchi, and entries 1-7 were his stories, but at some point after 7, Tetsuya Nomura, who had previously worked under Mr. Sakaguchi as a character designer, took over as lead director and Final Fantasy XIII-3 became an expected thing. What I'm saying is, when you have a game change hands from one director to another, the person to whom the torch was passed had better understand the significance of the torch in the first place, unlike Mr. Nomura. That being said, if a game is good, it's a good game regardless of who the developer is.
I think the lead creator of any series is very important. Whether that role is taken up in writing the script or in game design, the lead of the team is always the most important to me personally. Superstars in the industry like Kojima make me want to play everything they have touched (in this case I discovered Snatcher because of my love for Metal Gear). This also negatively effects my pre-purchase decisions, like in a possible case of a future Bioshock without Ken Levine.
i remember seeing Rocksteady refer to Arkham Knight as the end of the trilogy. Trilogy, as in three. They dont even count origins as part of Arkham series
Pretty poor examples. As stand alone games, arkham origins and bioshock 2 are pretty good and don't go too far from the creator's original vision. In fact, those might be some of the best examples when this practice does turn out for the better.
good games are one things. does it live up to the other games before or after it? does it feel like a key part of the series or just something to tide you over until the real thing is back? there are time when second parties can pull that off but i dont think these games do
Having played the original Bioshock when Infinite came out, I remember thinking "I wonder what Ken Levine was trying to say with this and that," so authorship does come to mind sometimes, I guess. Todd Howard from Bethesda and Neil Druckmann come to mind, too.
Nick, my thoughts are that this is more on the concept of identifying with a game.Since gamers identify with a game they really like, they generally wish to know more about it and who helped them connect so well. Thing is though is that some people identify with new iterations (Buy every Katamari!), some with systems (system wars), and some with individuals (Kamiya). People identify in different ways, which is why people are still interested in Call of Duty despite the original Infinity Ward crews aren't there anymore. Although people identify at different levels, the point I'm trying to make is that people identify with games and a little more at times. Tell you what, if you knew the team that made Devil May Cry 2 was going to make Devil May Cry 3 I doubt you'd be excited for it (which is funny as they made the best [3] and the worst [2]). Love the vids dude! Can't wait for Bayo 2.
it's important but I wouldn't decide a purchase on the back of it. we have a tendency to reduce creators into a sole progenitor - films have directors, games have designers like molyneux or miyamoto, who can greatly influence the public perception of a project just through having their name attached.
interesting you bring this up the week that The Evil Within comes out, quite relevant in this discussion. It really did matter that Mikami left the resident evil franchise, now were getting the spiritual successor to resident evil 4.
It might not matter to most gamers, but it really matters to me, and I can tell who directed a game by playing through it. I wish that the directors to classic games would direct all the sequels, but I know that is unrealistic and unreasonable. I wish that Kojima would work on something other than the Metal Gear series, because I know he has far more to offer than just that series, and he has said in interviews that he wants to do something different, but at the same time, if someone else directed MGS, would it be as good? Nintendo knew early on that Miyamoto-directed games were masterpieces but they couldn't make him do all the heavy-lifting forever so they put him into his current role of General Producer to oversee and advise on multiple projects simultaneously, hoping to shape developers into future Miyamotos. But since there will never be another quite like Miyamoto, I wish Nintendo would let him direct more games. This video reminded me of Sessler's Something. I think you should name these videos Nick's Notes or something because you have more than proven yourself. Thank you for reading, and have a great day.
I think any time it shifts to an entirely new development team it's worrisome...... for example when suckerpunch handed Sly cooper over to Sanzaru games...... I mean I still was psyched to play a new Sly cooper, but it was always in the back of my mind and it was hard to play it without seeing the difference in who developed it.
Games aren't one man jobs (usually). Even big name guys like Kojima, Mikami, or Inafune have dev teams that support them and make the dream a reality. No group effort has a single "author". In building, there may be one architect to design the building but there are many contractors who do the grunt work and the detailed logistics.
I often look at the people who have significant influence on the game (writers, directors, producers) and base my expectations on their track record. I also look at the types of games they make to see if they fit the style I enjoy. There are also certain studios I really like and make a point to check out all of their games. I certainly don't base my entire opinion off of these factors, but they serve to keep expectations in check; I do the same with movies and other forms of art. Simply put, there are talented people out there and I don't want to miss any of the beautiful experiences they craft!
As long as they don't take the IP and do something stupid with it, I don't mind if the original creators let other people make the games. It may benefit or hinder the franchise, but at the end of the day its their decision, their property.
I, personally, like to play the game regardless of who was spearheading it. Regardless though, I do enjoy learning about it and sometimes let the knowledge of specific designers works guide what game I might check out next or something to put on my list of games to play. But it usually doesn't factor to my enjoyment or exclusion of some games.
huge factor for me if the basis of my love was its story/writing, its impossible for someone else to perfectly write something the way the creator would, not just in video games but movies, novels, comics all have the same issue.
every writer has a specific flavor they bring to the table, it just happens that some times another writer may have the chance to write for a story thats already established and be the flavor that is more widely enjoyed, like farcry 3, the story was totally different in part 1-2 but the writing in 3 was more enjoyable to a wider number of people so people say its better when its just better to people that enjoyed the new writer more. the comic book industry lives off of this, a new writer takes over every so often but the core story is the same and we have variety because of it, if it didnt happen we may have never known that someone else could make a story enjoyable to a wider audiance ^.^ so in the end, it has its PRO's and its CON's
Yes, more of these kinds of videos! :D On the topic: Partly I do care about who makes the game, but then on the other side, a game is often a team effort, even if one person is credited as the director/producer, the people on the team comes with idea and feedback, thus a game is more a product of a team than a single person.
Sometimes knowing who made a game will grab my attention. For example, I have faith in Sam Lake and am interested to see how quantum break turns out even though the gameplay looks pretty standard. I tend to care more about teams though, rather than individuals and/or writers.
Philip Steuer Ah, Sam Lake is a great example. I don't think Quantum Break would be on my radar at all if it weren't for his involvement. Actually, on that note: as a Remedy fan, what did you make of Max Payne 3? -Nick
I played a lot of it, but mostly for its gameplay. I thought the story was ok, but was more in line with die hard than max payne. 2 is still my favorite. OH, what i would do for MP2 with MP3's gameplay...
This is why the old time creators like Sid Meier put their name in the titles. And it's why publishers have stopped doing it in general. It makes the creator more valuable and so the pubs have to pay them more.
im 20 now and for me 3-4 yrs ago i didnt really care about who created the game, but now that i play a lot of games and are paying more attention to the gaming industry i feel like yea i do care about the original author. I feel like u can most likely rely on those who are passionate about their game and i feel like most games are just now being milked for what their worth so when an authour u recognize comes out with a new game you want to try it out at least before it starts getting milked.
Thought provoking topic. Many examples popped into my head throughout the video. But right now I'm thinking it's primarily based on trust. Who (publishers, developers, and individuals) do you trust on the team that created (or funded) the game? This trust isn't built on one experience, it happens over time, over several games played through the span of a few years. Once you've done proper research and discovered which party was responsible for delivering the experiences you enjoy, it's left to you to decide which people from that party you can trust with the property. It's all about trends, history, and credibility. Something like Halo for example. Bungie is no longer labeled as the developer, but several employees from Bungie left for 343 Industries to continue working on it. Admittedly, Halo 4 was not my favorite, but I still believe Halo to be in good hands because I *trust* who is working on it. If it was left with another company - Epic for example - I would be cautiously optimistic. They have a good pedigree, to be sure, but they don't have a history with the franchise. To go further, if it was a company no one had heard of, a brand new studio with no one from the original team, it's a bit of a let down and we're left totally unsure fo what to expect. tl;dr Yes, it matters, but not always in reference to an individual.
m4730 "Trust" isn't a word I hear people use much re: game development, but I think you hit the nail on the head. One cool thing about living in 2014 is that game transparent has never been more transparent, and developer passion is more self-evident than ever. Like you said, 343 is a great example, even if I didn't love the multiplayer game Halo 4 turned out to be. -Nick
I love knowing who made my game, and I really do care. When a new company takes on existing ip, I get very cautious about my excitement. There is so much that the original devs put into their games, that sometimes, a little bit of the game's "soul" is lost when a new company takes over.
I'm interested in who makes games, and their thoughts behind them. But while that may lead me to read interviews, it's unlikely to change what games I buy and play. If a new director or team makes a worthy sequel, then I'll want to play it, and the new developers should get some credit for making a good game.
I feel like a lot of the times when a sequel is made without the original creator(s) behind it, you can expect it to be less good than the original. Because the only reason the sequel is being made is to fully cash out on the craze the original game created.
Well I think things are pretty radically different when you compare when an author wants to make the sequel and the publisher wont let em, and when the author is moving on and the publisher gives the sequel to someone else! The former is terrible, it leaves you wondering where that creator wanted to take the series. The latter just seems like an opportunity to get more great new IPs and different games, while the original series can keep growing from having new eyes on it. I am glad Hidetaka Miyazaki ended up working on a different project instead of making Dark Souls 2. Bloodborne has the opportunity to go in wild new directions, while DS2 could give us more of the same we liked so much, even though its a little bit inferior to the first. We get to have our cake and eat it too!
FrankieSmileShow Yes! The Dark Souls 2 / Bloodborne split seemed very much like a "best of both worlds" situation. When I played Bloodborne, I remember my #1 takeaway being how much it felt like a Miyazaki game: BLOODBORNE Gameplay Hands-On! Difficulty, Guns, Enemies, the "Souls" Influence and More -Nick
DDay I didn´t played DemonSouls so I´m curious. What are the biggest differences from it to Dark Souls? I don´t have PS3 but like the series and really want to know...
MarkaNLNL Combat wise it's hard to point out but I'm sure there is a fundamental difference it's just I can't put my finger on it. But there is notable difference that have less to do with combat like no campfires, No flasks, Healing items are obtained by drops, (Stackable to 99 ) has an area that acts like hub to go to different stages. Stages are bit more focused but still packed with hidden ledges and items to be had. I alway saw stages being less open as a strong point that keeps the player focused and has less trivial mobs to avoid and making the mobs that are there more meaningful. Each stage has 3 bosses in them (not including the hidden boss but since your veteran I'm sure once you see them you would know that they where killable) If the servers are still up there is a thing called World Tendency that changes the Stages like how the mobs act, their attributes are also changed and also unlock stage events and this is governed by every players actions (for the most part). But Atlus has been known to shifted ever stage to Black World Tendency near Halloween. One thing you might find in common with Dark Souls is there is crystal lizards for you to sneak up to or shot and you can still forge weapons. Bosses each have a different feel to them even if some of them might be trivial (mostly talking about Old Hero and it's AI is nicely done. Dark Souls has a boss like him but not done as well and is less reliant on this factor. For a Dark Souls veteran Demon Souls could be seen as a bit of an easier game But since I never revisited after I played Dark Souls I don't think I have a right to say. Maybe I'm a fool for liking Demon Souls over Dark Souls. But to me Dark Souls lacks something that Demon Souls had (insert obvious joke here)
This is GREAT! Nick, I love seeing opinions, with literature and examples. I have really enjoyed Rev3, but this is sooooo good. haha, just heard the line "next time there's a video game." nice.
I think it is hard to know who made the games many times because they don't really market it usually, aside from the big-name game directors such as Hideo Kojima, Masahiro Sakurai, and Ken Levine that many people know of
It matters to me, but at the same time one has to remember games aren't made or created by just 1 person. Its a group of people who put their time to do something. Sometimes the "director" only gives a guidance to the programmers/artist/etc and he just manages it all. In those cases I don't feel that bad when the game is directed by someone else as long as the game plays close, if not, better than the original. Regarding 1 person devs games, like Minecraft, Geometry Wars, etc. Yes, I think sometimes those games would be wrong if they weren't made with the person who created them in the team. But its complicated, in the end this is all about Business and money.
It does matter a bit to me. Metroid Prime is my favorite game of all time, so when i hear some of the people who worked on that game work on games like Halo 4 and arkham origins blackgate...i have more incentive to give those games a shot.
Great subject Nick! I think video game culture has been primarily criticized relative to the studio that produced it. Even legendary individual creators in gaming (i.e. Miyamoto, Gabe Newell, Hideo Kojima) are normally viewed as the creative brain trust for their respective studio. Even creative powerhouses that float around the industry like Peter Molyneux define eras of studios like early EA or Lionhead Studios. The fact of the matter is that unless the creator's name is on the box like Sid Meier most people won't care about the director. But for the future I wish creators would be promoted like they are in film. I find it interesting to see how directors develop and apply their style to film, I would love for video games creators to be as easy to follow.
For me that feeling of authorship in games is a lot stronger with a game that came from a small indie team. I feel like games like Papers Please or Hotline Miami, that were made by just a handful of people, have a much stronger feeling of being authored by someone. Where as games made by much larger studios feel less personal and sometimes get a big name attached solely for the sake of hype.
I definitely care very much about the creators of the games I play. I would not have given a second thought to The Evil Within, for example, if it wasn't for Mikami behind behind it. There are enough examples of a series doing fine, or even improving from moving to a new studio or creative lead of some type that I'm not against it, but I definitely want to see more value placed on the creatives in the industry. Kojima is undoubtedly an auteur of this industry and love him or hate him we need more people like that with a whole vision for a game from the start. My purchasing decisions these days have as much to do with the studios behind something as anything about the game or its genre, from games for my iPad to my $60 experiences
***** The Evil Within is an interesting one, because that's an example of a AAA game whose marketing is built almost entirely on the identity of the creator. You don't see that very often! -Nick
I feel like sometimes it doesn't matter as long as the original creator is somewhat still in touch with the game like Bayonetta 2 since he supervised the game. It is kind of like Mario games. Shigeru still supervises games like Super Mario 3D World, and that game ruled.
mario101395 For sure, and I loved Super Mario 3D World, but at a certain point, it's starting to seem like the magic might simply be coming from Nintendo EAD Tokyo themselves. They haven't made a bad game yet! -Nick
As someone who just picked up The Evil Within in a big part because it's a Sjinji Mikami game, well, I'm definitely a pro author guy. That carries over to all mediums as well; books, music, movies, comics, etc. If somebody does something you really really like then odds are that they're a person you want to keep an eye on because they might quite easily replicate that feat on their next project. Seems like a no brainer to me. Here's the thing though when it comes to different people making new iterations of an exiting franchise however; Who cares? Every game must stand on it's own two feet. While it's probably true that Inafune could have made an amazing an amazing Mega Man sequel had Capcom let him, however lets say for sake of argument that Capcom decides to be huge trolls and come out with a big budget Mega Man 11. Let's also say that it's indisputably the best Mega Man game ever made. Does that invalidate Inafune's worth as a videogame creator is in dispute because other people could successfully pull off a game in a franchise he created? Or should you then be less interested in a future Inafune project? Absolutely not. All that should do to people is give them an interest in the future works of whoever made Mega Man 11 as well as Inafune. New creators don't detract from the idea of authorial relevance, it's just a new opportunity for them to establish their own. Bayonetta 2 is a perfect example for this topic for a couple reasons. Firstly if you love Bayo2, which tragically I may never get to play, then you should probably keep you ears pierced for word on what ever the director is going to do next. You'll probably love that too. But additionally, it's Platinum Games. That entire company must run on fairy dust and dreams because everything they touch is just ridiculous and good. It doesn't even seem relevant who he specific director or "named-talent" is. Thus far the entire company has earned itself a stamp of authorial ownership; you hear Platinum Games and you basically know what kind of product you're looking at sight unseen, whether that's something you're into or not. Lots of companies are, or at least were, like this. There was a time anything with the words Blizzard on it could just be taken for granted as being gaming gold. Bioware use to have a similar reputation as well. Largely i think these two companies still have massive credibility and a strong sense of authorial ownership as well. You still have certain expectations about what a Bioware game is going to be, no matter how unique each product is from one another. Rockstar is another good example. I think that's really the only main difference with videogames in this area. Sure there are your Kojima's, your Swery's, Suda51's, who on their own merit seem to entirely steer the end result of their games to pretty unique visions regardless of who else they're working with. And there's teams like Naughty Dog or Rocksteady, Harmonix, CD Projekt, From Software or countless others really, who consistently churn out games of very specific and identifiable styles and pedigrees. The important part isn't how many people made the game, or who invented the franchise, the important part is to be able to identify the relevant players who made that thing you love and subsequently follow their future offerings. It might be a little trickier with companies vs directors, as teams shift what produced that gold can go away but at the end of the day the final work will speak for itself. If its still that thing you love then its still an "author" worth following. To end I have a positive example and a worrisome one; I found out during the build up to The Evil Within that Mikami had less to do with Shadow of the Damned then the marketing would have led you to believe. It was mostly the directors passion project. I also found out that guy has a new game which I am now very excited to learn more about. On the other hand I'm very curious about Uncharted 4 without Amy Hennig. I have doubts about if it will be able to capture that true Uncharted spirit. I say this as someone who didn't entirely love Uncharted 3. Still a day one purchase however. Naughty Dog as an entity has more then earned that.
Dark souls and From are a good example of fresh change in this topic. There is a growing community that know dark souls creator and are eagerly waiting his next creation, because he created it, not because its part of a brand. Many believe that dark souls 2 is an inferior game because the original creator did not directly work on it. From is bringing a new kind of branding, one in which the audience acknowledges the studio (From) and the creator (Miyazaki) more then the publisher (namco).
I definitely care about who creates a game. Games have as much of an author as other art forms do, when they're allowed to at least, and when you find someone who has a really strong and appealing creative output, it's only right to give them credit and follow their work. That said, I often give as much credit to an entire studio instead of just the creative director, depending on what game it is. Like with Bayonetta 2, or all of Platinum's output for that matter. It's not all by Kamiya, but I still love it. And if a game series continues without its creator, I don't usually have a problem with it. It doesn't mean future games will be bad, or miss the point of the original. Yeah, a creator might not like that their creation has been taken away from them, but I don't think that's enough to disregard what might be a great game in its own right. Or the creators who made the sequels for that matter. For example, with Kamiya and the Devil May Cry games. I really like DMC3 and 4, and DmC as well. I can't play DMC1. I appreciate that's where the genre came from, and it was great for the time, but going back to it now, the studio that came after him made such better games. Games much easier to appreciate in a more contemporary context. Also, if we're still talking about Kamiya, Okamiden is actually pretty good. Okami is better, and I love it, but Capcom did a pretty good job without him in that sequel/spin-off too. Interesting point about the Katamari sequel. I've heard Kojima has been put in a similar situation with MGS. Pretty much every one he's made since the original was supposed to be the "last", but he keeps coming back anyway, because he doesn't want the series to be handed to the wrong people. Or so I've heard. I think keeping an eye on creators is also very relevant in a time where studios are breaking up or people are leaving. Inafune is an example of that, as is the creators behind Geometry Wars 3. In that latter example, it's not the exact guy who made the others, but it is still ex-Bizarre people, so there is some connection. Also, we see a lot of stuff like ex-Irrational people popping up everywhere now, and recently we've seen studios set up from ex-Vigil people too. And going back to Bizarre Creations, those guys are everywhere now. Some of them went to Playground Games, who make the Forza Horizon games. It's fun to see how all this is connected, and helps give you an idea of what to look out for if you like these guys' previous work. Also, that shirt is creepy and weird. I like it.
I think it really depends upon whether the game was iterative or innovative. (NOTE: I'm not sure if "iterative" and "innovative" are the correct words, but they're the closest I can come up with right now, so please bear with me.) I love Shadows of Mordor, but I couldn't name the person who spearheaded its creation, and I'm reasonably confident that another person with a similar amount of experience in the industry could have been just as successful with it. This is because Shadows of Mordor is *mostly* iterative; it took combat and movement from the Arkham and Assassins Creed game, used the Middle Earth lore and visuals, the FarCry tower fast-travel/map reveal mechanic and brought them together into a great game. Yes, there's the awesome and refreshing Nemesis system, but who came up with that? Then there's a game like Papers Please where the developer took a depressing subject, coupled it with a mind-numbing bureaucratic task, and made a genuinely fun and interesting game out of them. If there were going to be more games in that series or along those lines, I'm going to look towards Lucas Pope as the dev for the job. He did something no one else had--or possibly even attempted--and earned a place in my small roster of Developers to Follow. Shigeru Miyamoto gave us Mario, CliffyB gave us Gears of War, Ed Boon & John Tobias gave us Mortal Kombat; they gave us something we hadn't really seen before and opened up our imaginations to the possibilities. I guess there's a certain sense of gratitude I feel toward them for not pulling a Madden and shoveling out clone after clone, and I express it by remembering their names and their efforts.
Cadrid You're right that Shadow of Mordor lifts a lot of specific elements from a lot of other games, but man, I'd still really like to know the name of the individual who spearheaded the development of the Nemesis system. That person deserves some credit! -Nick
Great video, I would say yes I do care who make the game because I want to become a video game developer. I understand that many people do not really care who or what team made the game but that is ok for me. It goes to show that some devs really don't do it for fame but the passion for games and the industry.
i care who makes them because of maybe theyre last game or some of the people working on it etc. just like i want to see the next Chris Nolan movie cause of his past work i want to see the next Ken Levine game to see what hes going to bring to a game again.
yes we care. hell we care when you change voice actors. Each creator leaves his or her own finger prints all over the thing they create. people can pick up on that. it gives that thing its character. change certain element and you change the character as well. change enough and you end up with a something completely different wrapped in the original concepts clothing. look at comics. pick a character. read that character written by several writers. they keep to key traits but the change in feel is easy to spot. we dont always know why something works. if a game (or many other forms of media) proves itself to be remarkable fans wants the same elements to hopefully spark again. i hope that came across well
I'm not sure I agree that there was any doubt that Bayo 2 would be anything less than great. It was handled by the same team in Platinum that did the original and the company overall has so much respect for Kamiya that they'd be too scared to dissappoint him.
When I found out bungie was moving on to make Destiny instead of more Halo, I thought about only following Bungie because of my admiration for their Halo games. However, I'm still such a fan of the Halo games and universe, that I still want to play new installments by 343. So I'd have to say that my respect for Bungie will always stick, and inspire me to play their games no matter what, but I will stick with a franchise despite it changing hands, as long as the games are still fun. It's not like a company can stick around forever with the same people making the same games.
Authorship is really tricky, as it isn't like a piece of writing which a single person creates. Its a lot bigger and collaborative. It is sad/strange that videogames have such a disconnect between creator and product when movies/novels don't make that distinction. It definitely feels a bit more corporate which is even weirder when you think how comparatively small the industry is. I guess it'll take a Shakespeare or Kubrick to make that leap.
Yes I do care. Dark Souls 2 was a good example. The director was mysteriously put on the back burner for DS2 (later revealed he was working on (Bloodborne). You could tell throughout the game that it just did not have the same mystique. The game definitely had it's moments, but the world felt incohesive and derivative of the director's earlier works of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. By no means a bad game, but you could tell the director keep his standards high and would rather produce something fresh and new rather than blast out sequels.
My first concern is on what platform the game is being released (PS4, XB1, PC, etc.). Then I want to know who is the development team. The last thing I want to know is who is the publisher. Knowing the development team will let me know more or less the quality of the game and the with the publisher I can determine how much money it is planning of bleeding from me.
My favorite Auteur is, with little doubt, Goichi Suda. Better known by many as Suda51. he is essentially the Tarantino of the Video Game industry. Being able to manipulate and honor genres in just the right way, mixing them with his own style. Using ultraviolence in a hilariously satirical manner, I've definitely have come to appreciate his place in the industry. I've never been so conscious of video game directors until I came across his work with Killer7 and No More Heroes. Considering making video games is often such a collaborative effort it speaks wonders of someone who manages to incorporate their style into virtually everything they do. I often give little thought about who takes the helm in the creation of the games I play, but Suda certainly changed my mind. Every time I pick up one of his games I know it wont be perfect, but I know there is bound to be something in it that makes me do a double take out of interest.
familyfunny I'm not the biggest Suda51 fan, but his personal touch on his games is undeniable. That dude has a very iconic style all his own, and it's rare to see that in big-budget Japanese games. Thanks for the comment! -Nick
It's like films sorta. James Bond films change up the director / actors / everything in every iteration, and there isn't really any holy grail sorta script that they have to stay true to so I sorta see it as "the original is my favourite. The new one has a new director. What can you do". Sometimes it can be a good thing I.e. New tombraider , but it doesn't fuss me too much. I think it's best to respect the creators and their decisions to do what they feel is right, even if it means leaving behind their "baby".
It maters to me to a degree. A franchise i like I will be more apt to buy into it if done by the same team but if it isn't I will wait and see how it turns out first so I have an idea how the new team has done.
Yeah, I do care. I always think of the creators, I mean, it took them creativity, time and love to make something great and when the rights to their creations gets taken away from them, ugh, that must feel awful :/ So yeah, when a sequel comes, I always check if the creator of the original game was involved.
As long as I enjoy the game, then I would like to see who was involve and perhaps follow up on what ever else they worked on. No More Heroes introduced me to Suda 51 and Grasshopper Manufacturer as how Vanquish introduced me to Platinum Games.
You should make a video on your thoughts on voice actors being changed with iconic characters. Like the voice actor of splinter cell being changed as an example.
The creators are like, the only thing that matters. If someone different makes a good sequel it means that they're also really good at making that game. They could've probably slapped a different name on it and used some different characters and had a similarly great result, no? Did Bayonetta 2 have to be Bayonetta 2, or could it have been a vocaloid action game instead?
It depends really. Most of the time I go into a game not knowing who was behind it, but if I liked it I will seek out other work that they have done. If do know who made it I tend to go in with preconceived thoughts which can hurt my experience (because it has) simply because I'm expecting things. Just a case by case basis really.
I honestly only care to the extend that if its a different studio that made a sequel compared to the first one, i'd be more stern in my opinion of the game. As in " Lets see if you guys can deliver what made the other game great" If it succeed then great! I enjoy the game and give the new company the credit they deserve. If not then i wish the original company had done it or atleast part way helped the new team get the feeling of the franchise.
"Do We Care Who Makes Our games?" Is a matter of perspective. Some Gamers think as long as they have fun.. the purchase is justified. Other Gamers think that games must meet certain criteria in order to justify that purchase or skip the game entirely. This is a case of Buying and not Renting games. When a Game Publisher owns a License for Franchise or Founding Titles.. the company in question can choose to allow A Game Developer to purchase the license from that company. If a Game Developer decides to build a game from the ground up that company has a few options. the first option is to develop in house only. the second option is to outsource the to another company and that can lead to good or bad outcomes.
It all depends on the foundations set by the original creator as to whether or not others can faithfully follow. If its general gameplay and loose guidelines for a series' themes/aesthetics, it wouldn't be too hard to deviate. But if its someone particularly crazy and so bizarre-minded, that whatever weird designs and narrative quirks they come up with would not necessarily pass on. Konami tried to make a Metal Gear sequel without Hideo Kojima, but its now largely forgotten and they kept him as the director for the rest of the series. Of course, the idea of passing on Metal Gear's director chair to other people is something Kojima would want since he didn't always intend a sequel to what he claimed to be his last Metal Gear game.
I think a good recent example is Homefront, it's kind of a cursed title, when THQ owned the rights they went under, Crytek bought the rights and started to develop Homefront the Revolution, Crytek started losing money and had to sell the rights to Deep Silver, I feel like if a game is kept to the original vision it's okay to let others play with the idea, this can also go wrong though, look at the Devil May Cry reboot made by ninja theory there was a huge backlash when they introduced the new look for Dante, I enjoyed the game but it didn't feel like the original 3 games that I grew up with.
As long as the creators of the sequels take into account the intent of the game, care about the game, and make everything coherent to the rest of the series it's all good. If they're not taking a dump on the ideals and mechanics behind the series then it's all fine. The matter of the other thing though, the wanting to make a sequel and not being able to, that absolutely sucks and happens all the time. I'm always disappointed when I hear that. This opinion stands with everything, not just gaming. It's why I like Star Wars EU. Good stuff is accepted into canon bad stuff is brushed off.
I think I care more about who is making a game when it comes to new properties. For example, whenever you see a Suda 51 is making a new game you know it will be batshit crazy and probably involve wrestlers and assassins, though his overall quality is rather inconsistent. Hideki Kamiya also has a flair for crazy worlds and characters, but all his games also promise deep and finely tuned gameplay. I think the same can be applied to whole studios. For example, I don't think Gone Home would have taken off quite so much if hadn't been well publicized that the Fullbright Company was made of Bioshock veterans. The idea of simply exploring an empty house sounds boring, but once you learn that it is being made by people who know how to tell a story through through a well crafted setting, the idea gains a lot more traction. However, these expectations can also be thrown for a loop sometimes, such as Gearbox's Aliens: Colonial Marines debacle and the question of who actually developed most of the game and whether the problem was developer of publisher incompetence. In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't really think the developer matters all that much. To folks like you and me it does, but we must remember that we are the minority. Your average consumer isn't going to know Hideki Kamiya, Gearbox, Miyamoto, Will Wright, or Kojima, they probably just look at the series, titles, and licenses they like. Dedicated gamers might be looking forward to the Legend of Korra game coming out due to Platinum's involvement, but most consumers are going to buy it for the attached license.
Wow I'm late on this, but I'm always a little cautious when a new creative head, director, or studio takes on a franchise I care about and I often don't consider it to be in the same series if it's made by a different studio altogether.
Reminds me of Indie Game: The Movie; Tommy and Phil and some journalists (including Carboni! And even Jonathan Holmes and Chobot's husband show up later on!) describing the divide between AAA, mass-market, perfect-polish experiences ("It took a thousand people five years to make GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, etc...") and auteur'd, handcrafted, expressive pieces ("...A THOUSAND PEOPLE. I'm just one guy!"-Phil or "Something personal has flaws and reflects vulnerabilities, perhaps even my own."-Jonathan) I'll engage with pretty much anything/anyone, assuming bare minimum of expense. Y'know, "I'm too busy tasting everything to complete or accomplish anything," as I always say. I enjoy many of the rather 'money-money-money' games (the few I afford or borrow each year), but I also love (and probably prefer) the intimacy and passion of even the smallest beautiful packages. Yet I only buy Humble Bundles when a majority of the games look like fun *to me*, or have decent/interesting reviews from sources I trust + Metacritic. Even then, much of my Steam library continues resting untouched... Thanks for reading. Big fan! Keep up the good work.
Hunter Short Hah, I have a funny story about that: I saw Indie Game: The Movie in my home state of North Carolina, where Epic Games is based out of, so the theater was FULL of Epic employees. There's one part where Tommy say something about how he'd "never work on Halo or Gears of War, because [he] thinks those games are SHIT." The audience cracked up, thankfully. -Nick
What are your thoughts about Shigesato Itoi and him saying the Mother (Earthbound) series has ended and he has no plan to continue making them, while the fans are currently making Mother 4.
everyone should care about it. back in the day you knew that rare would only make good games. you would always get your moneys worth. no matter which genre. and thus they never needed to make sequels to anything they didnt want to. because it was their name not the name of their title who got recognized. opening creative freedom for the developer and higher quality standards for the consumer seems like a good thing
The souls series comes to mind and it was noticeable the jump from one to two. Sometimes its cool and other times its a copy paste sequel when a series gets handed off.
Zaulked That's a really good example! The relatively cool(er) response to Dark Souls 2 is pretty interesting, especially when you compare it to the Bloodborne hype. There are definitely some superfans in the whole who *do* care about authorship, for sure. -Nick
Rev3Games A big part of why DS2 doesn't work for me is it clearly lacks Hidetaka Miyazaki's voice. It's a much blander, flat experience. I feel like if a sequel lacks the personality the creator gave to the original, it's a much worse experience.
INeedUrTurnips I agree that DS2 isn't nearly the masterpiece that Dark 1 is, but I REALLY enjoyed DS2 even so. You can obviously see that there are certain parts that are copy-pasted, but in other areas you can see they went wild with creativity, and those are some of the best areas in the game. I liked their goal of trying to make you feel like you were exploring a whole continent in DS2, its just that the execution of said goal was lacking. All that said though, the Souls community needs to stop this retarded nostalgia train. Its seems that with every new game that FromSoft makes, theres a whole new round of teeth-gnashing about how they ruined everything forever, and its long since gotten stupid. It happened during the transition from Demon's to Dark 1, from Dark 1 to Dark 2, and now from Dark 2 to Bloodborne.
Call of Duty. It's probably one of the few franchise where the developer makes or breaks it. Not only that, the original creators' spiritual successor was ultimately Titanfall.
Absolutely. If Shinji Mikami's name is on something, you can expect a certain level of quality and that kind of style locked in 2005 (I'm looking at you, Evil Within, though shame about the technical hiccups). Ditto for Tim Schaefer's offbeat characters and original worlds. Chris Avellone's writing is less obvious, but Obsidian wouldn't be the same without him. Tetsuya Mizuguchi and Q Entertainment are the best at their kind of music/visual games.
Personally I care quite a lot - I definitely felt Katamari lose its voice when Takahashi stopped heading them up, same goes for Miyazaki and Dark Souls 2. In some cases the sequels to these games do have some improvements in the mechanically iterative department, which is fine, but it's easy to tell when you're playing a cynical corporate sequel versus a work of genuine inspiration. That said, I don't give much of a hoot about the creative side of Borderlands or Bayonetta, so if those games play better than their predecessors that's really all I'd care about. There are also cases where a series got more interesting once a different creator got their hands on it - Spec Ops, for instance. So it's all very case-by-case.
I tend to just play games for what they are rather than worry too much about who made the game. I don't really care too much about a it switching hands on the creative side because if it turns into something I don't want to play anymore then I'll just stop playing it.
I generally don't care, as long as the game is good, but there are some exceptions. One of which has to do with BioWare and the games they make. Considering how involved has been and still is with their community during development of either the Mass Effect series or the Dragon Age series, as a fan I've always felt this... connection. And I really care about the the various developers, to a point where I know quite a lot of them by name. Which makes for an interesting time when closely following the marketing and hype for an upcoming game of theirs, like Dragon Age: Inquisition right now.
I would agree. I guess I see this in the same way as I do movies: if a game is made by a different designer/developer, you can usually tell because the tone is different. There are a handful of developers who I have a really high regard for (Hideo Kojima, Jonathan Blow, the team at Media Molecule) and will typically just buy their games because I know they'll be good. For other games, I just don't tend to care who made them until I develop a rapport with the game.
Hey Nick...more stuff like this, please? I admit that the thing I liked Rev3Games for most was review videos (plus Casual Fridays), but let's see more of this.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
Companies have tried VERY hard to distance the people from the product. That is why you rarely see an artists name on a piece of artwork in general consumerist world (advertising? concept art? all lacking the artists signature typically). It is so the people become interchangeable for the company (giving the company all the power).
The company wants to build worth in the IP (that they own completely), sharing that spotlight with the creators (which they don't own) is something they avoid.
And, well, consumers buy into it. They rush to purchase the next (insert franchise name here) or support (insert studio name here) but they don't seem to care (outside of a few exceptions) who the creators of it are (or if the creators that made them love the studio / IP are even still around).
Ivory Oasis Well-put. That's kind of what I was alluding to at 0:57 - it's absolutely in the best interest of most major publishers to minimize the contribution of individuals and maximize the awareness of brands and franchises. Slightly disheartening, isn't it? -Nick
Rev3Games Though to be fair, on larger teams it is kind of impossible to hold everyone out to the public (teams get big fast).
Luckily the indie space is really changing things up :D People know more about the people behind the games (which can be good and bad).
Such a tricky subject.
True! It IS intentional and it looks like they are acting like childish, not being ready to take a responsibility for their own products. Great example - BioWare with Mass Effect 3.
This is an excellent topic that no one ever talks about, so kudos to you, Nick, for bringing this up. Personally, I'm constantly thinking about this, and I honestly don't really have a solid opinion on the matter except that the people who make the games I play do definitely matter to me, in one way or another. More and more these days, I like to pay close attention to the people that actually make the games, and not the publisher or company name that is attached to something. It really disheartens me how often people confuse publishers and developers, often ignoring the actual development studios of games and ignoring the talented individuals responsible for bringing a game to life in favor of giving all the credit to a big faceless company that only cares about money.
I think an interesting case is Nintendo's first-party IPs such as Mario and Zelda. The original creators of these series such as Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka still of course have a hand in the newer titles, but mostly in an "overseer" kind of way. The Mario and Zelda teams are always changing, and the people that, say, made Ocarina of Time are largely different than the people that made Skyward Sword. It's interesting that Eiji Aonuma, who had absolutely nothing to do with the first four Zelda games and didn't start working on the series until Ocarina of Time, is now largely in control of the Zelda series. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, only an interesting point to notice. I don't really have concrete thoughts on all this, but this is definitely a topic I'd like to hear discussed more, or discussed at all for that matter.
Interesting, I just wrote about the same thing.
Aounuma wasn't involved until Ocarina, but ALttP was his favourite game, and he made an SNES game heavily inspired by it (I don't remember the name, it was only released in Japan). So he was "worthy" you could say. xD
He wasn't the only one though. He directed Ocarina, Majora and Wind Waker alongside Koizumi, who had been involved since ALttP, and who didn't participate in any more Zeldas because he created his own studio, where he makes the 3D Mario games. That is a weird case. Weirder than the Aonuma one. Koizumi has always worked on Zelda, I think he even came up with things like the three godesses, but all it took him to leave the series for Mario was to do some animations in Yoshi's Island and to co-direct Mario 64.
Also, it annoys me when people want to include the Capcom Zeldas in the timeline (which is kind of an inside joke of the original developers, but has now turned into something else).
Oh, and Phantom Hourglass, good game, but I don't accept it as a WW sequel. xD
Yoshiaki Koizumi has been responsible for a large number of my most cherished Nintendo-developed games, and was involved heavily with most of my favorite Zelda games. Personally, I think his influence is missed very dearly when it comes to the Zelda series.
As for the "Capcom Zeldas", it's all personal preference, but I don't mind them at all being regarded as official because, quite frankly, I think they're all fantastic (with the exception of the original Four Swords, which I still think was a neat idea and is a decent multiplayer experience, but is still a "side thing" for me and not on par with the full-fledged Zelda games). The two Oracle games are in my top five within the series, and I adore The Minish Cap. I'm guessing you disagree? Or is it because Capcom had a hand in them? Or more specifically, because it was Flagship, an outside Nintendo EAD studio, who developed them that you don't regard them as official? Hidemaro Fujibayashi, who directed these three titles, also directed Skyward Sword, which is a Nintendo EAD title, so how does that factor into things? Now personally, I still think the Zelda timeline and how everything connects and whether there's a canon or not a canon or whatever is whatever each player makes of it, so if the Capcom Zeldas are something separate for you, that's totally fine.
I guess when it comes down to it for me in regards to these legacy series like Zelda and Mario, each title just needs to be treated as a separate work with the particular people who worked on that specific title being the authors, but also paying respect to the person who originally came up with the concept for Zelda (Miyamoto) and the original creators of the first title in the series (namely Miyamoto and Tezuka).
As for Phantom Hourglass, I accept it I guess, I like the game, but it isn't quite that console Wind Waker sequel I was expecting before Twilight Princess was announced, so if that's what you mean, I agree with you there.
Green Hat Hero I haven't played the Capcom titles yet. I just think they don't fit in the timeline because the developers didn't even have it in mind I suppose.
Skyward Sword is a great game, but I'm not sure if Fujibayashi was the correct choice. It's weird. A director who has always worked on handhelds works on Skywards, and Shikata, who has worked on all 3D Zeldas, and co-directed Twilight Princess, directed ALBW. xD
"I guess when it comes down to it for me in regards to these legacy series like Zelda and Mario, each title just needs to be treated as a separate work with the particular people who worked on that specific title being the authors, but also paying respect to the person who originally came up with the concept for Zelda (Miyamoto) and the original creators of the first title in the series (namely Miyamoto and Tezuka)."
That's a good way to look at it.
"As for Phantom Hourglass, I accept it I guess, I like the game, but it isn't quite that console Wind Waker sequel I was expecting before Twilight Princess was announced, so if that's what you mean, I agree with you there."
It's just weird accepting those are the events after Wind Waker. Something like that?
"Personally, I think his influence is missed very dearly when it comes to the Zelda series."
Instead we got a tragic story in Mario Galaxy. xD
"Now personally, I still think the Zelda timeline and how everything connects and whether there's a canon or not a canon or whatever is whatever each player makes of it, so if the Capcom Zeldas are something separate for you, that's totally fine."
I suppose it's kind of a bold statement, but I think I know the timeline as it was supposed to be. Are you interested in hearing my version?
I can see where you're coming from in regards to the Flagship titles. Although, while the devs probably didn't have the timeline in mind too much, I do think the Oracles fit in fairly nicely. Even before the Hyrule Historia, I always thought of them as being placed where they are in the book. But the whole "Four Sword saga"-The Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventures-does seem like a separate continuity from the rest of the series. In any case, you should play the two Oracle games and The Minish Cap, they're great! At least I think so. :)
As for your timeline theory, sure, I'll hear it. :)
Green Hat Hero Oh, I will play those games too. I have heard nothing but good things about them. :)
I'll try not to make this too long.
I think the key to understanding the timeline is to look at the games released one by one, in the order they were made.
The first game to do something weird was ALttP, which is a prequel to the first Zelda. So that already confirms that there is a timeline. Link's Awakening is a direct sequel to ALttP. And when they had to come up with a new story, they just did the same. A prequel and a direct sequel. Three generations of Links, each one with two games, but we were going back in time.
People will say that OoT doesn't portray the Imprisoning War. But that's the fun thing. On the one hand you can ignore OoT and enjoy ALttP as it was released, on the other hand you can see OoT as the prequel, which would mean a lot of time passed and people remember things differently in ALttP.
Now comes the problem though. Miyamoto and Aonuma talk about how there are two timelines after OoT.
And Wind Waker shouldn't exist. xD There's no problem with TP, but we already know what happens after the adult ending of OoT. ALttP. Nintendo, did you forget about the first four Zelda games? Probably not. It's just that they don't care enough. The timeline is a fun little easter egg, at least that's how I enjoy it. I don't need a scientific explanation, or a perfect timeline with no holes. All I need to know is that these games are related.
So it would be Skyward Sword, OoT-MM-TP
OoT-WW
OoT-ALttP, etc.
Why are there two alternatives for the adult timeline? I dunno. xD But I don't care. I prefer to not have any answer rather than having the answer that HH provides. In which OoT is not a prequel to ALttP (what it was originally intended to be, the reason it is how it is), and what happens before ALttP is an alternative version of OoT in which link dies (how horrible!).
BTW, Ganon is dead in every timeline as far as I know. I find reviving him like in FSA a little boring. There has always been a valid excuse for him to be there. But not anymore I think.
I think the new Zelda should happen years after Zelda II or TP, have a new antagonist, something like a reboot that also helps with innovation, and get away from the craziness that is the OoT ending. xD Which doesn't mean Ganon couldn't come back in some years. But he's a little more complex than Bowser, and if he continues showing up it'll hurt the character I think.
And about the Oracles being set between ALttP and LA, I just don't like it because it was probably not intended. And they have OoT elements, so they feel a little out of place maybe. ALBW really maintains the spirit of ALttP. I see how it could work though.
What do you think? Feel free to disagree.
I forget who it was, but I remember someone (maybe totalbiscuit) arguing that people should be more exposed to the people behind the games, similar to how the film industry works, instead of just attaching the development company's name to the product. This would allow consumers to be better informed about what to expect from a game. For example, consumers expected a certain pedigree from Bungie, and lots of people were disappointed with Destiny as a result. But when you think about it, the team that worked on Destiny was probably composed of very few of the same people that made up the original team of creators that worked on Halo. His point was that looking at game development from such a broad perspective can skew our expectations, especially with such large dev studios.
MisterGutsy108 Yeah, for sure. It's easy to fall into the trap of personifying game developers. I think TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit is 100% right on that point. -Nick
I love thinking about who created the game, it has a huge impact for me on a series. I find it exciting to follow directors and when stuff is passed on to see who now holds the reins, it has a significant effect on my excitement for a game. What I also find when following directors a lot is that you can find little things in games that certain people really like to use.
Really great video, I love when a different director takes over and takes a series and gives it a unique different feel. Look at majoras mask, when miyamoto gave eiji aonuma the lead, he created a zelda game like no other. That's why people always argue about it, it's certainly off putting and that's why I love it. But then you get to the spyro games and without insomniac the other games don't feel as polished as the original 3. Bayonetta is a different story though as many of the original developers of the original returned for the sequel.
Sometimes new teams doesn't really add new visuals or value. It mostly leads to reskins of the same game you bought the year before. They don't necessary take their time with a game because they are only there to make a deadline...Thus having the game lead to crap. I think its safe to say masterpieces shouldn't be rushed. Some teams actually do a good job tho.
Legend of Korra is being made by platinum games, I'm mad excited. That should tell you developers matter.
***** Hah, that's a great example - it's hard to imagine being excited for LoK if it wasn't a Platinum joint. Here's my preview of that, by the way! Platinum's THE LEGEND OF KORRA Hands-On Impressions! Combat, Pro Bending and More -Nick
I think it matter when the quality of the game goes down like how the Modern warfare want down after a large portion of Infinity ward left and having what I loved from the series show up in Titan fall. It may not be THE creator you are looking for but the team. I love Atlus because while they change who will lead a project, the whole team, new or old, are willing to put in the work for their fans.
metalsnakezero Oh yeah, the Infinity Ward situation is a fascinating example. That situation is especially weird because even though Infinity Ward *technically* made MW3, it sure didn't feel like an Infinity Ward game. A super interesting, very unique situation, for sure. (also: P5 hyyyype!) -Nick
I think the people who make games deserve to be recognised, obviously for their hard work but also because it would be better for everyone who loves games. When all the credit goes to a company and not the people who really worked on the game it's easier to push creators around, make changes for the sake of profit instead of quality, or even cut people out entirely.
I try not to let who makes the games skew my opinion when I play them, but I find when it's not the original teams making a new game in the series it suffers more often than not. Most recent example would probably be Arkham Origins, also Bioshock 2 was another big one.
I know that Satoshi Taijiri directed Pokemon Blue, Red, Yellow, Green, Gold, Silver, and Crystal but all other Main series Pokemon games were directed by Junichi Masuda with Satoshi as a producer
I like hearing about the developers behind the games I love. Especially what lead them to their ideas and what inspired them in the first place. I think they deserve as much appreciation as their games do.
Hey Nick, interesting topic to bring up. I actually really do care about or constantly ponder the authorship dynamics in video games as well. I'm a filmmaker and sometimes this issue arises in both the indie and studio systems as well. Because the two art forms rely so heavily on collaboration it's hard to say when authorship matters in a game or film. I personally have started paying more attention to video game writers recently. I think the more people start paying attention to the creative people involved in making the game (like in cinema), the easier it'll be for game devs to one day "own" their projects over the publisher. Popular opinion towards certain game developers might someday hold influence over how projects are run and so forth and I'm all for giving game developers more creative freedom.
Great video and interesting idea!
I think, for one thing, players begin to care about creators of games as they mature personally and in familiarity with the media. I didn't know who Miyamoto was for years until maybe Pikmin. As time went on, I began to understand and appreciate the signatures of certain individuals. In film, studios like Pixar and Disney cultivate a particular vibe that clue into this. Tarantino was the first director I noticed a trend with.
I think also social media plays a huge role. I know who Anthony Burch is not only from HAWP, not only from BL2 credits, not only from streaming, but also because he's on Twitter all the time. Marketing and socializing has a personal touch now that allows people to interact with and recognize figures in the industry.
You're quite right in your final points that we will be entering an era soon where Mario, Link, DK all have to live without their creator. I don't think those characters will have such a hard time making the transition, but something is always lost in these situations. Maybe more is gained; we'll have to see.
I don't know if I have a loyalty to individuals as much as I do studios. I skipped BioShock 2, for example. I feel like quality and personal preference might supersede individual loyalty, as much as we'd like to think the latter is valued. If the next Katamari after its creator left sucked, people wouldn't get it. If it were totally different, some would try it and like it, new people might show up, and others would be dissuaded. If it were great, well, I think most people would keep on rollin'.
This is a great question, and one that I may think differently on as I mental peruse game series.
Edit: Minecraft certainly didn't quit when Notch left. Maybe because it was on relatively good terms?
directors and producers in gaming have as big an influence over the final product as they would a movie. It definitely matters who is involved with a game. Could you imagine how much personality and polish would be lacking in a super smash title if Sakurai wasn't at helm? That guy puts 100% of his life into his games and you can really tell by his product.
MediariteFL0w The idea of there someday being a non-Sakurai Smash Bros game makes my heart break. :( -Nick
It's also worth noting that a lot of creative decisions in games which feel very important to the overall "vision" are often made from the bottom rather than the top. There are some game directors who absolutely have a profound effect on the artistic presence of their games, but it's not always all on them, either.
I do and don't. I hate marketing manufactured "director's vision", but I appreciate it when it's real. Maybe not necessarily as an aspect of the game, but as a cultural arts kind of thing.
If a game is good, I'll enjoy it... even if I have all these idealist feelings about corporate, assembly line entertainment. If a game is good, and has a familiar soul in it, I will probably endear it to myself more. I can develop a cult following love for a studio or a developer, and it'll lead me to check out whatever they make, and probably like it more than most people would.
Even years after I've played games I love, the talents involved start to become more known through editorial and new projects, and I gain retroactive appreciation for them and the game. The marginal contribution thing has value too imo. It's like if you have a favorite musical artist, and they just featured on something, or were the member of a lesser known band... it's still an essential part of their body of work to a super fan.
Great editorial idea.
SotNist I like the way you use the word "soul" to describe whether or not a game is spiritually in line with its predecessors. Kind of the perfect metaphor, I think. -Nick
Mmm, the Nick's "Something"s are starting to feel pretty good. Nice open conversation about different concepts that occur through the industry. Glad to watch something this directly stream of conscious and thoughtful.
The best example I can give off the top of my head for wanting a game franchise to stick with its original developer would have to be Final Fantasy. Yes, it's stayed with the same(relatively, give or take a business merger in the late 90s) company since its beginning, but it hasn't been with the same director for nearly as long. It started as a creation of Hironobu Sakaguchi, and entries 1-7 were his stories, but at some point after 7, Tetsuya Nomura, who had previously worked under Mr. Sakaguchi as a character designer, took over as lead director and Final Fantasy XIII-3 became an expected thing. What I'm saying is, when you have a game change hands from one director to another, the person to whom the torch was passed had better understand the significance of the torch in the first place, unlike Mr. Nomura. That being said, if a game is good, it's a good game regardless of who the developer is.
I think the lead creator of any series is very important. Whether that role is taken up in writing the script or in game design, the lead of the team is always the most important to me personally. Superstars in the industry like Kojima make me want to play everything they have touched (in this case I discovered Snatcher because of my love for Metal Gear). This also negatively effects my pre-purchase decisions, like in a possible case of a future Bioshock without Ken Levine.
I do care, it doesn't always pan out when the original creator and development team steps down. Talkin to you Batman Arkham origins and Bioshock 2
Batman Arkham Origins even had Rocksteady helping if i remember correctly. Just being helped by the original creators isn't enough
BlackTiger001 yeah, I belive they showed them how everthing worked and then basically said go crazy.
i remember seeing Rocksteady refer to Arkham Knight as the end of the trilogy. Trilogy, as in three. They dont even count origins as part of Arkham series
Pretty poor examples. As stand alone games, arkham origins and bioshock 2 are pretty good and don't go too far from the creator's original vision. In fact, those might be some of the best examples when this practice does turn out for the better.
good games are one things. does it live up to the other games before or after it? does it feel like a key part of the series or just something to tide you over until the real thing is back? there are time when second parties can pull that off but i dont think these games do
Having played the original Bioshock when Infinite came out, I remember thinking "I wonder what Ken Levine was trying to say with this and that," so authorship does come to mind sometimes, I guess. Todd Howard from Bethesda and Neil Druckmann come to mind, too.
Really nice to see some space for thought in this channel. Great reflection nick. Keep it up!
Nick, my thoughts are that this is more on the concept of identifying with a game.Since gamers identify with a game they really like, they generally wish to know more about it and who helped them connect so well. Thing is though is that some people identify with new iterations (Buy every Katamari!), some with systems (system wars), and some with individuals (Kamiya). People identify in different ways, which is why people are still interested in Call of Duty despite the original Infinity Ward crews aren't there anymore. Although people identify at different levels, the point I'm trying to make is that people identify with games and a little more at times. Tell you what, if you knew the team that made Devil May Cry 2 was going to make Devil May Cry 3 I doubt you'd be excited for it (which is funny as they made the best [3] and the worst [2]). Love the vids dude! Can't wait for Bayo 2.
it's important but I wouldn't decide a purchase on the back of it. we have a tendency to reduce creators into a sole progenitor - films have directors, games have designers like molyneux or miyamoto, who can greatly influence the public perception of a project just through having their name attached.
Glen Peacock True - AAA games, maybe more than any other medium, are enormous team efforts. That's a good thing to keep in mind, I think! -Nick
interesting you bring this up the week that The Evil Within comes out, quite relevant in this discussion. It really did matter that Mikami left the resident evil franchise, now were getting the spiritual successor to resident evil 4.
It might not matter to most gamers, but it really matters to me, and I can tell who directed a game by playing through it. I wish that the directors to classic games would direct all the sequels, but I know that is unrealistic and unreasonable. I wish that Kojima would work on something other than the Metal Gear series, because I know he has far more to offer than just that series, and he has said in interviews that he wants to do something different, but at the same time, if someone else directed MGS, would it be as good?
Nintendo knew early on that Miyamoto-directed games were masterpieces but they couldn't make him do all the heavy-lifting forever so they put him into his current role of General Producer to oversee and advise on multiple projects simultaneously, hoping to shape developers into future Miyamotos. But since there will never be another quite like Miyamoto, I wish Nintendo would let him direct more games.
This video reminded me of Sessler's Something. I think you should name these videos Nick's Notes or something because you have more than proven yourself. Thank you for reading, and have a great day.
I think any time it shifts to an entirely new development team it's worrisome...... for example when suckerpunch handed Sly cooper over to Sanzaru games...... I mean I still was psyched to play a new Sly cooper, but it was always in the back of my mind and it was hard to play it without seeing the difference in who developed it.
Games aren't one man jobs (usually). Even big name guys like Kojima, Mikami, or Inafune have dev teams that support them and make the dream a reality. No group effort has a single "author". In building, there may be one architect to design the building but there are many contractors who do the grunt work and the detailed logistics.
I often look at the people who have significant influence on the game (writers, directors, producers) and base my expectations on their track record. I also look at the types of games they make to see if they fit the style I enjoy. There are also certain studios I really like and make a point to check out all of their games. I certainly don't base my entire opinion off of these factors, but they serve to keep expectations in check; I do the same with movies and other forms of art. Simply put, there are talented people out there and I don't want to miss any of the beautiful experiences they craft!
It would never turn me off to a game, but it might make me notice a new game if it's by a director or creative team I already know.
As long as they don't take the IP and do something stupid with it, I don't mind if the original creators let other people make the games. It may benefit or hinder the franchise, but at the end of the day its their decision, their property.
I, personally, like to play the game regardless of who was spearheading it. Regardless though, I do enjoy learning about it and sometimes let the knowledge of specific designers works guide what game I might check out next or something to put on my list of games to play. But it usually doesn't factor to my enjoyment or exclusion of some games.
huge factor for me if the basis of my love was its story/writing, its impossible for someone else to perfectly write something the way the creator would, not just in video games but movies, novels, comics all have the same issue.
DarkestInstinct Yup. It's part of why Mass Effect 3 never felt quite right to me, I think. -Nick
every writer has a specific flavor they bring to the table, it just happens that some times another writer may have the chance to write for a story thats already established and be the flavor that is more widely enjoyed, like farcry 3, the story was totally different in part 1-2 but the writing in 3 was more enjoyable to a wider number of people so people say its better when its just better to people that enjoyed the new writer more.
the comic book industry lives off of this, a new writer takes over every so often but the core story is the same and we have variety because of it, if it didnt happen we may have never known that someone else could make a story enjoyable to a wider audiance ^.^
so in the end, it has its PRO's and its CON's
Yes, more of these kinds of videos! :D
On the topic: Partly I do care about who makes the game, but then on the other side, a game is often a team effort, even if one person is credited as the director/producer, the people on the team comes with idea and feedback, thus a game is more a product of a team than a single person.
I do notice that a lot of people don't take notice to content creators as often as they really should.
Sometimes knowing who made a game will grab my attention. For example, I have faith in Sam Lake and am interested to see how quantum break turns out even though the gameplay looks pretty standard. I tend to care more about teams though, rather than individuals and/or writers.
Philip Steuer Ah, Sam Lake is a great example. I don't think Quantum Break would be on my radar at all if it weren't for his involvement. Actually, on that note: as a Remedy fan, what did you make of Max Payne 3? -Nick
I played a lot of it, but mostly for its gameplay. I thought the story was ok, but was more in line with die hard than max payne. 2 is still my favorite. OH, what i would do for MP2 with MP3's gameplay...
This is why the old time creators like Sid Meier put their name in the titles. And it's why publishers have stopped doing it in general. It makes the creator more valuable and so the pubs have to pay them more.
im 20 now and for me 3-4 yrs ago i didnt really care about who created the game, but now that i play a lot of games and are paying more attention to the gaming industry i feel like yea i do care about the original author. I feel like u can most likely rely on those who are passionate about their game and i feel like most games are just now being milked for what their worth so when an authour u recognize comes out with a new game you want to try it out at least before it starts getting milked.
Your shirt.
Oh dear.
Thought provoking topic. Many examples popped into my head throughout the video. But right now I'm thinking it's primarily based on trust. Who (publishers, developers, and individuals) do you trust on the team that created (or funded) the game? This trust isn't built on one experience, it happens over time, over several games played through the span of a few years. Once you've done proper research and discovered which party was responsible for delivering the experiences you enjoy, it's left to you to decide which people from that party you can trust with the property. It's all about trends, history, and credibility. Something like Halo for example. Bungie is no longer labeled as the developer, but several employees from Bungie left for 343 Industries to continue working on it. Admittedly, Halo 4 was not my favorite, but I still believe Halo to be in good hands because I *trust* who is working on it. If it was left with another company - Epic for example - I would be cautiously optimistic. They have a good pedigree, to be sure, but they don't have a history with the franchise. To go further, if it was a company no one had heard of, a brand new studio with no one from the original team, it's a bit of a let down and we're left totally unsure fo what to expect.
tl;dr Yes, it matters, but not always in reference to an individual.
m4730 "Trust" isn't a word I hear people use much re: game development, but I think you hit the nail on the head. One cool thing about living in 2014 is that game transparent has never been more transparent, and developer passion is more self-evident than ever. Like you said, 343 is a great example, even if I didn't love the multiplayer game Halo 4 turned out to be. -Nick
I love knowing who made my game, and I really do care. When a new company takes on existing ip, I get very cautious about my excitement. There is so much that the original devs put into their games, that sometimes, a little bit of the game's "soul" is lost when a new company takes over.
I'm interested in who makes games, and their thoughts behind them. But while that may lead me to read interviews, it's unlikely to change what games I buy and play. If a new director or team makes a worthy sequel, then I'll want to play it, and the new developers should get some credit for making a good game.
I feel like a lot of the times when a sequel is made without the original creator(s) behind it, you can expect it to be less good than the original. Because the only reason the sequel is being made is to fully cash out on the craze the original game created.
Well I think things are pretty radically different when you compare when an author wants to make the sequel and the publisher wont let em, and when the author is moving on and the publisher gives the sequel to someone else!
The former is terrible, it leaves you wondering where that creator wanted to take the series.
The latter just seems like an opportunity to get more great new IPs and different games, while the original series can keep growing from having new eyes on it.
I am glad Hidetaka Miyazaki ended up working on a different project instead of making Dark Souls 2. Bloodborne has the opportunity to go in wild new directions, while DS2 could give us more of the same we liked so much, even though its a little bit inferior to the first. We get to have our cake and eat it too!
I'll love to see where Bloodborne goes in hopes it will captivate me like Demon Souls did. Since you know how i feel about Dark Souls.
FrankieSmileShow Yes! The Dark Souls 2 / Bloodborne split seemed very much like a "best of both worlds" situation. When I played Bloodborne, I remember my #1 takeaway being how much it felt like a Miyazaki game: BLOODBORNE Gameplay Hands-On! Difficulty, Guns, Enemies, the "Souls" Influence and More -Nick
DDay
I didn´t played DemonSouls so I´m curious. What are the biggest differences from it to Dark Souls? I don´t have PS3 but like the series and really want to know...
MarkaNLNL Combat wise it's hard to point out but I'm sure there is a fundamental difference it's just I can't put my finger on it. But there is notable difference that have less to do with combat like no campfires, No flasks, Healing items are obtained by drops, (Stackable to 99 ) has an area that acts like hub to go to different stages.
Stages are bit more focused but still packed with hidden ledges and items to be had. I alway saw stages being less open as a strong point that keeps the player focused and has less trivial mobs to avoid and making the mobs that are there more meaningful. Each stage has 3 bosses in them (not including the hidden boss but since your veteran I'm sure once you see them you would know that they where killable) If the servers are still up there is a thing called World Tendency that changes the Stages like how the mobs act, their attributes are also changed and also unlock stage events and this is governed by every players actions (for the most part). But Atlus has been known to shifted ever stage to Black World Tendency near Halloween. One thing you might find in common with Dark Souls is there is crystal lizards for you to sneak up to or shot and you can still forge weapons.
Bosses each have a different feel to them even if some of them might be trivial (mostly talking about Old Hero and it's AI is nicely done. Dark Souls has a boss like him but not done as well and is less reliant on this factor.
For a Dark Souls veteran Demon Souls could be seen as a bit of an easier game But since I never revisited after I played Dark Souls I don't think I have a right to say.
Maybe I'm a fool for liking Demon Souls over Dark Souls. But to me Dark Souls lacks something that Demon Souls had (insert obvious joke here)
DDay
woah, well, thank you so much for that input, basically all I wanted to know. Thanks! :D
Yes, to an extent! Old Rare is absolutely amazing, I would argue the best, and new Rare has a special place waiting deep down next to the ET landfill.
This is GREAT! Nick, I love seeing opinions, with literature and examples. I have really enjoyed Rev3, but this is sooooo good.
haha, just heard the line "next time there's a video game." nice.
Excellent video, would love to see more content like this really getting into the nitty gritty of production, studio autonomy etc.
I think it is hard to know who made the games many times because they don't really market it usually, aside from the big-name game directors such as Hideo Kojima, Masahiro Sakurai, and Ken Levine that many people know of
It matters to me, but at the same time one has to remember games aren't made or created by just 1 person. Its a group of people who put their time to do something. Sometimes the "director" only gives a guidance to the programmers/artist/etc and he just manages it all. In those cases I don't feel that bad when the game is directed by someone else as long as the game plays close, if not, better than the original. Regarding 1 person devs games, like Minecraft, Geometry Wars, etc. Yes, I think sometimes those games would be wrong if they weren't made with the person who created them in the team. But its complicated, in the end this is all about Business and money.
It does matter a bit to me. Metroid Prime is my favorite game of all time, so when i hear some of the people who worked on that game work on games like Halo 4 and arkham origins blackgate...i have more incentive to give those games a shot.
Great subject Nick!
I think video game culture has been primarily criticized relative to the studio that produced it. Even legendary individual creators in gaming (i.e. Miyamoto, Gabe Newell, Hideo Kojima) are normally viewed as the creative brain trust for their respective studio. Even creative powerhouses that float around the industry like Peter Molyneux define eras of studios like early EA or Lionhead Studios.
The fact of the matter is that unless the creator's name is on the box like Sid Meier most people won't care about the director. But for the future I wish creators would be promoted like they are in film. I find it interesting to see how directors develop and apply their style to film, I would love for video games creators to be as easy to follow.
For me that feeling of authorship in games is a lot stronger with a game that came from a small indie team. I feel like games like Papers Please or Hotline Miami, that were made by just a handful of people, have a much stronger feeling of being authored by someone. Where as games made by much larger studios feel less personal and sometimes get a big name attached solely for the sake of hype.
I definitely care very much about the creators of the games I play. I would not have given a second thought to The Evil Within, for example, if it wasn't for Mikami behind behind it.
There are enough examples of a series doing fine, or even improving from moving to a new studio or creative lead of some type that I'm not against it, but I definitely want to see more value placed on the creatives in the industry.
Kojima is undoubtedly an auteur of this industry and love him or hate him we need more people like that with a whole vision for a game from the start.
My purchasing decisions these days have as much to do with the studios behind something as anything about the game or its genre, from games for my iPad to my $60 experiences
***** The Evil Within is an interesting one, because that's an example of a AAA game whose marketing is built almost entirely on the identity of the creator. You don't see that very often! -Nick
Well, Hidetaka Miyazaki (and other people from des & das1) is the reason why I'm interested in Bloodborne.
I feel like sometimes it doesn't matter as long as the original creator is somewhat still in touch with the game like Bayonetta 2 since he supervised the game. It is kind of like Mario games. Shigeru still supervises games like Super Mario 3D World, and that game ruled.
mario101395 For sure, and I loved Super Mario 3D World, but at a certain point, it's starting to seem like the magic might simply be coming from Nintendo EAD Tokyo themselves. They haven't made a bad game yet! -Nick
Yeah I can definitely agree that they have not made a bad game yet.
Rev3Games are you fucking serious, that would be an example against the point youre arguing. mario 3D world is junk
As someone who just picked up The Evil Within in a big part because it's a Sjinji Mikami game, well, I'm definitely a pro author guy. That carries over to all mediums as well; books, music, movies, comics, etc.
If somebody does something you really really like then odds are that they're a person you want to keep an eye on because they might quite easily replicate that feat on their next project. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Here's the thing though when it comes to different people making new iterations of an exiting franchise however; Who cares?
Every game must stand on it's own two feet. While it's probably true that Inafune could have made an amazing an amazing Mega Man sequel had Capcom let him, however lets say for sake of argument that Capcom decides to be huge trolls and come out with a big budget Mega Man 11. Let's also say that it's indisputably the best Mega Man game ever made.
Does that invalidate Inafune's worth as a videogame creator is in dispute because other people could successfully pull off a game in a franchise he created? Or should you then be less interested in a future Inafune project? Absolutely not.
All that should do to people is give them an interest in the future works of whoever made Mega Man 11 as well as Inafune. New creators don't detract from the idea of authorial relevance, it's just a new opportunity for them to establish their own.
Bayonetta 2 is a perfect example for this topic for a couple reasons. Firstly if you love Bayo2, which tragically I may never get to play, then you should probably keep you ears pierced for word on what ever the director is going to do next. You'll probably love that too.
But additionally, it's Platinum Games. That entire company must run on fairy dust and dreams because everything they touch is just ridiculous and good. It doesn't even seem relevant who he specific director or "named-talent" is. Thus far the entire company has earned itself a stamp of authorial ownership; you hear Platinum Games and you basically know what kind of product you're looking at sight unseen, whether that's something you're into or not.
Lots of companies are, or at least were, like this. There was a time anything with the words Blizzard on it could just be taken for granted as being gaming gold. Bioware use to have a similar reputation as well. Largely i think these two companies still have massive credibility and a strong sense of authorial ownership as well. You still have certain expectations about what a Bioware game is going to be, no matter how unique each product is from one another. Rockstar is another good example.
I think that's really the only main difference with videogames in this area. Sure there are your Kojima's, your Swery's, Suda51's, who on their own merit seem to entirely steer the end result of their games to pretty unique visions regardless of who else they're working with. And there's teams like Naughty Dog or Rocksteady, Harmonix, CD Projekt, From Software or countless others really, who consistently churn out games of very specific and identifiable styles and pedigrees.
The important part isn't how many people made the game, or who invented the franchise, the important part is to be able to identify the relevant players who made that thing you love and subsequently follow their future offerings. It might be a little trickier with companies vs directors, as teams shift what produced that gold can go away but at the end of the day the final work will speak for itself. If its still that thing you love then its still an "author" worth following.
To end I have a positive example and a worrisome one;
I found out during the build up to The Evil Within that Mikami had less to do with Shadow of the Damned then the marketing would have led you to believe. It was mostly the directors passion project. I also found out that guy has a new game which I am now very excited to learn more about.
On the other hand I'm very curious about Uncharted 4 without Amy Hennig. I have doubts about if it will be able to capture that true Uncharted spirit. I say this as someone who didn't entirely love Uncharted 3. Still a day one purchase however. Naughty Dog as an entity has more then earned that.
Dark souls and From are a good example of fresh change in this topic.
There is a growing community that know dark souls creator and are eagerly waiting his next creation, because he created it, not because its part of a brand.
Many believe that dark souls 2 is an inferior game because the original creator did not directly work on it.
From is bringing a new kind of branding, one in which the audience acknowledges the studio (From) and the creator (Miyazaki) more then the publisher (namco).
Its rare when a gaming developer can take over a franchise that they didn't create and make it better than the creators work
I definitely care about who creates a game. Games have as much of an author as other art forms do, when they're allowed to at least, and when you find someone who has a really strong and appealing creative output, it's only right to give them credit and follow their work.
That said, I often give as much credit to an entire studio instead of just the creative director, depending on what game it is. Like with Bayonetta 2, or all of Platinum's output for that matter. It's not all by Kamiya, but I still love it.
And if a game series continues without its creator, I don't usually have a problem with it. It doesn't mean future games will be bad, or miss the point of the original. Yeah, a creator might not like that their creation has been taken away from them, but I don't think that's enough to disregard what might be a great game in its own right. Or the creators who made the sequels for that matter. For example, with Kamiya and the Devil May Cry games. I really like DMC3 and 4, and DmC as well. I can't play DMC1. I appreciate that's where the genre came from, and it was great for the time, but going back to it now, the studio that came after him made such better games. Games much easier to appreciate in a more contemporary context. Also, if we're still talking about Kamiya, Okamiden is actually pretty good. Okami is better, and I love it, but Capcom did a pretty good job without him in that sequel/spin-off too.
Interesting point about the Katamari sequel. I've heard Kojima has been put in a similar situation with MGS. Pretty much every one he's made since the original was supposed to be the "last", but he keeps coming back anyway, because he doesn't want the series to be handed to the wrong people. Or so I've heard.
I think keeping an eye on creators is also very relevant in a time where studios are breaking up or people are leaving. Inafune is an example of that, as is the creators behind Geometry Wars 3. In that latter example, it's not the exact guy who made the others, but it is still ex-Bizarre people, so there is some connection. Also, we see a lot of stuff like ex-Irrational people popping up everywhere now, and recently we've seen studios set up from ex-Vigil people too. And going back to Bizarre Creations, those guys are everywhere now. Some of them went to Playground Games, who make the Forza Horizon games. It's fun to see how all this is connected, and helps give you an idea of what to look out for if you like these guys' previous work.
Also, that shirt is creepy and weird. I like it.
I think it really depends upon whether the game was iterative or innovative. (NOTE: I'm not sure if "iterative" and "innovative" are the correct words, but they're the closest I can come up with right now, so please bear with me.)
I love Shadows of Mordor, but I couldn't name the person who spearheaded its creation, and I'm reasonably confident that another person with a similar amount of experience in the industry could have been just as successful with it. This is because Shadows of Mordor is *mostly* iterative; it took combat and movement from the Arkham and Assassins Creed game, used the Middle Earth lore and visuals, the FarCry tower fast-travel/map reveal mechanic and brought them together into a great game. Yes, there's the awesome and refreshing Nemesis system, but who came up with that?
Then there's a game like Papers Please where the developer took a depressing subject, coupled it with a mind-numbing bureaucratic task, and made a genuinely fun and interesting game out of them. If there were going to be more games in that series or along those lines, I'm going to look towards Lucas Pope as the dev for the job. He did something no one else had--or possibly even attempted--and earned a place in my small roster of Developers to Follow.
Shigeru Miyamoto gave us Mario, CliffyB gave us Gears of War, Ed Boon & John Tobias gave us Mortal Kombat; they gave us something we hadn't really seen before and opened up our imaginations to the possibilities. I guess there's a certain sense of gratitude I feel toward them for not pulling a Madden and shoveling out clone after clone, and I express it by remembering their names and their efforts.
Cadrid You're right that Shadow of Mordor lifts a lot of specific elements from a lot of other games, but man, I'd still really like to know the name of the individual who spearheaded the development of the Nemesis system. That person deserves some credit! -Nick
I really enjoyed this, Nick's a stronger speaker than I had previously known.
Great video, I would say yes I do care who make the game because I want to become a video game developer. I understand that many people do not really care who or what team made the game but that is ok for me. It goes to show that some devs really don't do it for fame but the passion for games and the industry.
i care who makes them because of maybe theyre last game or some of the people working on it etc. just like i want to see the next Chris Nolan movie cause of his past work i want to see the next Ken Levine game to see what hes going to bring to a game again.
yes we care. hell we care when you change voice actors. Each creator leaves his or her own finger prints all over the thing they create. people can pick up on that. it gives that thing its character. change certain element and you change the character as well. change enough and you end up with a something completely different wrapped in the original concepts clothing. look at comics. pick a character. read that character written by several writers. they keep to key traits but the change in feel is easy to spot. we dont always know why something works. if a game (or many other forms of media) proves itself to be remarkable fans wants the same elements to hopefully spark again. i hope that came across well
I'm not sure I agree that there was any doubt that Bayo 2 would be anything less than great. It was handled by the same team in Platinum that did the original and the company overall has so much respect for Kamiya that they'd be too scared to dissappoint him.
When I found out bungie was moving on to make Destiny instead of more Halo, I thought about only following Bungie because of my admiration for their Halo games. However, I'm still such a fan of the Halo games and universe, that I still want to play new installments by 343. So I'd have to say that my respect for Bungie will always stick, and inspire me to play their games no matter what, but I will stick with a franchise despite it changing hands, as long as the games are still fun. It's not like a company can stick around forever with the same people making the same games.
Authorship is really tricky, as it isn't like a piece of writing which a single person creates. Its a lot bigger and collaborative. It is sad/strange that videogames have such a disconnect between creator and product when movies/novels don't make that distinction. It definitely feels a bit more corporate which is even weirder when you think how comparatively small the industry is. I guess it'll take a Shakespeare or Kubrick to make that leap.
Yes I do care. Dark Souls 2 was a good example. The director was mysteriously put on the back burner for DS2 (later revealed he was working on (Bloodborne). You could tell throughout the game that it just did not have the same mystique. The game definitely had it's moments, but the world felt incohesive and derivative of the director's earlier works of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. By no means a bad game, but you could tell the director keep his standards high and would rather produce something fresh and new rather than blast out sequels.
My first concern is on what platform the game is being released (PS4, XB1, PC, etc.). Then I want to know who is the development team. The last thing I want to know is who is the publisher. Knowing the development team will let me know more or less the quality of the game and the with the publisher I can determine how much money it is planning of bleeding from me.
My favorite Auteur is, with little doubt, Goichi Suda. Better known by many as Suda51. he is essentially the Tarantino of the Video Game industry. Being able to manipulate and honor genres in just the right way, mixing them with his own style. Using ultraviolence in a hilariously satirical manner, I've definitely have come to appreciate his place in the industry. I've never been so conscious of video game directors until I came across his work with Killer7 and No More Heroes. Considering making video games is often such a collaborative effort it speaks wonders of someone who manages to incorporate their style into virtually everything they do. I often give little thought about who takes the helm in the creation of the games I play, but Suda certainly changed my mind. Every time I pick up one of his games I know it wont be perfect, but I know there is bound to be something in it that makes me do a double take out of interest.
familyfunny I'm not the biggest Suda51 fan, but his personal touch on his games is undeniable. That dude has a very iconic style all his own, and it's rare to see that in big-budget Japanese games. Thanks for the comment! -Nick
It's like films sorta. James Bond films change up the director / actors / everything in every iteration, and there isn't really any holy grail sorta script that they have to stay true to so I sorta see it as "the original is my favourite. The new one has a new director. What can you do". Sometimes it can be a good thing I.e. New tombraider , but it doesn't fuss me too much. I think it's best to respect the creators and their decisions to do what they feel is right, even if it means leaving behind their "baby".
It maters to me to a degree. A franchise i like I will be more apt to buy into it if done by the same team but if it isn't I will wait and see how it turns out first so I have an idea how the new team has done.
Hate on Bioware all you want, but there isn't another studio equipped to make their games like they do.
Yeah, I do care. I always think of the creators, I mean, it took them creativity, time and love to make something great and when the rights to their creations gets taken away from them, ugh, that must feel awful :/ So yeah, when a sequel comes, I always check if the creator of the original game was involved.
The only time I started caring was when Interplay closed and wondered how many of the writers/directors for the Baldur's Gate series went to Bioware.
As long as I enjoy the game, then I would like to see who was involve and perhaps follow up on what ever else they worked on. No More Heroes introduced me to Suda 51 and Grasshopper Manufacturer as how Vanquish introduced me to Platinum Games.
FINALLY a video about this subject. I am always concerned about this.
You should make a video on your thoughts on voice actors being changed with iconic characters. Like the voice actor of splinter cell being changed as an example.
The creators are like, the only thing that matters. If someone different makes a good sequel it means that they're also really good at making that game. They could've probably slapped a different name on it and used some different characters and had a similarly great result, no?
Did Bayonetta 2 have to be Bayonetta 2, or could it have been a vocaloid action game instead?
It depends really. Most of the time I go into a game not knowing who was behind it, but if I liked it I will seek out other work that they have done. If do know who made it I tend to go in with preconceived thoughts which can hurt my experience (because it has) simply because I'm expecting things. Just a case by case basis really.
I honestly only care to the extend that if its a different studio that made a sequel compared to the first one, i'd be more stern in my opinion of the game. As in " Lets see if you guys can deliver what made the other game great" If it succeed then great! I enjoy the game and give the new company the credit they deserve. If not then i wish the original company had done it or atleast part way helped the new team get the feeling of the franchise.
"Do We Care Who Makes Our games?" Is a matter of perspective. Some Gamers think as long as they have fun.. the purchase is justified. Other Gamers think that games must meet certain criteria in order to justify that purchase or skip the game entirely. This is a case of Buying and not Renting games. When a Game Publisher owns a License for Franchise or Founding Titles.. the company in question can choose to allow A Game Developer to purchase the license from that company. If a Game Developer decides to build a game from the ground up that company has a few options. the first option is to develop in house only. the second option is to outsource the to another company and that can lead to good or bad outcomes.
It all depends on the foundations set by the original creator as to whether or not others can faithfully follow. If its general gameplay and loose guidelines for a series' themes/aesthetics, it wouldn't be too hard to deviate. But if its someone particularly crazy and so bizarre-minded, that whatever weird designs and narrative quirks they come up with would not necessarily pass on. Konami tried to make a Metal Gear sequel without Hideo Kojima, but its now largely forgotten and they kept him as the director for the rest of the series. Of course, the idea of passing on Metal Gear's director chair to other people is something Kojima would want since he didn't always intend a sequel to what he claimed to be his last Metal Gear game.
I think a good recent example is Homefront, it's kind of a cursed title, when THQ owned the rights they went under, Crytek bought the rights and started to develop Homefront the Revolution, Crytek started losing money and had to sell the rights to Deep Silver, I feel like if a game is kept to the original vision it's okay to let others play with the idea, this can also go wrong though, look at the Devil May Cry reboot made by ninja theory there was a huge backlash when they introduced the new look for Dante, I enjoyed the game but it didn't feel like the original 3 games that I grew up with.
As long as the creators of the sequels take into account the intent of the game, care about the game, and make everything coherent to the rest of the series it's all good. If they're not taking a dump on the ideals and mechanics behind the series then it's all fine. The matter of the other thing though, the wanting to make a sequel and not being able to, that absolutely sucks and happens all the time. I'm always disappointed when I hear that.
This opinion stands with everything, not just gaming. It's why I like Star Wars EU. Good stuff is accepted into canon bad stuff is brushed off.
I think I care more about who is making a game when it comes to new properties. For example, whenever you see a Suda 51 is making a new game you know it will be batshit crazy and probably involve wrestlers and assassins, though his overall quality is rather inconsistent. Hideki Kamiya also has a flair for crazy worlds and characters, but all his games also promise deep and finely tuned gameplay.
I think the same can be applied to whole studios. For example, I don't think Gone Home would have taken off quite so much if hadn't been well publicized that the Fullbright Company was made of Bioshock veterans. The idea of simply exploring an empty house sounds boring, but once you learn that it is being made by people who know how to tell a story through through a well crafted setting, the idea gains a lot more traction. However, these expectations can also be thrown for a loop sometimes, such as Gearbox's Aliens: Colonial Marines debacle and the question of who actually developed most of the game and whether the problem was developer of publisher incompetence.
In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't really think the developer matters all that much. To folks like you and me it does, but we must remember that we are the minority. Your average consumer isn't going to know Hideki Kamiya, Gearbox, Miyamoto, Will Wright, or Kojima, they probably just look at the series, titles, and licenses they like. Dedicated gamers might be looking forward to the Legend of Korra game coming out due to Platinum's involvement, but most consumers are going to buy it for the attached license.
Wow I'm late on this, but I'm always a little cautious when a new creative head, director, or studio takes on a franchise I care about and I often don't consider it to be in the same series if it's made by a different studio altogether.
Reminds me of Indie Game: The Movie; Tommy and Phil and some journalists (including Carboni! And even Jonathan Holmes and Chobot's husband show up later on!) describing the divide between AAA, mass-market, perfect-polish experiences ("It took a thousand people five years to make GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, etc...") and auteur'd, handcrafted, expressive pieces ("...A THOUSAND PEOPLE. I'm just one guy!"-Phil or "Something personal has flaws and reflects vulnerabilities, perhaps even my own."-Jonathan)
I'll engage with pretty much anything/anyone, assuming bare minimum of expense. Y'know, "I'm too busy tasting everything to complete or accomplish anything," as I always say. I enjoy many of the rather 'money-money-money' games (the few I afford or borrow each year), but I also love (and probably prefer) the intimacy and passion of even the smallest beautiful packages.
Yet I only buy Humble Bundles when a majority of the games look like fun *to me*, or have decent/interesting reviews from sources I trust + Metacritic. Even then, much of my Steam library continues resting untouched...
Thanks for reading. Big fan! Keep up the good work.
Hunter Short Hah, I have a funny story about that: I saw Indie Game: The Movie in my home state of North Carolina, where Epic Games is based out of, so the theater was FULL of Epic employees. There's one part where Tommy say something about how he'd "never work on Halo or Gears of War, because [he] thinks those games are SHIT." The audience cracked up, thankfully. -Nick
Devil May Cry 1 and Devil May Cry 2
man was there was difference.
To this day, I wonder what it would be like if Hideki Kamiya
still directed DMC.
What are your thoughts about Shigesato Itoi and him saying the Mother (Earthbound) series has ended and he has no plan to continue making them, while the fans are currently making Mother 4.
everyone should care about it. back in the day you knew that rare would only make good games. you would always get your moneys worth. no matter which genre. and thus they never needed to make sequels to anything they didnt want to. because it was their name not the name of their title who got recognized. opening creative freedom for the developer and higher quality standards for the consumer seems like a good thing
The souls series comes to mind and it was noticeable the jump from one to two. Sometimes its cool and other times its a copy paste sequel when a series gets handed off.
Zaulked That's a really good example! The relatively cool(er) response to Dark Souls 2 is pretty interesting, especially when you compare it to the Bloodborne hype. There are definitely some superfans in the whole who *do* care about authorship, for sure. -Nick
Rev3Games A big part of why DS2 doesn't work for me is it clearly lacks Hidetaka Miyazaki's voice. It's a much blander, flat experience. I feel like if a sequel lacks the personality the creator gave to the original, it's a much worse experience.
INeedUrTurnips I agree that DS2 isn't nearly the masterpiece that Dark 1 is, but I REALLY enjoyed DS2 even so. You can obviously see that there are certain parts that are copy-pasted, but in other areas you can see they went wild with creativity, and those are some of the best areas in the game. I liked their goal of trying to make you feel like you were exploring a whole continent in DS2, its just that the execution of said goal was lacking. All that said though, the Souls community needs to stop this retarded nostalgia train. Its seems that with every new game that FromSoft makes, theres a whole new round of teeth-gnashing about how they ruined everything forever, and its long since gotten stupid. It happened during the transition from Demon's to Dark 1, from Dark 1 to Dark 2, and now from Dark 2 to Bloodborne.
More videos like this one please!
Call of Duty. It's probably one of the few franchise where the developer makes or breaks it. Not only that, the original creators' spiritual successor was ultimately Titanfall.
Absolutely. If Shinji Mikami's name is on something, you can expect a certain level of quality and that kind of style locked in 2005 (I'm looking at you, Evil Within, though shame about the technical hiccups). Ditto for Tim Schaefer's offbeat characters and original worlds. Chris Avellone's writing is less obvious, but Obsidian wouldn't be the same without him. Tetsuya Mizuguchi and Q Entertainment are the best at their kind of music/visual games.
amilyester MIZ! I miss him. I still have my fingers crossed for Q to make another world-changing rhythm/puzzle game someday. -Nick
Personally I care quite a lot - I definitely felt Katamari lose its voice when Takahashi stopped heading them up, same goes for Miyazaki and Dark Souls 2. In some cases the sequels to these games do have some improvements in the mechanically iterative department, which is fine, but it's easy to tell when you're playing a cynical corporate sequel versus a work of genuine inspiration.
That said, I don't give much of a hoot about the creative side of Borderlands or Bayonetta, so if those games play better than their predecessors that's really all I'd care about. There are also cases where a series got more interesting once a different creator got their hands on it - Spec Ops, for instance. So it's all very case-by-case.
I tend to just play games for what they are rather than worry too much about who made the game. I don't really care too much about a it switching hands on the creative side because if it turns into something I don't want to play anymore then I'll just stop playing it.
I generally don't care, as long as the game is good, but there are some exceptions. One of which has to do with BioWare and the games they make. Considering how involved has been and still is with their community during development of either the Mass Effect series or the Dragon Age series, as a fan I've always felt this... connection. And I really care about the the various developers, to a point where I know quite a lot of them by name. Which makes for an interesting time when closely following the marketing and hype for an upcoming game of theirs, like Dragon Age: Inquisition right now.
I would agree. I guess I see this in the same way as I do movies: if a game is made by a different designer/developer, you can usually tell because the tone is different. There are a handful of developers who I have a really high regard for (Hideo Kojima, Jonathan Blow, the team at Media Molecule) and will typically just buy their games because I know they'll be good. For other games, I just don't tend to care who made them until I develop a rapport with the game.
Hey Nick...more stuff like this, please? I admit that the thing I liked Rev3Games for most was review videos (plus Casual Fridays), but let's see more of this.