Notgames Forum

Krystian Majewski just played Silent Hill 2 for the first time and completely recognizes why that game is so strong. A very good read (http://gamedesignreviews.com/scrapbook/where-did-we-go-wrong/) leading to a topic of discussion that I find of exceptional relevance here, given how close to the vision of many of us Silent Hill 2 already was, 10 years ago.

Krystian ends the article with asking "Where did we go wrong?"
I would like to discuss that here.

I was actually a witness to the transition. There was a kind of internal crisis happening in the games industry at that time. It coincided, for instance, with the end of the Game Developer Conference Europe in London.

I think the games industry was struck by a kind of panic when they realized how expensive games production was going to be as of then. So they crawled back into their shell and retreated to the area where they felt safe: the hardcore gamer audience. This was epitomized for me by somebody from Activision at the Game Connection in Lyon, exclaiming that, as of now, they were only going to make "games for gamers" anymore.

This was a relevant thing to say at the moment, because, indeed, there was a strong desire to open up the medium towards a new audience, in the wake of titles such as The Sims, Black & White, Ico and indeed Silent Hill 2.

What all those games had in common, however, was that they were the product of a strong vision of an individual, or a small passionate team. And while the games industry may have been completely willing to copy a certain formula of success, it was in no way prepared to put so much responsibility on the shoulders of a single author, or a small creative team, as did happen in cinema, for instance. I think the industry still considered itself very much as manufacturers of commodities and not producers of cultural artifacts. And given the increased size of budgets, it must have seemed foolish to put one's faith in the talent and vision of individuals rather than reliable production methods in which every single element is replaceable.

I still don't think that "hardcore" gamers are the enemy you think they are. I think it's just the general perception of what a hardcore gamer is supposed to be. The indie games phenomena is a response to this hollowing out of big budget games, very much like the response of indie movie production in the 60s and 70s. Michaël, I know you have problems with indie games, as do I but I still feel very optimistic that it happened at all. :)

Silent Hill 2. Yeah, I need to get around to playing that. XD

The think with lack of focus on individuals may be an important factor. Not sure how deliberate this was. It seems to me like this was partially an unconscious process as budgets and team size increased. The people "in charge" drifted into administrative positions. I think Peter Molyneux is a good example.

Another Aspect that occurred to me: especially American culture has very few precedence of mature topics in animation. American comics have been also struggling with this problem a lot. I believe that the experience with mature topics in Anime and Manga helped  a great deal as a gateway to get those topics into Japanese games. That influence is clearly visible in ICO and Shadow of the Colossus.

Since the PS2 era, the entire Industry shifted it's focus on American productions - possibly starting with Halo and GTA3.

Recently I've been thinking that "hardcore" gamers are actually the only potential target for games that are more meaningful, or that eschew immediate "fun" styles. This seems to be the way it is in most media, i.e. people who aren't really into music tend to listen to superficial pop music and don't want anything other than a quick immediate response from it, similarly people who aren't especially into films just tend to watch whatever blockbusters are showing whereas the people who are into films might seek out foreign films or those that would be described as artistic. Maybe the main exception to this are people who are into 'art' as a concept and culture in general, but I don't think this necessarily represents a large proportion of the population.

Essentially I think that only hardcore gamers will want to play anything other than a quick-fun-fix type of game, and even hardcore gamers will only want them once they're bored of the shallower offerings. The hardcore gamers of today are the notgamers of tomorrow, they just don't know it yet. (Not that a hardcore gamer / notgamer divide actually exists.)


As for the article in question, I'd bookmarked it rather than reading it since I was planning on playing silent hill 2 soon and I wasn't sure if there would be spoilers of any form.

I couldn't have put this better! Exactly, the enthusiasts are the one's who are going to be more open to atypical gameplay (or notgameplay).

That is a different debate. With regards to the changes in the industry following the Silent Hill 2 period, "gamers" simply equated with "known reliable customers". That is the heart of the problem: the refusal of the games industry to reach out, to embrace the idea that videogames could become a real medium, instead of a hobby.

I think early 2000 generally is a time where a lot of great stuff was taking place. We have other interesting horror games such as Fatal Frame and Forbidden Siren, and there are games such as Fallout, Planescape, etc being made.

I think the explanation that games got more expensive after this seem highly plausible. This was probably a time where games could look mature enough, but were cheap enough for a single/few artistic lead(s). This have some flaws though since Xbox360 (and the next generation) did not come until 2005 and that many ps2 games came out after SH2 (not least two sequels). Another issue I think is that many designers settled down (family,etc) and then did not want to risk with experimentation (leading to the admin drift Krystian mentioned above). And then when fresh blood got to design games, we were in the next-gen area and companies wanted more control on the products.

But still. SH2 is a huge favorite in the indie scene, and there has been very few attempts to recreate it. As seen with the recent Lost Survivor, you can get most of the silent hill atmosphere with snes-like graphics. But for some reasons, the indie scene has been mostly about puzzles games and SH2-like experiences behind. Worth noting that this was the case before the indie boom with Cave Story, World of Goo, etc... When I was making games in 2000 (pre SH2) and was inspired by Resident Evil and SH1, all other people I knew were making platformers, etc. So even in the stort of mainstream "golden age", indie has the same kind of direction it has today, over 10 years later.

I guess that sort of explains why there was few indie trying to pick where SH2 left. Also I have gotten the feeling that people who got into gamedev at that time often had the idea that you simply could not make any complex mature games be yourself, but had to settle with arcade-like experience or join a company (this attitude is still common).

So the way out of this would be convince new designers (or even older ones) that you can actually make mature, high quality experiences with a small team. And even more important, it is financially viable to do so.

By the way, Auriea and I fully intend to make a Silent Hill fan game one of these days!  ;D

This is true across the entire funding spectrum of the games industry. People never think they have enough money to make something serious. No matter how many millions they have access to.

Only at the very low end, the hobby games, one does find many ample attempts with serious content. But, yeah, those sort of confirm the prejudice that you can only make a serious game if you don't care about beauty (i.e. don't invest in production value).

Sometimes I'm under the impression that it was Silent Hill 2 that went wrong, and not the other way around.

Perhaps the reason why it failed to inspire other game developers has to do with their inability to interpret it, to understand what made it exceptional; or why it took them years of playing pretty much everything else under the sun before they even felt the need to try it. I can hardly think of a game that sold so well (more than a million as I recall it) and was so misunderstood by so many at the same time. ToT clearly learned from it; as did a few others, here and there. But that's it.

Regardless, Krystman does hint at a pivotal change in the industry which does begin to explain why creativity peaked during that generation of hardware. Let's not fool ourselves. We all know, more or less, why Silent Hill 2 was not an example to be followed in subsequent years. We all know how Japan surrendered to the immediacy of casual games, as did the rest of the world. We all know how the entrance of Microsoft to the market disturbed a very unique and fragile creative environment which existed in Japan, and in which several authors had unusual liberties to create unusual games. If we look carefully at the development of SH2, we'll find that part of what is so remarkable about the game derived from rather fortunate accidents - see the case of Takayoshi Sato and how he became more involved in the production over time.

Personally I don't believe any of the original Silent Hill games were made specifically for new audiences like The Sims was, as suggested here. I'm forced to agree that these are games - like so many others produced in Japan at the time - made for an audience of adults who grew up with a control pad in their hands but began to pursue other interests later on. Everything sold relatively well back then. Studios as small as Love.de.Lic, Skip, ArtDink or Vanpool were able to create multiple releases, to publish their titles outside Japan and even turn profit on occasion. They were the indie developers of the time by today's standards.

The moment Sony ceased to occupy a leading position in the market, these studios were dissolved, their creators disbanded. That medium class, as it were, of game developers ceased to exist and with them the games we now begin to value. No major studio production in Japan is made these days without the deep concerns as to how it will be able to sell in international markets, which is why Konami refuses to pay top dollar for anything other than a new title in the Metal Gear or Pro Evolution Soccer franchise. Production costs have risen, evidently, but there also exists a wider market for non triple-A titles in portable systems and online game services. However we choose to look at it, it's about more than just money.

Still, among several decisive factors related to this discussion, I'd like to underline how the current state of affairs has its roots on a very profound and widespread bias towards certain Japanese games. To which I would add unwillingness: a refusal to pay heed to the specificity of their culture, to respect their many authors and their unique visions, well beyond pocket monsters and scales that measure our weight. It's most unfair to reduce a large and continuous effort to a few catchy names - sometimes even no names at all.

It certainly wasn't a coincidence that games such as Ico and Silent Hill 2 were created there and then. Though it is also true that these aren't even the first games to express these concerns which seem to remain so current and contemporary: they're only the most celebrated ones, the most sophisticated examples which some still care to visit or revisit nowadays. In that sense, the question at hand is also an answer to itself.

Very interesting, Bruno. Could you elaborate on this:


What are the non-financial factors for Silent Hill 2 (and Ico) not steering videogames towards a mature medium? Simply being misunderstood? By developers?

I believe so. The truth is that Silent Hill 2 generated considerable profit. In a market where every big budget game production dreams of selling over a million, one would expect SH2 to be a standard to look up to. And it was, in fact. The popularity of the first two episodes practically justified the existence of the remaining. But there's a question of talent here which cannot be reproduced no matter how much money Konami and other studios were willing to invest. We can't dissociate this discussion from the fact that there are true people behind the brilliance of Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2, who weren't present in subsequent episodes - people like Toyama who created the original Silent Hill, or Takayoshi Sato who left Konami after the sequel. Not to mention the episodes produced outside Japan which, in themselves, provide a clear illustration of what I'm talking about.

Again, it's crucial that we learn about the people behind the games so as to understand what made them unique. If we only attribute these creations to a company name and industry-related factors alone, it's impossible to understand what went wrong. Games are only as good as the creative vision of the people behind them - something you know far better than I do. Not everyone could have made a game like Ico. It took an Ueda and a Kaido and a series of other contributors to achieve that. It took their unique raw talent. It took people with different priorities, with different ideas and cultural references. We can't assume that everyone could have achieved an equal result, even in some utopian market where investors would prize inventive projects over formulaic ones. Talent is something singular and impossible to replace, just like you said before.

It's possible to use these titles as a reference, however. Some developers were able to assimilate their substance. The Path is a perfect example of how to allude to Ico without wanting to be, let alone become Ico. You truly understood what is at the root of that game, what made it different from all others; what it showed to players and proved that could be done. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of interpreting these games on a similar level - Jenova Chen is another example of a designer whose ingenuity is positively influenced by Ueda and several others (wink wink). Still, think of the many Ico-wannabes released in the last ten years. Think of how many games used colossal level bosses after Shadow of the Colossus was released. How many games tried to recapture the fog, the noise, the visual moods of Silent Hill, in spite of having no characters and no narrative whatsoever. There was a tremendous failure from developers in interpreting the essence of these games.

The reason why I believe this is so relates very deeply to video game culture, education, academia, the clash between Eastern and Western perspectives, prejudice and, of course, tradition.

Thank you.
Two remarks.

One.
While indeed talent is a unique aspect of individual humans, it is perfectly feasible to create a context that welcomes and supports such talent. Then new talent would be attracted, and existing talent nurtured and exploited. The games industry has failed miserably in doing this. I suspect because they were not willing to accept the importance of talent.
And perhaps also because the industry still doesn't really understand what game design is, in the sense of recognizing which role it is exactly that really defines the nature of the final product (the equivalent of director in cinema).

Two.
None of the games that copied off of the masterpieces, did a proper job. If they had really copied each and every thing that made Silent Hill 2 special, I think they could have gotten pretty close. But every developer who was inspired by these games, combined it with their own preferences. And most of the time, these preferences were conventional challenging gameplay. Maybe they thought they could have their cake and eat it (make an artistic game with popular appeal) but ended up doing neither.

This. I've heard that programmers make far more money than the visual artists working in AAA development. I think that kind of says it all. Games are even more of a product than  films. You don't have a director, you have a product manager.

From my experience, this applies to all kinds of development. Right now I'm doing contract work to save up for projects down the road, and it's much easier to find programming work that pays well than production art or even design. I've always appreciated Blow's perspective: "Programming is Easy; Production is Harder; Design is Hardest." But people seem to value it in almost the opposite direction...

Here's two slides about that from our Let's make art with games (http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/ArtWithGames) presentation, investigating the differences between games industry production and artistic production:

(http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/ArtWithGames/images/ToT-FoG.063-001.gif)

(http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/ArtWithGames/images/ToT-FoG.064-001.gif)

I can see that Blow appreciates the artistic aspects of games. It really shows in the aesthetics of Braid. I really should finish it one of these days but that's another thread. :)

Today I received my Silent Hill 2 copy (for PC) from eBay.
I think I'll enjoy for few more days the forbidden pleasure of beeing one of the few readers of this forun not having played it :)

Personally, I think that is the reason right there.

How many truly collaborative works of art are out there? Art that will be remembered beyond its time and not just as filler in a contemporary gallery or as a kind of 'tech demo'. Many of the old masters had 'collaborative' workshops. One person who oversaw a team of skilled craftspeople (because they weren't all men). A studio of people who were technically gifted enough to pretend they were great artists, as long as they had a great artist directing every canvas. 'Collaborative' studios exist today and their role is the same - to put out a high quantity of work under the name of one person or to realise grander artworks that would take a lifetime (or more) for one person.

How many film directors spend half the shoot on the beach sipping Martinis? I'm sure many do, but I'm equally sure almost every single film (commercial or indie) that has left an impact had a director in the truest sense of the word. Some may have made the shoot seem like a collaboration, but they're just incredibly clever at getting other people to do what they want to realise their vision.

Music is another one. Skilled musicians are relatively plentiful. Skilled artists who express themselves through music are a rarer breed. Most of them will be in a band and, if the band is any good, they will most likely be the focal point. I watch a lot of live music across genres and I've seen some future mega-successful bands/musicians in a room with fifty other people. You just know, such is their ability to communicate. They're not all incredibly skilled musicians, either.

You can take this argument to almost any field - even scientific. Most ground-breaking work is the vision of a small team - usually one person, sometimes two and rarely three.

Having been (un?)fortunate to have been working in the gaming industry over the past year, filling any role as needed (from web designer, programmer to technical design), I have to say the biggest problem is that nobody creative ever seems to be in charge - I find such a situation ludicrous in the realisation of a creative vision. Nothing creative ever really gets done in a corporate environment where the 'director' wears a suit and attends board meetings and everyone else is subservient. You think Martin Scorcese or Woody Allen put up with that crap (especially Woody Allen who struggled for commercial recognition for four decades)? If they wouldn't, why would any potential 'artist' be attracted to or feel welcome enough to stay in the industry? That's another massive problem - turnover. Imagine if the Rolling Stones broke up after two years or changed their lineup every few months and Mick Jagger left to sing songs for bank adverts. Welcome to the gaming industry!

Finally... *deep breath* and I don't want to touch on this too much because I had a rant about it in another thread 6 months ago? But the whole "put the artists" in charge philosophy doesn't sit well with me at all. First off, the artists get paid less because there are more of them and they're easy to find. Secondly, that's because the term artist is a bit misleading in the gaming industry. What it should be is "Person who is technically gifted at drawing, or modelling or etc." See my paragraph on the old masters' studios. Few of those craftspeople went on to demonstrate great artistic ability relative to the number employed in those studios. It takes a lot more artistry than a good eye to direct a video game - there, I said it. Artistic inspiration or expression is not limited to one medium or discipline. Games are unique in that you can find beauty and expression of various different kinds. I don't want to pigeon-hole groups of people in retaliation to pigeon-holing people into groups, so I want to simply put forth the bold suggestion that artistic direction can come from anywhere (including those overpaid programmers who won't just churn out Arabic style mathematical and logic driven art - although that's just as valid an art!)