J.E. Sawyer sure likes his shiny 2.0 toy, and has been busily answering questions in the last 2 days. Let's get to it.<blockquote>How do publishers and developers interact in the world of game design? Is it usual for publishing companies to get residuals, or are they usually just funded and compensated for development?
Publishers take the majority of profits. Developers are paid on a milestone basis with some bonuses or royalties (usually) negotiated into the contract, but said bonuses/royalties are usually contingent on some strict criteria (shipped on time, 85%+ rated, X million units sold, etc.).
In the 11 years I've been in the industry, I've received one royalty check for one game: Icewind Dale. Some very successful companies have a lot of bonuses and royalties flying around, but they are the exception.
As a "hardcore" RPG developer, Obsidian could make a mint releasing budget hardcore RPGs on Steam that focus more on story than graphics and take less development time or resources. Does this interest you at all?
Story vs. graphics isn't actually an antagonistic relationship in my opinion. I don't think I've ever had an experience during development where I've thought, "If only this game could get by with lower fidelity graphics, then I could tell the story I really want to tell."
What lower budget titles offer to developers and publishers is lower loss potential. If a project "only" costs $1-3 million to make, even if it sells zero copies, the publisher is only out $1-3 million. Compared to the operating project budget of most publishers, that's relatively minor.
Lower loss potential can possibly be negotiated into "wacky game idea time". So if you want to make a game that has really niche or experimental game play, a non-traditional setting/set of characters, etc., a lower budget game is probably the place you're going to do it -- if anywhere.
As a side note, I am not primarily interested in telling stories. I am a game designer and my primary interest is in making games. I always want the stories in the games I work on to be good, but that is secondary to ensuring that the game play is enjoyable. If I were fundamentally concerned with telling stories, I would become a writer.
So you've made it pretty clear that you're more interested in developing games than writing the stories in those games, despite your company's reputation. Do you at all resent that so many people keep focusing on Obsidian's writing?
Not at all, but I think people should have higher standards for game play. Slapping "RPG" on a game should not give it a free pass for clumsy or poorly balanced mechanics. Additionally, I believe that an RPG with a "great story" that does not mechanically work well with player choice might as well not be an RPG.
A lot of RPG designers fixate on telling the player a story instead of giving players tools to make *their* stories unique and reactive.
When defining an RPG, what about abstracted mechanics? IMO, a greater degree of abstraction that explicitly expresses or rewards a player's choices should be part of the definition, would you agree or disagree?
Agree, and I think it can apply to any/all aspects of game play: conversation choices, skill choices, weapon choices, etc.
If have two weapons available to me, make them tactically different, then present me with situations where their tactical differences matter. If I make a strategic decision to invest in one skill/faction/"alignment" over another, be sure to reward me for my choice and also remind me what I am missing out on because of that same choice.
You seemed to dismiss the idea of working on smaller-budget titles. As a video game designer, do you view big projects with corporate backing and a marketing campaign to be more prestigious, more fun, or just more lucrative? Does it make a better game?
The only reason I dismiss it is because I don't think publishers are interested in it. I would certainly work on a small budget title if that's what a publisher/Obsidian wanted. This has not happened as far as I know.
Brian Mitsoda says that he thinks that certain companies have undeserved reputations for good writing and even though good gameplay is more important it'd be nice if they tried to live up to them. Do you think gamers have lowered standards w/r/t writing?
After decades of industry evolution, our subject matter and thematic delivery are still juvenile. Count the number of games that have established and reinforced a consistent theme through subtext. In the rare case when a game story has a clearly discernible theme, it is delivered with the subtlety of a claw hammer to the skull.
I don't see many gamers noticing this, much less complaining about it.</blockquote>
Publishers take the majority of profits. Developers are paid on a milestone basis with some bonuses or royalties (usually) negotiated into the contract, but said bonuses/royalties are usually contingent on some strict criteria (shipped on time, 85%+ rated, X million units sold, etc.).
In the 11 years I've been in the industry, I've received one royalty check for one game: Icewind Dale. Some very successful companies have a lot of bonuses and royalties flying around, but they are the exception.
As a "hardcore" RPG developer, Obsidian could make a mint releasing budget hardcore RPGs on Steam that focus more on story than graphics and take less development time or resources. Does this interest you at all?
Story vs. graphics isn't actually an antagonistic relationship in my opinion. I don't think I've ever had an experience during development where I've thought, "If only this game could get by with lower fidelity graphics, then I could tell the story I really want to tell."
What lower budget titles offer to developers and publishers is lower loss potential. If a project "only" costs $1-3 million to make, even if it sells zero copies, the publisher is only out $1-3 million. Compared to the operating project budget of most publishers, that's relatively minor.
Lower loss potential can possibly be negotiated into "wacky game idea time". So if you want to make a game that has really niche or experimental game play, a non-traditional setting/set of characters, etc., a lower budget game is probably the place you're going to do it -- if anywhere.
As a side note, I am not primarily interested in telling stories. I am a game designer and my primary interest is in making games. I always want the stories in the games I work on to be good, but that is secondary to ensuring that the game play is enjoyable. If I were fundamentally concerned with telling stories, I would become a writer.
So you've made it pretty clear that you're more interested in developing games than writing the stories in those games, despite your company's reputation. Do you at all resent that so many people keep focusing on Obsidian's writing?
Not at all, but I think people should have higher standards for game play. Slapping "RPG" on a game should not give it a free pass for clumsy or poorly balanced mechanics. Additionally, I believe that an RPG with a "great story" that does not mechanically work well with player choice might as well not be an RPG.
A lot of RPG designers fixate on telling the player a story instead of giving players tools to make *their* stories unique and reactive.
When defining an RPG, what about abstracted mechanics? IMO, a greater degree of abstraction that explicitly expresses or rewards a player's choices should be part of the definition, would you agree or disagree?
Agree, and I think it can apply to any/all aspects of game play: conversation choices, skill choices, weapon choices, etc.
If have two weapons available to me, make them tactically different, then present me with situations where their tactical differences matter. If I make a strategic decision to invest in one skill/faction/"alignment" over another, be sure to reward me for my choice and also remind me what I am missing out on because of that same choice.
You seemed to dismiss the idea of working on smaller-budget titles. As a video game designer, do you view big projects with corporate backing and a marketing campaign to be more prestigious, more fun, or just more lucrative? Does it make a better game?
The only reason I dismiss it is because I don't think publishers are interested in it. I would certainly work on a small budget title if that's what a publisher/Obsidian wanted. This has not happened as far as I know.
Brian Mitsoda says that he thinks that certain companies have undeserved reputations for good writing and even though good gameplay is more important it'd be nice if they tried to live up to them. Do you think gamers have lowered standards w/r/t writing?
After decades of industry evolution, our subject matter and thematic delivery are still juvenile. Count the number of games that have established and reinforced a consistent theme through subtext. In the rare case when a game story has a clearly discernible theme, it is delivered with the subtlety of a claw hammer to the skull.
I don't see many gamers noticing this, much less complaining about it.</blockquote>
