MetKiller Joe
February 20th, 2010, 08:19 PM
Shameless plug from my blog (hope you enjoy :) ):
Dice 2010
Being a student I have to study for finals. One of the ways I study is by having something in the background I can concentrate on. I've found that if I'm left to my faculties while doing something like math, accounting, etc.. well, my brain goes off on tangents in the background and I can't concentrate.
This time it was finals. So, the task I set myself on doing was basically 3 months worth of math homework in 3 days. A friend had told me this is the way he studied and he didn't have troubles after that, period.
Being a video game guy (I like programming 'em, but as some of you may know, I love doing art for them, too) and having discovered recently that G4 TV's website actually has all of the the goodies on it (things like commentary on the industry and also journalistic opinions on games). G4 TV's cable selection lacks a lot of content. The only two shows that actually have anything are X-Play and Attack of the Show and both appeal to the 12-15 year old demographic; other limitations include the frequency and length of each show, which makes it difficult for serious stuff to happen. Recently G4's website had a display of DICE 2010's presentation in video form. I've listened to some presentations twice, and they are all about 1 hour long.
So, I listened to them in the background, and the three categories that I could put the lectures in:
From Gearbox (Borderlands dev), NaughtyDog (Uncharted 2 dev), and Remedy (Alan Wake):
"We had this cool game that recently scored really nicely on the charts; well, you might be curious as to what our company is doing in
terms of structure and planning."
NaughtyDog's presentation was amazing. They also did an interview on "Feedback" a a couple of month's ago link (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701417/Feedback----The-Uncharted-2-Game-of-the-Year-Edition.html). ND explained that while there are limits on things that could be done, they let their departments go wild. One specific example that Iremember was that one scene in "Uncharted 2" was the artists going, "Huh, this scene would be a lot better with some magic done with particles." So, that part of the team was brought in and helped the artist realize what they were thinking of (it was a cross-disciplinary effort). Flexibility was key to the teams success as was communication.
With Gearbox, I hesitate. No, they're DICE presentation wasn't spectacular. Though, it was partially I think because the presenter (either the President or some higher exec) didn't really know what to do when asked to present at DICE. I'm guessing that each company that was asked was asked with the question, "Can you come to DICE and talk about why you are successful?" Now, this is a very open question. Gearbox's rep basically stated the companies history, had small mention of Borderlands and their design process and that was it. What I think the question really wanted to ask was, "What did you do internally that helped Borderlands become what it is?". This question was asked by Game Developer magazine in their latest issue; this ended up being a 2-3 page interview with lots of really good stuff (I'd go so far as to say more than what the Uncharted team revealed technically in both Feedback and at the DICE presentation). Funny how I wrote more on the worse (but by no means bad presentation.
I sat there, and then, from the "corner" of my ear I hear, "We, remedy, developers of Max Payne and Max Payne." I though, wait a tick, you mean the people popularized film-noir + bullet time with a fantastic story made Alan Wake? Damnit, another game I need to play. Remedy's presentation was much more into the nitty gritty of the game mechanic. They were trying to show off what they felt they were good at in this industry: coming up with new game mechanics that add to the game experience such as bullet time (in fact, during the presentation, it was mentioned, "You know, when you tell a reporter what bullet time is, they're response is, "Sounds.. awkward." Well, its hard to explain, but it does actual work to the game's benefit. Same with Alan Wake." At the same time, they kinda also kinda went into the "Excuses" territory stating that, "Oh yeah, umm.. we kinda tripped over ourselves in the pre-production, production, and post-production cycles. Kinda why we've been releasing snippets of stuff. We wanted you guys to know we aren't dead, but at the same time we've got issue and we're seeing a doctor about 'em." Remedy's approach to their internal structure wasn't mentioned but from the few hints of their "culture" I'm going to guess it was a little less lax than ND's or GB's, which might be why they were tripping over themselves for so long (huh, flexibility works?). I don't want to poke too much fun at em for this because I think they are still a great developer I just don't know how long their luck will last with this kind of mindset.
EA's Schappert, Activision's Bobby Kotick, Disney's Stephen Wadsworth.
"I'm going to come up here and shoot myself in the foot. Yet again."
EA. Alright, I honestly didn't believe the "Oh, EA is this big power hungry corp that is evil and hates the industry.. yaddah yaddah," thing that seems to hover over that company. Schappert comes onto the stage and says something along the lines of, "I'm not going to brag about about awesome my company is and all that good stuff. I'm not going to brag about how much money I make either." Um. What? Are you kidding me? If Schappert is seriously so incompetent that he can't see how that can't be interpreted from the get go of his presentation then I can see why EA is crumbling. He then went on to giving advice to the industry, "Don't panic guys, we've been through this before. Its tough, but just bite something and it'll be over." So, again, he's either really stupid, or just arrogant. Either could be killing the company. Thirdly, he starts mentioning everything in the industry that is emerging in broad swathes of the brush; as if he knows jack shit about any of it or how it operates. I can't really bash the guy so much. It is somewhat unfair. Like most think, he might just be too high up in the chain to see the raw data (but again, I'm not at the guy's computer I have no idea what he looks at on a day to day basis). I don't think he's malicious and evil. I think it is more that that company hasn't failed enough (like most studios) to be a little bit more modest.
Activision. Well, honestly, Mr. Kotick just tried to explain what was going on with him. He felt the need to explain himself. Up until this point, I haven't really followed what Activision has done, but if he's explaining himself to a personal level (discussing a somewhat addictive/obssessive personality) then he must have done something or his company must have done something that he feels responsible enough to say something about it in front of an audience. That shows some balls. But I think it show's that that company, unless it does something fast may become another EA.
Disney's presentation was more orientated to showing off what they have done and saying that they're going to keep doing what they've been doing. I'm justs going to stop there. I don't want to bash more people. They obviously have a niche market going and I'm just going to leave it at that.
Research
"We've got some research to show off that you might find interesting."
I'll be honest. Some of it was rather dry (oceanography applies to gaming somehow o_O what?). Some of it was business related and statistics heavy. If you want to take a look, be my guest. Some of it was interesting, but not worth writing pages about but maybe side-notes.
And with that, back to studying. My break's over :).
Dice 2010
Being a student I have to study for finals. One of the ways I study is by having something in the background I can concentrate on. I've found that if I'm left to my faculties while doing something like math, accounting, etc.. well, my brain goes off on tangents in the background and I can't concentrate.
This time it was finals. So, the task I set myself on doing was basically 3 months worth of math homework in 3 days. A friend had told me this is the way he studied and he didn't have troubles after that, period.
Being a video game guy (I like programming 'em, but as some of you may know, I love doing art for them, too) and having discovered recently that G4 TV's website actually has all of the the goodies on it (things like commentary on the industry and also journalistic opinions on games). G4 TV's cable selection lacks a lot of content. The only two shows that actually have anything are X-Play and Attack of the Show and both appeal to the 12-15 year old demographic; other limitations include the frequency and length of each show, which makes it difficult for serious stuff to happen. Recently G4's website had a display of DICE 2010's presentation in video form. I've listened to some presentations twice, and they are all about 1 hour long.
So, I listened to them in the background, and the three categories that I could put the lectures in:
From Gearbox (Borderlands dev), NaughtyDog (Uncharted 2 dev), and Remedy (Alan Wake):
"We had this cool game that recently scored really nicely on the charts; well, you might be curious as to what our company is doing in
terms of structure and planning."
NaughtyDog's presentation was amazing. They also did an interview on "Feedback" a a couple of month's ago link (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701417/Feedback----The-Uncharted-2-Game-of-the-Year-Edition.html). ND explained that while there are limits on things that could be done, they let their departments go wild. One specific example that Iremember was that one scene in "Uncharted 2" was the artists going, "Huh, this scene would be a lot better with some magic done with particles." So, that part of the team was brought in and helped the artist realize what they were thinking of (it was a cross-disciplinary effort). Flexibility was key to the teams success as was communication.
With Gearbox, I hesitate. No, they're DICE presentation wasn't spectacular. Though, it was partially I think because the presenter (either the President or some higher exec) didn't really know what to do when asked to present at DICE. I'm guessing that each company that was asked was asked with the question, "Can you come to DICE and talk about why you are successful?" Now, this is a very open question. Gearbox's rep basically stated the companies history, had small mention of Borderlands and their design process and that was it. What I think the question really wanted to ask was, "What did you do internally that helped Borderlands become what it is?". This question was asked by Game Developer magazine in their latest issue; this ended up being a 2-3 page interview with lots of really good stuff (I'd go so far as to say more than what the Uncharted team revealed technically in both Feedback and at the DICE presentation). Funny how I wrote more on the worse (but by no means bad presentation.
I sat there, and then, from the "corner" of my ear I hear, "We, remedy, developers of Max Payne and Max Payne." I though, wait a tick, you mean the people popularized film-noir + bullet time with a fantastic story made Alan Wake? Damnit, another game I need to play. Remedy's presentation was much more into the nitty gritty of the game mechanic. They were trying to show off what they felt they were good at in this industry: coming up with new game mechanics that add to the game experience such as bullet time (in fact, during the presentation, it was mentioned, "You know, when you tell a reporter what bullet time is, they're response is, "Sounds.. awkward." Well, its hard to explain, but it does actual work to the game's benefit. Same with Alan Wake." At the same time, they kinda also kinda went into the "Excuses" territory stating that, "Oh yeah, umm.. we kinda tripped over ourselves in the pre-production, production, and post-production cycles. Kinda why we've been releasing snippets of stuff. We wanted you guys to know we aren't dead, but at the same time we've got issue and we're seeing a doctor about 'em." Remedy's approach to their internal structure wasn't mentioned but from the few hints of their "culture" I'm going to guess it was a little less lax than ND's or GB's, which might be why they were tripping over themselves for so long (huh, flexibility works?). I don't want to poke too much fun at em for this because I think they are still a great developer I just don't know how long their luck will last with this kind of mindset.
EA's Schappert, Activision's Bobby Kotick, Disney's Stephen Wadsworth.
"I'm going to come up here and shoot myself in the foot. Yet again."
EA. Alright, I honestly didn't believe the "Oh, EA is this big power hungry corp that is evil and hates the industry.. yaddah yaddah," thing that seems to hover over that company. Schappert comes onto the stage and says something along the lines of, "I'm not going to brag about about awesome my company is and all that good stuff. I'm not going to brag about how much money I make either." Um. What? Are you kidding me? If Schappert is seriously so incompetent that he can't see how that can't be interpreted from the get go of his presentation then I can see why EA is crumbling. He then went on to giving advice to the industry, "Don't panic guys, we've been through this before. Its tough, but just bite something and it'll be over." So, again, he's either really stupid, or just arrogant. Either could be killing the company. Thirdly, he starts mentioning everything in the industry that is emerging in broad swathes of the brush; as if he knows jack shit about any of it or how it operates. I can't really bash the guy so much. It is somewhat unfair. Like most think, he might just be too high up in the chain to see the raw data (but again, I'm not at the guy's computer I have no idea what he looks at on a day to day basis). I don't think he's malicious and evil. I think it is more that that company hasn't failed enough (like most studios) to be a little bit more modest.
Activision. Well, honestly, Mr. Kotick just tried to explain what was going on with him. He felt the need to explain himself. Up until this point, I haven't really followed what Activision has done, but if he's explaining himself to a personal level (discussing a somewhat addictive/obssessive personality) then he must have done something or his company must have done something that he feels responsible enough to say something about it in front of an audience. That shows some balls. But I think it show's that that company, unless it does something fast may become another EA.
Disney's presentation was more orientated to showing off what they have done and saying that they're going to keep doing what they've been doing. I'm justs going to stop there. I don't want to bash more people. They obviously have a niche market going and I'm just going to leave it at that.
Research
"We've got some research to show off that you might find interesting."
I'll be honest. Some of it was rather dry (oceanography applies to gaming somehow o_O what?). Some of it was business related and statistics heavy. If you want to take a look, be my guest. Some of it was interesting, but not worth writing pages about but maybe side-notes.
And with that, back to studying. My break's over :).