Re: [Fwd: Gamasutra article]

[Bob <mantic@mbo.net>]

Having worked in advertising I may be giving more credit than is due to
marketing but there is an aspect there as well to this dichotomy: Shrek
had big name american actors and about two months of popular media
exposure while Final Fantasy is essentially a foreign import that got
about a week or two of advertising saturation but little critical
attention. This view supports the suggestion that the public is stupid
and loves being led.

But I don't really gauge the merit of film or games that way. Rather I
see the whole marketing strategy of both cinema and games as a major
SNAFU. Consider the classic A Wonderful Life; few would argue that this
is not one of the most recognized and appreciated films ever made, but
it was a failure upon initial release. Last year, with a shamefully
exorbitant advertising campaign, The Grinch was a success. But somehow I
do not expect that film to endure.

Among games it is seems that a technical plateau is finally appearing.
Games made in the late 90's are visually comparable to those currently
being released. Although there are not many games that will endure, if
any, the tech is looking like less of a barrier to long term sales
strategies. For example, the massively multiplayer game Asheron's Call
was able to continue sales of the same boxed package for almost two
years and actually saw a second sales peak last Christmas.

Interactive Fiction, or dramatic role playing games based on systems
such as the Erazmatron, with a realtime 3d machinima presentation, may
be able to survive for years in the coming market. It is a very
optimistic outlook, but who would have expected in the early 20th
century that pulp scientifiction and comic-books would become cultural
icons and survive for generations?




							It could happen ;)
							     --Bob



Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
> > If we really can make interactive entertainment as dramatically
> > interesting
> > as a movie like Shrek, then we really should attain the broad appeal of a
> > movie like Shrek. But if we fall short of that level of dramatic quality,
> > we'll just get a money-losing bomb like Final Fantasy.
> 
> Did you actually see Final Fantasy?  Or did you just read reviews of it?
> There was nothing basically wrong with the story of Final Fantasy, other
> than being targetted at game geeks.  The story was competent sci-fi and
> that's what surprised me.  I remember going in as a potentially hostile
> audience and coming out placated.  I'm still not convinced that this is
> anything other than a target market fiasco, but I'll go see Shrek in order
> to pass judgement.  The anime thematic influences were also evident, and
> perhaps mainstream Americans really don't like Anime themes of nature
> spirits, immortal beings, tragedy of existence, death, etc.  I know I kinda
> get culturally creeped out by it.
> 
> Final Fantasy was written exactly like you'd expect the highest quality game
> script to be written if targetted towards game geeks.  So yes, there's a big
> problem that if one were to write such a script for a game, it wouldn't move
> the game beyond the hardcore gamer market.  On the other hand, the whole
> reason the Final Fantasy movie was done is because the Final Fantasy games
> were so successful, and that was because of their storylines.  In general,
> Final Fantasy has been doing everything that Gamasutra article was talking
> about, and has received financial reneumeration in the games industry for
> it.  I guess it just doesn't scale to the film industry?  And I'm not sure
> why we'd expect it to, since we know what hardcore game geeks are like.
> 
> Will anything move games beyond the hardcore market, other than resorting to
> Hearts?  The more I consider the problem, the more I'm inclined to think
> that the general public is inherently stupid, and that the hardcore gamers
> are a buying minority for a reason.  Games that combine story and mental
> dexterity are probably a complete dead end, as far as getting to a broader
> market.  Combining story and *physical* dexterity may have potential.
> Action thrillers, horror, that sort of thing.  Or maybe emotional dexterity,
> as in soap opera games?
> 
> Also to be more charitable to the general public than simply writing them
> off as "stupid," I think a lot of intelligent career-and-family people are
> not looking for mental exericse when they are told a story.  I think people
> enjoy being led rather than having to direct anything.  It recharges brain
> cells and lets people experience a fleeting catharsis.  Maybe "bedtime
> story" would be the right image.
> 
> Cheers,                         www.3DProgrammer.com
> Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA
> 
> 20% of the world is real.
> 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.