Cliff B: Visionaries Underappreciated

I have to agree with Cliff on this one.

But being recognized as visionary does have it's draw backs and can could cause alienation within a dev team so it has to be done well but not over done if that makes sense.

For example, American Mcgee's Alice, literally gives full credit to Mcgee as the visionary behind the title but having your name on the box as 'your title' as in the movies where the say a film by ' such and such' builds too much of an ego and forgets that fact that so many people are invovled in making the product. However, it does provide a recognized name (like em or hate em your choice)

So I agree every game and even possibly dev house should have a 'front man of the band' like in the movies with big name directors ( again like em or hate em) become a house hold name and give some weight or merit to the product. If you look at it some the best known dev houses out there usually have the 'rockstar(s)' that you know the name of and can associate to what they do or create.

On the flip side, a dev house as whole can be visionaries and receive recognition in the industry and become a common name to associate to based on the products they released rather than having the one 'rockstar' and give the whole team some sense of ownership (please no flames just example purposes) for example:

-Blizzard (Star Craft, War Craft )
- Rockstar Games ( GTA )
- Bioware (Kotor)

So I guess it can go either way to be known as visionaries one path does create more ego the other give more credit to the team as a whole.

I'd add relic to that list (Homeworld, CoH, DoW, etc)

matariel said:

I'd add relic to that list (Homeworld, CoH, DoW, etc)

Click to expand...

Yeah I kind of drew a blank but I know there are ton of games that the studio as whole becomes respected as visionaries once a title hits the shelf.

You name companies, but not people. That's is pretty much the whole point.
Different people made Starcraft, WarCraft 1-2, WarCraft 3, StarCraft 2, Diablo 1-2, Diablo 3.

Put Gas in your Lamborghini? Yes Cliff, you will be able to do that.

The thing is, the video games industry already has the sort of recognition and 'appreciation' Cliffy is talking about. It's just that such admiration is reserved for studios, not lead designers.

Nobody says "Hey, Gabe Newel's coming out with a new game, I bet it'll kick some serious ass!". They talk about Valve's new game. Nobody says "Oh wow, Mikami's at it again, this is going to be great!". They talk about Capcom's latest Resident Evil game.

We know games by their development houses, not their designers. There is no real equivalent to a director because, largely, those that take enough of an interest in games to care about who made them acknowledge the team, not just the front man. In movies, nobody cares about the key grip or the lighting engineer, people barely even acknowledge that it's a TriStar or Fox studio film. In games, we acknowledge at least the company, if not the team (Team Ninja or Team Little Devil, for instance). A lot of that has to do with whether the team unifies and presents itself under a banner or not (Take as an example Sonic Team and AM2 versus 'those guys that did Altered Beast' for Sega).

The point is that there's a little more to it than that, IMHO. You're only as good as your last game because games take so much time and effort to do that they represent a lot of what you are. Gamers do flock to studios much like movie goers flock to directors, as long as the studio has a good track record. When you say Gearbox, ears perk up. When you say Valve, people line up to buy the product. It's just the same as 'visionaries'.


It just so happens that, in Cliffy's particular case, Epic's last several outings amongst their core audience have been bad, and their new audience doesn't know them well enough to recognize the name.

Smood said:

Put Gas in your Lamborghini? Yes Cliff, you will be able to do that.

Click to expand...

:tup:

Hi I'm CliffyB, can I have some more appreciation because I'm afraid I dont have quite enough, kthxbai.

Dear Cliffy,

Put down the "guitar" and step away from "Rock Band". You're not a front man for a band, but you're more than welcome to go overdose on any narcotics of your choosing. Oh my mistake, you've apparently already smoked yourself retarded. GG.

CliffyB is to Epic what Jayde Raymond was to Ubisoft during the Assassin's Creed hype train. Except Cliffy is still relevant once the game ships and is off the news.

KaiserWarrior said:

The thing is, the video games industry already has the sort of recognition and 'appreciation' Cliffy is talking about. It's just that such admiration is reserved for studios, not lead designers.

Nobody says "Hey, Gabe Newel's coming out with a new game, I bet it'll kick some serious ass!". They talk about Valve's new game. Nobody says "Oh wow, Mikami's at it again, this is going to be great!". They talk about Capcom's latest Resident Evil game.

Click to expand...

One possible exception is that I hear "Peter Molyneux" thrown around more than "Lionhead". That might have to do with his work often being less like a game and more like an experiment in software.

Well I think everyone gets reasonable credits with games, I dont think Ive ever seen an instance where a developer didnt give someone the right credit, unless ofcaorse we just dont hear about it.

KaiserWarrior said:

We know games by their development houses, not their designers. There is no real equivalent to a director because, largely, those that take enough of an interest in games to care about who made them acknowledge the team, not just the front man. In movies, nobody cares about the key grip or the lighting engineer, people barely even acknowledge that it's a TriStar or Fox studio film. In games, we acknowledge at least the company, if not the team (Team Ninja or Team Little Devil, for instance). A lot of that has to do with whether the team unifies and presents itself under a banner or not (Take as an example Sonic Team and AM2 versus 'those guys that did Altered Beast' for Sega).

Click to expand...

This is a very good point, movies tend to have from the creators of, people who brought you... But and this is a big but, unlike games its rarely the same company sometimes it is ofcoarse and they get funding from a different publisher. Then again with GoW we are talkin sequels not new IP.

Movies do have things like dark castle or national lampoon, directors, actors etc just move around alot more. Thats not to say it doesnt happen in the games industry with a group of people moving from say diablo to make guildwars. With a company like Epic though, from what I hear, the people who work for the company are shareholders so to leave and turn your name into a franchise wouldnt give you that shareholding capability. Well thats atleast from that Im guessin...

Now name franchises, how many people really have respect for Tom Clancy now we know his name doesnt even mean he worked on a game or even tested it? Look at vin diesel in the wheelman or john woo's stranglehold. There are plenty of names out there but to me the true visonarys are the people well behind the scene not holding the marketing cards.

When we look at something like SinCity we got frank miller on it the guy behind the concept, theres an all star cast and big name directors and they all get credited accordingly. Same with something like pulp fiction but when we look at something like King Kong (which I wouldnt take credit for) everyone was screamin peter jackson, in my mind he is overrated. I mean its a huge task to pull off lord of the rings but credit where credit is due right?

Anyways I cant really comment more until I hear more on Mr B's thoughts on the topic to see what angle he's going to take and respond.

Cinematography can be just as big as directing or even costume design in this day and age of movies, theres also plenty of b-grade movies that dont get the credit they deserve just because they dont have the funding behind them. I dont think that means they are any less visionary then their big budget counter parts

Mozi said:

For example, American Mcgee's Alice, literally gives full credit to Mcgee as the visionary behind the title but having your name on the box as 'your title' as in the movies where the say a film by ' such and such' builds too much of an ego and forgets that fact that so many people are invovled in making the product. However, it does provide a recognized name (like em or hate em your choice)

Click to expand...

It's a business so names can be bought just like anything else. Tom Clancy anyone ?

JOHN ROMERO IS ABOUT TO MAKE YOU HIS BITCH

Suck it down.

I think what Cliff is trying to say here is that we don't really cherish some developers and as soon as they make a single mistake everyone hones in on that one mistake. The post above is a perfect example. We all remember Romero for that marketing campaign, yet we forget that he actually made some of the best levels in Doom. Molyneux gets remembered for failing to bring his vision in Fable and Black and White, yet we don't remember the genius games like Dungeon Keep, Magic Carpet and Syndicate.

So it is sad when we only remember these guys for the latest screw ups and not the great work they've done over all.

Maybe people wouldn't have been so hard on Romero if not for that campaign, though

What happened to severity again? And I would beg to differ on Syndicate and Magic Carpet, there are still plenty of people out there who will pimp those games.

Maybe people are alittle harder on the mistakes people make in the gaming sector but atleast there are people there who care enough to push these visionaries a step further. Or maybe its the pressure that makes them buckle, not their lack of vision.

Reading about black and white you can see Molyneux has still got it, wether it comes through in the final product might have more to do with the state of the industry.

People wernt that light on Spiderman 3 were they even though that is a long standing vision, did marvel let em get them down? No they didnt, they pushed forward and hammered it home in true style with Iron Man.

I suppose, but you cant really say that its people not appreciating visionaries thats the cause now can you. Maybe the whole thing of it is there isnt enough visionaries in the industry atm and its being controlled too much by the people who want to make money, not the people who have creative vision.