RE: [Fwd: Gamasutra article]

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DProgrammer.com>]

> I didn't see the movie and I don't have any personal opinions on it. My
> argument is not based on my own estimate of the movie, but on the estimate
> of critics and the public. They're the ones who didn't like the movie, and
> they're the ones whose money we seek. They made it quite clear that Shrek
> had a good story, and that Final Fantasy didn't,

I don't trust movie critics any farther than I can throw them.

> and that was why they
> preferred Shrek to Final Fantasy by a huge margin.

Do you actually have numbers on that?  What exactly are the margins of
Shrek's "success" and Final Fantasy's "failure?"  And what are the ongoing
margins as both titles move to DVD/VCR rental?

> That's the lesson for us
> to learn here: we need the kind of story quality that's in Shrek, not the
> kind that's in Final Fantasy.

I'll say it again: story *quality* wasn't the issue in Final Fantasy.  I saw
it.  I'm a harsh judge of how stories are put together.  Quality was there,
and if the critics say it's a bad story, they are wrong/snobs.  It was the
story *type* that didn't appeal to the mass audience, if indeed the numbers
are as you say.  I am concerned that you may be projecting a few critical
opinions into sales data.

> Which explains why games don't sell to the masses. (You seem to be saying
> something similar.)

Right, I'm forcing a distinction between "quality" and "type."  FF was a
quality script.  For that matter, Heavy Metal 2000 was a quality script.
But I seriously doubt that that *type* of movie sold as much at the box
office as Shrek.  Although there's a possibility it may have, since the
original Heavy Metal has quite the cult following and they hadn't made
another movie out of that content in 20 years.  FF has a huge following in
the game world, it just remains to be seen if it translates into the movie
world.  One good marketing point about HM2000 is it has the reach of popular
music.  Same geeky stuff, but more accessible because people like bands like
Metallica and such.

> >The more I consider the problem, the more I'm inclined to think
> > that the general public is inherently stupid.
>
> If they're so stupid, what does that say about a game industry that can't
> figure out how to make products they'll buy?

"Can't" figure out isn't the problem.  *WON'T* figure it out is the
"problem."  For instance, I as a solo game designer am not about to invest
my own money in a project that isn't exactly what I want to make.  My
creative bent right now happens to be towards a 4X Turn Based Strategy
wargame of sci-fi planetary colonization, ala Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
It is not and will never be a mainstream entertainment concept like "Shrek."
I may do something like that at some point in my career, but that time is
not now.  And before I do, the first cinematic title I do will probably be
"The Game Of Immortals," which is likely to be every bit as geeky as FF or
HM2000, if not cut from the same block.  Maybe there are ways to make
immortality and death more accessible to the general public, but it ain't no
Star Wars, and there ain't gonna be no friggin' Ewoks.

I heard that when Deer Hunter was all the rage, Activision wanted to clone
it.  But they couldn't get their own in-house developers to work on the
project, they refused to have anything to do with it.  So they had to hire
outside contractors.

Can one make money with Solitaire games?  Yes.  Am I going to waste my time
on that?  No.  I leave that job to people whose personal dispositions are
more amenable to it.


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.