FunEffect.com

I am weary. I am tired of being me. I am tired of being the angry middle-aged man of the game industry. I would like to hang it up, like an old coat, and shut it in the closet. But I guess I can't put it aside.

I attended the IGF Awards this evening. In general, I love the IGF. Not unreservedly, of course; it is not without flaw. But it is, by and large, a Good and Fine Thing, and has been instrumental in creating and sustaining independent games as a movement. I was quite looking forward to it.

You can find a video of the ceremony here.

And award winners here, since I'm not actually going to talk about that

My first intellectual discontinuity came when I approached the awards venue and discovered Steve Petersen, one of the designers of the Champions RPG, working to ensure that only VIPs got into the VIP line; apparently my speaker badge authorized me to sit in the VIP area. I elected to sit instead with the plebes.

I was basically okay through most of the proceeds, snarking to myself a bit at the lame scripted "jokes" of the presenters and the intellectual discontinuity created by their adoption of tuxedo and gown. A tux does not say "indie" to me. But I understand that to the average American it says "class," and perhaps this is understandable as some sort of external index of respect.

Cactus, by the way, was perfect.

When the presenters were swept off the stage to make room for some chickie from IGN (that lickspittle shih-tzu of the major publishers that sustains its existence by posting reworded press releases and raving about big-budget releases while providing only occasional and condescending coverage of indie games) I sighed deeply, but reminded myself that the IGF depends on corporate sponsorships, and no doubt had received a nice piece of change from this corporate entity in return for their right to grant, and brand, the IGF's most important award.

After some forgettable blather, we were then subjected to a video, presumably prepared by the sublime idiots at IGN, about what they claimed were the "top five indie games not in the top five indie games." This consisted of short gameplay videos from five imaginary games. These imaginary games were supposedly humorous, but consisted of a) really stupid game ideas, b) implemented in a really stupid way, with c) really stupid graphics. Haha. Indie games are stupid. (At 38:40 in the video linked above.)

Did ANYONE at IGN consider that they were basically totally dissing the games their spokesperson was just about to issue an award to?

Did ANYONE at CMP consider that they had, in exchange for a corporate sponsorship, just set up a situation that totally undermined the gravitas of the event as a whole?

Did ANY of the idiot audience members who tittered at this inane video realize that, in context, it was essentially insulting the whole enterprise of indie gaming?

I stalked from the room in fury.

I was the only person to do so.

I don't like living in my skin sometimes. Apparently, I was the only person in that room filled with thousands who was revolted and offended to the core. I am a fool.

I was about to write: We deserve better. But of course, I created no game last year that I could have submitted to the IGF, so it would be inappropriate for me to take on the mantle of "indie game creator" or to have the temerity to speak for those who are. But I can say they deserve better; they deserve to be treated with a degree of respect, and indeed, the whole structure of the IGF ceremonies, and the prominence it receives within the GDC awards as a whole, and even the noxious tuxedo-and-gown garb of its presenters, is calculated with the idea of promoting a degree of respect.

Why then should CMP, and for that matter IGN, however gormless they may be, think it remotely acceptable to undermine that respect with this jejune, unfunny, disrespectful, noxious, subversive, lame, and repulsive piece of juvenile "humor"?

Ha ha.

Die, motherfuckers.

And so to bed.

2D Boy's Ron Carmel calls relationships between indies and publishers "a system that never worked". At the Independent Gaming Summit at the 2010 Game Developers Conference, he explained why -- and further detailed the Indie Fund, a new alternative for independent games funding.

When software development began to be conisdered as an engineering field, design came before building -- the "waterfall approach", as Carmel says, involving big design documents that everyone scrutinizes before implementing. But in the 1990s, people realized that system is less than ideal, and agile practices emerged that emphasized iterative over upfront design.

This is not only easier but more cost-effective in both the short and long-term, Carmel points out. "I think we're facing the same kind of situation in the game industry today in comparing retail games to digitally-distributed games," he says.

What are the problems caused by this mismatch? For one, publishers give too much money; for digital games the budgets are much smaller (for example, 2D Boy's World of Goo had a budget of only $120,000.) Large budgets on smaller games are less efficient -- publishers not only invest too much, but they take too much in return, and the result is developer as "tenant farmer." Continue reading

Along with its gamer modeling services for events, motion capturing, voice acting, and more, Charisma+2 produces a magazine targeting female gamers. The online publication, which has already published a dozen issues, offers reviews, profiles on women working in the game industry (e.g. Brenda Brathwaite), and articles helping girls break into the business.

The latest issue of C+2 magazine includes a piece you won't see in traditional gaming magazines like Edge or Gamepro: a step-by-step guide for a make-up look inspired by Mass Effect 2's Miranda Lawson (pictured). The tutorial suggests products you can use and presents this "gamette make-up" as an
everyday look for girls wanting a "simple and sexy go-between".

I've included the video guide recorded by C+2 model Leigh Ann, an aspiring 3D game artist, after the break. She's also contributed an article in this month's issue discussing her first steps toward developing skills she'll need for that career. I've no idea where she finds time for these articles in between raising and maintaining seven World of Warcraft characters (leveled around 60-80).

Seeing as today is the birthday of 88-year-old Ralph Baer -- creator of the first video game console (Magnavox Odyssey) and considered by many as the
"father of video games" -- now seems the perfect time to share some fanart for the celebrated figure.

The piece above drops Baer next to a Super Mario Bros. question block and some sort of terrifying beast fashioned together with elements from the Nintendo series. Artist Ashley Anderson created it for a silent auction by "taking photographed imagery, scanned imagery, and digitally hand drawn imagery and forcing them all to sit in the same pictorial space".

She adds that the pixelated figured behind Baer is the ghost of William Higinbotham, creator of Tennis for Two, which, having debuted in 1958, is the first known precursor of Pong. This isn't the only tribute I have to share today for Baer; After the break, I've included another illustration of the inventor taken from a series devoted to notable game industry stars from artist Bartotainment.

As we compile larger stories from elsewhere on our network, here's the top full-length features of the past week on big sister 'art and business of gaming' site Gamasutra, plus our GameCareerGuide features for the week.

As GDC nears, there's still room to compile a bunch of neat pieces from last week, including good longform interviews with Capcom's Christian Svensson and the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 creators, as well as an overview of the Nordic dev scene, a look at how agile methods are being adapted in the game space, and some choice GCG features, including Game Developers Conference tips and tricks and more besides.

Cha cha cha:

Battlefield Logistics: A Bad Company 2 Interview
"EA DICE's console-targeted shooter makes its second foray into the market this week, and here senior producer Patrick Bach discusses the series' and the gaming audience's evolution -- and how that touches the game's design."

The State of Agile in the Game Industry
"Certified Scrum trainer and veteran developer Clinton Keith takes a look at the state of agile acceptance at gane studios, using survey data to identify common stumbling blocks, and presents here comments from developers on the process at their companies."

Persuasive Games: Shell Games
"Just what will the achievementization of the world mean? Author and game designer Ian Bogost ponders Jesse Schell's DICE talk and blends his interpretation with research. Will it work... and, more importantly, is it good?"

The State of the Nordic Development Scene
"We speak with Nordic developers about the current state of the region's game development scene, focusing on the struggles and strengths of a region known for top-notch games and business challenges."

Careful, Capcom: Christian Svensson Speaks
"Capcom's U.S. VP speaks candidly about the company's plans, its development strengths, business realities, and recent comments made by its Japanese management that the U.S. will no longer be a force for IP generation."

The Aesthetics of Play Control: The Role of User Interfaces Discussion of Games as Art
"Daniel Gronsky, adjunct professor of Media Studies at Pine Manor College, delivers this look at the connection between the aesthetics of a game and its play control -- refined from discussions originally taking place at PAX."

GCG: GDC Tips For Students
"Planning to attend next week's GDC as a student? Two-year veteran of the show and developer Grant Shonkwiler, who attended in 2008 as a student, shares his tips on how to maximize the show."

[Sequels often get penalized if they don't change enough, but Gamasutra news director Leigh Alexander examines BioShock 2 to find an interesting challenge -- and opportunity -- in keeping some things the same.]

The main reservation critics and fans seem to have about the largely-acclaimed BioShock 2 is that it doesn't bring much new to the table, a conservative sequel to a game that didn't really need a sequel.

Wired's Chris Kohler said the game was "stamping on well-trod ground," and Game Informer's Andrew Reiner said the dystopia of Rapture had developed "the familiarity of a local shopping mall." The innovation of Rapture as a setting was part of what made the original BioShock so exciting, and now that players are used to it, the game loses something, some say.

Another recent release, No More Heroes 2, was also said to have been unnecessary -- director Suda51 himself has said he hadn't planned on tacking a sequel on to the story of Travis Touchdown.

Why do games that "don't need sequels" get them? The answer's obvious: the game industry's more hit-driven than ever, and it's no longer enough to make a successful game -- publishers need successful franchises. This leaves two options: conceive every game as open-ended, always setting up for a sequel, or attach sequels to games that "don't need them."

Neither sounds very appealing at first blush. But the major rush to sequelize even those titles that make solid self-contained experiences could create, by necessity, a promising shift in the way developers build worlds and innovate in them.

Although fans were quick to note that that BioShock 2 didn't feel much different from its predecessor, 2K was wise with it. The original title was so strongly received that to significantly change much about it could have been disastrous. Fans loved BioShock for its unique and deeply-realized world and the signatures that populated it: Madness, decay, philosophical frenzy, and the strange energy system governed by the eerie Little Sisters and their hulking protectors.

There's even very little room to improve on the game mechanics. They can be iterated upon, as with the welcome tweak to the hacking minigame, but BioShock's gameplay is well-established and part of its appeal. So much about the game identifies it distinctly that there isn't much that can be changed in a sequel -- there are too many elements without which it wouldn't be itself. But that's not a problem: That's a success and an opportunity.

BioShock is not just a stand-alone narrative. It's a framework. Rapture isn't the story, it's the story's housing. The lamp-eyed Little Sisters and lumbering Big Daddies aren't characters, they're elements of the visual language. Thinking about a sequel for a game with such a strong signature, it becomes clear that its key elements are signposts for the experience, and not the entirety of the experience itself.

And with the framework so distinctive and so firmly-established, there's a unique chance to evolve the expectations of gamers. Where BioShock presented one character of an only loosely-known identity with an objectivist despot as adversary, BioShock 2 presents the same sort of character and an enemy adherent to a different philosophy.

What can BioShock 3 do? It can't change Rapture's look, its citizenry, its rules or even meaningfully change the experience of interacting with the world. But it can present a new quest for self and a new philosophy to test within Rapture's mad power vacuum. In other words, it has no choice but to iterate on story and theme, and this fashion of approaching game franchises will only make gaming richer as developers get better and better at it.

It will be interesting if games start to become franchises by building a strong universe and desirable mechanics first, and then yield sequels that don't overhaul those things, rewrite the design mechanics or tack on new features where none are really needed just so gamers won't complain there's nothing new.

The result will be a new kind of sequelization. BioShock 2 returned us to Rapture in the best way possible: By simply creating a new adventure therein and a new way to look at familiar things. It's perplexing to see critics penalize a game for declining to change what they best loved about it.

[Between feeding chickens and making games, Gas Powered Games' Chris Taylor has been talking to our own Kris Graft about the "go ask mom and dad" relationship between independent game studios and major publishers.]

Chris Taylor has a farm. It's not a big farm, but on that farm he has chickens and horse that he tends to daily. The animals rely on him for food, shelter, and for a few lucky chickens, cuddling - sometimes. The animals are completely domesticated and dependent on handouts.

In some ways, they're a lot like so-called "independent" game studios.

With over two decades in the game industry, Taylor has seen a lot. As creative director and co-founder of independent Redmond, WA-based Gas Powered Games, home of titles like Dungeon Siege, Demigod and Supreme Commander, he has experienced the hardship and toil along with the success.

Now, in the midst of a new project, Taylor wants to remind himself what it means to be independent: to have control of his destiny - to fetch his own chicken feed. He asks, "If you have the freedom that you wouldn't have if you were an internal studio or culture, then why not take advantage of that?" It's a question that he's apparently been asking himself.

"We [independent studios] don't have to go to a committee or a group of executives or people that are going to run a competitive analysis or a market study. I can go from my gut," he says, "which is 22 years in the business, believe it or not, since May 1998, and I can decide if I want to make something. And I can just go ahead and make it."

Taylor says that independent studios often don't leverage their independence in creative or business areas as much as they could, or should. His own GPG has been guilty of under-utilizing the ability to do essentially whatever the hell it wants.

"What we often see, especially being an independent these last 20 years, is that we'd keep our concepts quiet, we wouldn't tell anyone, we'd go out and talk to the publishers, and that might mean 10 or 20 publishers at best, and they decide whether they like the concept or not," he says.

If no publishers bite, then there's no funding, and then there's the common mindset for a studio that it's best just to ditch the idea it was working on. "So even though we were an independent studio, or the industry was full of independent studios, there was still this 'go ask mom and dad' mentality to it, which to me doesn't really sound independent," Taylor says.

When mom and dad said "no" to 2007's original Supreme Commander, GPG found itself in a position where it could have either given up or soldier on. Before THQ decided to publish the game, another publisher dropped the title while it was in development.

Taylor and GPG decided to take its fate into its own hands. "We went and got a magazine cover. We moved ahead and said 'We're making this game.'" says Taylor. That August 2005 PC Gamer magazine cover -- which declared that the creator of Total Annihilation was returning to change the face of the real-time strategy genre once again -- created new energy around Supreme Commander. THQ picked it up.

Taylor is following his own advice with Chris Taylor's Kings and Castles, which the studio announced just prior to the upcoming release of this March's Supreme Commander 2. He's not keeping Kings and Castles a secret. It's still very early in development, there are no publishing or distribution deals as of yet, but it's already out there. GPG last week launched a video blog that will be updated weekly that gives fans a behind-the-scenes look at the development of Kings and Castles.

The video racked up 20,500 hits in its first day-and-a-half. "That says to me, wow, the world really cares ... which means we need to continue," says Taylor. A video blog can grab attention from not only fans, but also business partners. And, Taylor says, it's fun to make vlogs. "This business is hard, there's resistance pushing you back, and you have to bring that storm and go forward. How do you do that? You capture human energy."

Although there are important pieces to the puzzle missing, GPG knows where it wants to go with Kings and Castles. It's targeted at PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 for digital distribution, and will sell at brick-and-mortar retail and online retail for a global release.

But the studio is still planning on how it will reach those objectives. GPG is considering possible distribution and publishing partners for worldwide territories, as well as attracting funding partners. Make no mistake - being independent also means finding business partners on your own, and GPG hasn't forgotten that.

It's all part of Taylor's renewed mindset on the idea of independence, the realization that in many ways, independent studios should embrace their ability to take calculated risks instead of playing it "safe" all the time, because in reality, safety is a bit of a myth anyway.

"We've always been kind of been like that [independent-minded], but it's always been kind of halfway. We decided ourselves that we'd make Dungeon Siege, we decided to make Supreme Commander, we did Demigod. We've always been like this," explains Taylor.

But halfway isn't enough. Maximizing the ability to make one's own decisions can be the difference between being the farmer and being the livestock. "Independent developers have the ability to maneuver. Think of us as the little ship that gets to maneuver around the big ships. If we don't exercise that ability to maneuver, then we're just giving up on a major strength."