March 27, 2009
See also:
Related Articles:
“There should be less on paper and more on the screen.”
“EA is not necessarily known for new IP,” says Chuck Beaver, a senior producer who worked on Dead Space. Electronic Arts' Redwood Shores studio is steeped in licensed intellectual property like The Godfather and The Simpsons. It usually buys its canons and audiences, he says.
The last intellectual property from that studio was Road Rash in 1991.
Electronic Arts was eager to get involved in new intellectual property. Executive producer Glen Schofield pitched what became the horror game Dead Space. Since it was one of the first new intellectual properties that EA was working on, it was cautious. The publisher gave Schofield three months to figure out whether his concept would work.
The small, assembled Dead Space strike team was composed of multi-talented developers who could design, program and produce. The strategy behind this, says Beaver, was a need to break from Electronic Arts' typical production philosophy.
Generally, you write a design document and hand it off to engineers, he says. Once that happens, it is near impossible to change anything. The Dead Space team adopted a prototyping philosophy similar to the the rapid iterations found in the Experimental Gameplay Project. It was a complete reversal from EA's typical way of doing things.
“There should be less on paper and more on the screen,” says Beaver. “When you start a new intellectual property, everyone is so excited,” he says. But there isn't enough time or money to reinvent everything all at once. The team had to choose where it would focus its efforts.
Beaver recommends finding a game similar to your project to use as a starting point because it has already solved a lot of the design challenges the team would run into later in the development cycle.
Dead Space is based on Resident Evil 4.
“Fearlessly use standardized features,” he says. “If too much is new, people get lost.” You need to include enough that's familiar in order to help players grasp other innovative features in your game. Also, ensure you're using current systems because consumers will critique outdated control or camera schemes.
Once you have found the basic template for your game, you need to distance yourself from that design. Don't build a kitchen sink. Your innovation should be deliberate; you should count your ambitions on one hand, he says. For Dead Space, the team focused on enemy dismemberment, HUD-less navigation, and zero G gameplay.
Beaver also delved into the difficulty of making a scary game. He noted that “boo” just doesn't work—it wears out quickly. Dread is much more effective. By quickly introducing that nowhere is safe, players fear every door, vent and elevator. He also recommends making combat lethal, so there is a genuine sense of trepidation at each encounter.
And thanks to the team's focus on polish, protoyping and focus testing, Dead Space was finally green-lit in April 2007—a year and a half after they started development.
I liked the game very much, as did quite a bunch of other people too. Although Dead Space it not exactly original, it was original enough to caught the attention. Didn't have any quality issues with the game either so dunno what garg0 is talking about...
"Dead Space is based on Resident Evil 4.. Fearlessly use standardized features.. Also, ensure you're using current systems because consumers will critique outdated control or camera schemes. "
Is this guy trying to tell us that in order to make a good game, we must fearlessly copy existing top selling games and then mix in elements from other top selling games to avoid being too obvious of a clone? And this is coming from a senior producer at Electronic Arts named "Chuck Beaver"??
I have even better advice: Listen to your customer feedback, because great companies thrive off customer feedback.
Anyways, on March 13th 2009, Resident Evil 5 was released. The real creators of Resident Evil have released a new version of their game, not a clone of their own previous game.
I think the cliche's of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and "don't reinvent the wheel" come to mind.
1. Standardized features = minimum expectations. You want to meet these.
2. Getting this stuff out of the way lets you focus creative energies elsewhere, where they'll be more important.
Seriously, do you need to re-do everything every time?
"The real creators of Resident Evil have released a new version of their game, not a clone of their own previous game."
And the original Resident Evil cribbed how many notes from Alone in the Dark? They took something that worked then put their own spin on things, doing a fine job in the process. How many games use the FPS format, but you really can't compare to Wolfenstein 3d or Doom in anything other than a really basic way? Hell, look at many RPG's!
If that's the case, that makes this article all the more laughable since this article is about EA's very own proprietary project.
I think it's unfair to say EA will never be associated with the word 'Quality'. Ok, they are not as original or possibly thourough as when the company was founded, but they're a hell of a lot better than they were even 3 years ago.
They've taken some interesting directions recently, particularly with titles they publish (as opposed to having an internal team develop). Even some of their yearly licenses are improving (Fifa and Madden are probably better than not only any of there direct predicessors, but also than the competition). They seem to be showing more consideration to the quality of their titles, which has to be commended.
Have you been following Riccitello since he got back? I have to say, I'm liking what he's doing and trying...
Direct parallel to the Molyneux article here - only so much innovation is desirable within a game. See: Fable 2's garbled effort.
Back on topic, kudos to EA's pragmatism, who cares what they 'set out to be'? If there is money to be made in new IP of course they will do it!
What people don't seem to realise is that every single developer/punblisher is a financial entity and they simply go where the money is or at least where they think the money is. Always take declarations of Molyneux-esqe noble causes with a large pinch of salt.
Of course publishers and producers go where the money is. Their job is to make sure a project is lucrative to secure the future of the industry.
But there's a vast difference between developers and producers/publishers. Developers have chosen to create games for the rest of their professional lives. If "they simply go where the money is" was true, we would only have COD4's and WOW's on the market.
Assuming that just because an industry is profitable and commercial it means no one is inspired or enthusiastic is just cynical bullshit. I'm 100% certain Peter Molyneux would be doing games even if he wasn't making millions from it. Cause that's his passion. The money is just a very convenient bonus. And we should be happy he's making profit too, because that's what makes awesome games like Fable II possible.
I'm not a big fan of companies like EA and Activision/Blizzard because their producers are given too much influence. When that happens, profit becomes the objective, and games become mainstreamed for a broad audience. Generally, these two industry titans buy an innovative franchise, and tune it to appeal to everyone on the market, removing any niches or feelings of originality. As such, their games become predictable and boring.
The market IS full of COD/Halo wannabes!
You don't think that developers are under pressure to create a game that a publisher will pick up?! Don't you think this means catering to the said publisher? Don't be disillusioned, a developer will never make a game that will not get picked up by the main publishers.
Unfortunately there isn't a significant enough 'indie' presence in the industry yet to make this problem go away. However, it is on it's way...
EA will never be associated with terms like "originality" or "quality". at least for those who can't be bought off.
and that's not a bad thing, it's just the end result of the business model they chose to follow and nothing, not even expensive heavy-handed marketing campaigns for over-hyped titles like Dead Space, will change that.
what does an assembly line-developer like EA, who've done basically nothing but sell the same sports games year after year then turn around and use that money to buy actually talented development studios, know about 'creativity' and 'originality'?
you can't buy these things. there's no room between these two words to accommodate a company who's most relevant games are little more than roster updates and a new UI. but, of course, they don't understand that. how can they when that's all they know?
they are what they are. and it's certainly not for a lack of effort.
Ironic, isn't it? They became what they set out not to be. The EA of old and the EA of today are very different animals.
I remember EA releasing/publishing a game called The Bard's Tale - which was certainly considered "original" at the time. :)
Also, it's only in recent years that they've become what they've become. Even when they released SSX, I considered them capable of releasing good original material. And well... you can call DeadSpace overhyped and all sorts of other things - it doesn't negate the fact that it's a good game.
im afraid it's been well over a decade since EA's "become what they've become", which is a highly profitable company doing right by their shareholders. im sorry if that upsets you.
and i believe "overhyped" was the only word i used in reference to Dead Space and even that was indirect. it wasn't a personal critique. (also, it's an oxymoron to state a "good game" as "fact")
but, seriously, Dead Space was a derivative, uninspired POS and, according to Kris Graft, Gary Whitta and Colin Campbell; "prolonged exposure to Dead Space will result in rectal trauma."
...yea i miss the podcast, sue me
Anyone who has played dead space wont be taking your last paragraph " seriously " even with its flaws to descride dead space as a POS is well very sad to say the least.