David Jaffe brings up a pretty interesting point on his blog: how much should developers reveal about how their games are made? He wonders if showing concept art or behind-the-scenes looks at unfinished parts of a game destroys some of their ‘magic’.
Jaffe points to good old Mario and Zelda as franchises that have retained their magic by not revealing too much about their development.
Think about this: You NEVER see concept art or behind the scenes footage from first party Nintendo games. You never see wire frame models of what Princess Zelda’s castle looks like, or voice recording footage of the actress playing Peach. Or if you do, it’s very, very rare. And it’s one of the reasons- I feel- that the Mario and Zelda characters almost feel real, alive, and magical. Granted, much of this comes from the fact that they are just amazing characters who inhabit amazing games. You can’t deny that part, to be sure. But I think they are on to something when it comes to how they- as a company- protect those characters and worlds; like how you never get to see the actors changing out of the Mickey costume at Disneyland. It’s an illusion that pays off big for them.
Although I personally enjoy seeing behind-the-scenes footage, I prefer seeing it after I’ve played the game. I think the game industry doesn’t ‘reveal’ too much, it’s just revealing things too soon.
I don’t need to know everything about a game two years in advance. I certainly don’t need the (typically) ridiculous amounts of preview materials to become interested in buying a game. A few good videos and a few good hands-on previews not too long before release will probably do it for me. On the other hand, I absolutely love learning more about a game’s development process after its release. Half-Life 2: Episode 1’s commentary feature is the best thing ever, and it almost doubled the value I got out of that game. I also like the unlockable behind-the-scenes videos in Guitar Hero II and Telltale Games’ DVD style commentary for Sam & Max.
Comparisons to the movie industry drive me nuts, so it’s with some frustration that I’m going to make one now, but… I really like how movies do it. Projects get announced (but not ‘revealed’) extremely early on, even before financing or casting is complete. For instance, if you’re a movie buff you might know that Michel Gondry is working on a film called Master of Space and Time, based on a novel by Rudy Rucker. Expected release: 2009. What else do we know about it? Almost nothing. We probably won’t even hear about it until a teaser trailer is released, followed by more radio silence until a few months before release, when the PR machine kicks in. There might be a featurette, but you usually won’t get the behind-the-scenes looks and commentary tracks until it’s out on DVD. Alternatively, the project gets canceled, but this will have a lesser impact as little was known about it anyway.
What if this model were to be applied to games? If you don’t care about the behind-the-scenes stuff, then there’s also no chance of it destroying the ‘magic’ for you. If you do care about it, then great, you’ll get it after you’ve actually played the game. What do you think?
Much like you, I enjoy the openness of the games industry. And I also don’t particularly care about when I get to see the behind-the-scenes stuff. I also like how, in this industry, these things seem to be mostly genuine, as opposed to the completely doctored ‘Making Of’ documentaries that accompany films.
But you and I are game designers ourselves. We have a professional interest in games. Especially at a time when the medium is evolving very rapidly. We also have enough to knowledge to be able to seperate the behind-the-scenes information from the actual game and still enjoy it.
But does this apply to the audience at large? I think not. I think the marketing surrounding a game should be part of the fiction it is selling. That will be much more enjoyable.
On the other hand, how many “normal” people visit the sites that you and I do, the ones that give you insight in the making of these games? Perhaps there’s a larger percentage of geeks like us in the hardcore audience, but as the market is shifting to more mainstream, less and less people will go around trying to find these things.
Michael Samyn
June 21st, 2007
Well, since you asked.
Here’s what I think: if you can release concept art, cut features, ideas that didn’t make it into the game, etc, after the game, that’d be great because other people can learn a lot from it. Like The Document of MGS2. To draw something parallel to the film industry (and I disagree partly with Mr. Sawyn on this), something like the “Making Of” Psycho or Taxi Driver can be really useful, because in those you get stuff like “Why did Hitchcock not like this shot? It’s filmed that way” or like “The idea behind this scene in the film was to put you in Trevor’s shoes” and you can apply to that to your ideas on games. Films know a lot more about themselves than games do. True, there is bullshit out there (”Making of Red Dragon“) but you also get some pretty cool insight sometimes (The Lord of the Rings extended cuts … the footage was shot on location and everything the people say is very, very detailed and is very, very genuine, so there’s very little bullshit involved there).
But yeah, there’s always the danger of releasing too much information before a game is finished. If you watch all of the MGS3 trailers you’ll end up disappointed. I learned my lesson from that and so with Psychonauts I didn’t even see the trailer (although sadly the game was snatched away from me before I managed to play for more than an hour - *sniff*). Also previews give a pretty wrong impression about a game. Just look at Gamespot here “drooling all over our shoes” when “it’s entirely possible MGS4 doesn’t even exist outside of Kojima’s head at this point” (Kojima = MGS creator/designer/writer).
I hate Gamespot. They have enough power to change the industry and then they go ahead and publish something as stupid as Xbox 360 Graphics VS PS3 Graphics.
But I digress: Basically, commentary and behind-the-scenery that is (a) good, and (b) is shown after the game is released is good, otherwise it’s pointless and just a marketing ploy.
Kroms
June 22nd, 2007
I’m going to drag Starcraft into this again, but I’m not as obsessed as it seems.
Regardless. I was playing the first Starcraft and it occurred to me how wonderfully well it’s paced in revealing all its secrets at you, specifically the units of the races. You gradually get to meet them. Great build of tension and excitement there.
So I’m kinda sceptic whether or not I should follow its sequel’s site, because Blizzard is slowly going to reveal all the units and stuff that’s in the game to us over the course of the 50 years (an approximation) it’ll take until it ships. It’s already quarterway through the Protoss. I think this would take away from the excitement when you play the game for the first time, so I think I’m going to install a nice little media blackout on Starcraft 2.
Of course, this isn’t actually ‘behind the scenes’… this is about finished assets and stuff from the game, but still. I understand why Blizz would want to do it for hyping purposes, but as a games I don’t think it would improve the enjoyment of the game. It WOULD improve the riding of the hype.
Also, Marek, if your blog refuses to post this just like it did all the other times, I’m putting it on the Thumb. That’ll serve you right!
Roderick
June 23rd, 2007
I’d say that Rockstar approaches their pre-release PR in much the way you describe the film industry model. GTA4’s announcement, teaser, and press interaction appear to be following just the same arc.
Steve
June 23rd, 2007
Even as someone who makes a living covering games prior to their release, I completely agree with you, Marek. I think it is absurd that people like me go out and play games for hours and hours when they are months away from release, and I think it is absurd that gamers demand–even expect–coverage like that.
I think part of the reason may be that game design is young enough that people still fuck it up on a regular basis–gamers want to be reassured that games are not even necessarily great, but just competently made on a basic level.
In films, in all but the most disastrous of cases, you never get, for example, a camera simply not pointing at thing the director intended. In the young, interactive medium of games, however, we get end results like that all the time.
There are plenty of terrible films–most of the ones that take in the big bucks are shit. These tend be bad for creative or artistic reasons, though, not for low-level technical reasons. In games, people mess up the absolute fundamentals on the time–and, on top of that, most games are ALSO creatively and artistically derivative or just plan dumb.
Previews help to let people know what’s promising early on. Of course, previews tend to be universally neutral or positive, but it is clearly possible to infer an adjusted scale from that. It’s sort of like how games are mostly reviewed on a 6-10 scale–6 ends up being bad, even if it’s not supposed to be.
Anyway, I’m not defending the system. Again, I agree with you. I dearly wish there was less focus on obsessive preview coverage and I could spend more of my time and effort with more interesting coverage. For example, I really wish games were not so disposable. I would love to do reviews but it is not feasible for us to get them done right at release, and economically if you’re doing this for a living there isn’t much point putting up late reviews. Most people want a number the minute a game comes out, or even a week or two beforehand.
So yeah, I’m just describing the system, not trying to justify it.
Chris Remo
June 24th, 2007
Great comments, everyone!
Steve: I think Rockstar gets pretty close, but not quite. With San Andreas there was like 6 months of monthly previews each focusing on different sets of features or locations. In terms of previews quantity it’s not at all what I would like, e.g. I don’t want to have seen detailed guides for each of the game’s major cities before release. But I agree that Rockstar does the timing well. They put out an early teaser video, then don’t do any rushed or smoke-and-mirrors demos for trade shows, and simply wait until fairly close to release for the full previews.
Marek
June 24th, 2007
Roderick, I would agree with you. I was an avid player of Starcraft myself and feel that they did a good job with building tension and anticipation for the game. With Starcraft 2, they’ve given a few trailers and screenshots already but over the course of such a long time. Based on Remos explanation, Blizzard is milking it for all it’s worth to hopefully give previews and tidbits of how the game play should be. I may have to join you on the little media blackout on Starcraft 2.
starcraft 2
April 4th, 2008