Comments: 2 Comments (Go to Comments)
Categories: Commentary
Tags: art, lists, xbox 360
The end of 2007 is fast approaching and with it comes a rush of “best” lists. Recently I’ve read Salon’s Book Awards 2007 and AFI’s Top 10 Movies of 2007 [via /film] and I’m disappointed that I’m not familiar with most of the titles. To date, I’ve seen none of the AFI movies and I’ve only read a few chapters from one of Salon’s picks — and I see a lot movies and read a lot of books over the course of a year — way more than the number of games I play.
However, I’m sure when the best video games of 2007 lists start popping up, I’ll probably have played most of the games.
Based on this, here are some conclusions I’ve drawn:
Video Games are the only entertainment product where money spent on development correlates to the quality of that product.
Just doing some spot checking, and most of AFI’s picks fall under in the $25-$50 million range. Spendy, but nowhere near the bloated budgets blockbusters carry. This is because the money is spent up front on casting, locations, set design, and the like and not alloted for post-production magic. Likewise, movies with huge budgets (typically allocated for effects) aren’t likely to end up on best of lists. Carrying this over to video games, games live and die according to the quality of their effects. A low budget movie carries no shame and some directors have even bloomed under budgetary restrictions, but a low budget video game is, by default, a shoddy product.
In the gaming industry, quality and success are inseparable.
Watchers of the movie and publishing industries understand that there’s a distinction between commerical success, public opinion, and genuine quality. Head over to IMDB and compare the top grossing movies for a given year against the most popular movies. They don’t line up. Take a look at the New York Times Best Sellers list and try to pick out titles that people will still care about this time next year. Now, when the best video games of 2007 come out, think about how well they’ve done financially. I can assure you that you’ll see the AAA titles publishers are so keen on producing.
We (you and me) are supporting the creative stagnation of the gaming industry.
I blame consoles for this. I love my 360, but I know that I’m playing games intended to appeal to the broadest audience. Console manufactures need to have proprietary systems, but this level of control supresses independent development–there’s no way a small developer can hit a niche audience. There’s also no way to effectively support player-created content, so while consoles are operating under a business model more successful than PC gaming, the end result is a loop where corporations are pleasing the masses, but personal creative vision is lost.
On December 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pm, Free Xbox 360 wrote:
This is the old get what you pay for argument. I dont agree though. Many of the high production cost games are sequels to successful low budget ones.
On December 20th, 2007 at 7:00 am, terry wrote:
“Many of the high production cost games are sequels to successful low budget ones.”
Can you give some examples?