51 replies to this topic

[Nintendoga]

http://www.eurogamer...11-jades-empire


Jade Raymond, director of Ubisoft Toronto, recently spoke to Eurogamer about the gaming industry

"It's time for our industry to grow up," she says, in a quiet but determined voice. "Why is it that so many topics that are dealt with in other media are off limits or taboo in video games? Why can't we deal with the things that matter? I can think of so many examples of topics that could be interesting, issues that could be addressed in games or that could be integrated into existing big IP if we don't want to make them the centre of the experience. It's our responsibility; doubly so for people like me who can make a difference, or push for something getting funded."

It's Raymond's recent journey into motherhood that has brought about this determination to create games that carry greater meaning. "I am generation X and a parent now, so I don't think I am really the target market for games any more," she says. "We tend to think young people just want explosions. But I don't think it's true. Perhaps even less so than when we were children. I believe we are underestimating our audience by creating the same experience over and over again. We think that this is what they like but I think we are deeply mistaken.

"More and more people come to me at Ubisoft and say, 'I love games. I came into this industry with so many ideas. But I can't continue to make shooters over and over again. I'm not even in line with the messages.' I have that meeting a lot these days. Yeah, it's time to give our teenage medium a kick in the balls."

"Beyond that? What about the way the way the system is stacked against the poor? If you lose your job, especially in the States where there's no healthcare, your debt can grow out of control very quickly. It's remarkably easy to become homeless. That meta-gameplay loop could easily be brought into a game I think. Sexism, too. That could easily be brought into a franchise like Call of Duty. If you could play as a woman you could bring in some perspectives to what that might be like.

"I don't know when we decided as an industry that in order to sell five million copies of a game you have to make a Michael Bay film. There are other options."

These are just a few aspects she touches upon, but her point remains throughout. She and many other Ubisoft employees are tired of the same stuff and want to change the gaming industry. Thoughts?

[Johnny Boy]

Well it's good to see at least one company is starting to see how over rated shooters are these days.

[King Sombrero]

Shooters have flooded the market since like what, when Halo and Call of Duty came out in 2001? And 11 years later somebody is finally saying they're sick of them?

[Tornado]

I'm all for genre diversification. But I put up with preachy pretentious bullshit in every other medium in my life. I'd rather it not flood into videogames as well.


So no, Ubisoft employee. I don't want to play "The Problems With American Society: The Game." No, Ubisoft employee. I don't want to play "The Real Gender Inequality Simulator." No, Ubisoft employee, I really don't want to play "Need For Fuel Mileage III: Follow All Traffic Laws."

People want explosions and stuff like that because videogames tend to be escapist, but most importantly videogames are supposed to be fun. If I want to see the problems with the world, I'll watch the news. Furthermore, it is outright laughable that she's acting as if games being escapist fun, being things that can't be done in real life, is a problem that needs to be corrected or the industry will never become what it apparently should be.

Edited by Tornado, 14 May 2012 - 03:25 AM.

[Meow]

I'm fine with shooters, even if it feels like they are oversaturating the market.

I'm also fine with any other genre. As long there is a healthy variety, and developers are making games that they want to make (rather than just what the publishers want) then I'm cool with any game genre existing. If its popular and everyone wants to make one, who am I to say that's a bad thing? As long as its genuine.

I would love it if games continued to keep the whole 'must be a Michael Bay film" thing she touched upon there, but I also would love for games to extend beyond that as well and tackle different issues too. I think there is room for both types.

[Nepenthe]

@ Tornado: The introduction of more meaningful themes and gameplay elements does not and will not come at the elimination of brain-dead fun (in regards to your edit, entertainment that is considered meaningful beyond the standard fair does not have to be inherently boring either). Ubisoft making a game that meaningfully explores gender roles in society doesn't mean that the execs running the show are going to suddenly stop calling for the usual lowest common denominator entertainment that still sells in spades, because indeed, that type of entertainment is the easiest to sell tons of. Overall, what about this employee's wishes to crank out something she personally finds thematically meaningful beyond Baysplosions suddenly threatens your ability to escape with video games? Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what she said.

Edited by Nepenthe, 14 May 2012 - 03:36 AM.

[Tornado]

Overall, what about this employee's wishes to crank out something she personally finds thematically meaningful beyond Baysplosions suddenly threatens your ability to escape with video games?

What about "It's time for our industry to grow up" means anything but that?


Furthermore, the general implication she's making, that playing games without grasping some important thematic message is somehow wrong, is still there. She's complaining because people don't treat videogames the same way they treat other mediums (she's talking about people who make games, but let's be honest: The people who play games don't either) when it comes to acceptable topics covered therein. Well, this may come as a surprise to her, but videogames aren't the same thing as other mediums. They never have been and they never will be.

Edited by Tornado, 14 May 2012 - 03:44 AM.

[Nepenthe]

I think you're taking her words to the farthest extreme. I don't believe any rational person working in any entertainment industry wishes for the complete demise of mindless work. Everyone knows there's a place for that, and everyone has their own guilty pleasures. She undoubtedly does considering the extreme majority video games are just guilty pleasures. At the same time however, if gaming is nothing but Michael Bay films with inputs attached- and it pretty much is- that is arguably problematic. Sterility is arguably problematic. The shallowness and unwillingness to go deeper is arguably problematic. Video games have a wealth of potential, and it's not going to be realized by pimping Call of Duty forever. However, when this moment is realized, this doesn't mean Call of Duty will lose its purpose as a fast-paced multiplayer shooter littered with set pieces, just like Transformers did not lose its purpose (or any money) simply because Aronofsky came along and decided to make Black Swan.

And video games not being like other mediums is irrelevant, and it's a defense of the medium's juvenile nature that I find exhausting. Books are not like films which are not like graphic novels which are not like plays. Each of these mediums is different in theory, aim, and execution; however, each has a diverse set of works in them that people would classify as either low or high brow work. Specifically what about the need for input on part of the audience means it is completely wrong to wish for mainstream games that bothered being meaningful in their storytelling? Exactly what in the world do games stand to actually lose from getting a kick in the balls, by opening up a market for these kinds of works to be feasibly co-exist alongside the explosion overkill that is current gaming? Again, what exactly are you threatened by, because beyond my argument, let's be realistic here: Her words are going to change nothing in the industry anyway. Ubisoft will continue pumping out brain-dead fun for you, me, and others to enjoy regardless of her wishes.

Edited by Nepenthe, 14 May 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[The Kid]

Tornado, Video Games won't be the same as other mediums, just like movies won't be either. But all mediums evolve. Her article isn't saying Blockbuster IP's like Call Of Duty are a bad thing, but she is saying that the industry should take more risks and shouldn't be content with the same sort of content to make a quick buck. She may say the industry needs to grow up, but even she admits you can't have a great IP centered around sexism or poverty completely. She just wants to incorporate ideas and issues that are relative to our current generation. Nowhere does she say explicitly that Blockbuster IPs like Call Of Duty are bad, but that the market is getting a little flooded with them leading to companies pumping out the same-ish shooters (and others) to make a profit. And that is a problem. You're over exaggerating to her statement. Games dont just have to be mindless fun, and she is not saying that cant be both thoughtful and shoot-em-ups.

Mediums need to evolve or eventually they'll die out. And mediums don't evolve unless people take risks to push things forward.

@Nepenthe, that reminds me. I need to watch that again XD

Edited by The Kid, 14 May 2012 - 04:16 AM.

[Nepenthe]

Black Swan, you mean? For the record, I will never watch that again. Saw it with my mom the first time. The awkwardness of that was like a knife in the throat, and like a knife in the throat, it has left scars. D:

Anyway! I agree completely with what you said.

[The Kid]

Black Swan, you mean? For the record, I will never watch that again. Saw it with my mom the first time. The awkwardness of that was like a knife in the throat, and like a knife in the throat, it has left scars. D:

Anyway! I agree completely with what you said.

Haha, yeah seeing that with a parent would be awkward. It wasn't even that amazing of a movie. It just... clicked with me for some reason (I really couldn't care less about the lesbo scenes).

[Wooly-Fools]

Why is it that Ubisoft serms to be one of the only "sane" developers anymore?

I mean, I feel like everyone else just does stuff for the money, and they don't. There are way too many lifeless shooters. Sure, there are good ones *Cough*Left4Dead*Cough* but most of them are pretty meh.

I'm glad they are willing to say this...

[Lemanic]

I find shooters today to be too realistic and jarring to be considered escapist and looks more like interactive army ads than anything else. Good move, Ubisoft! Love Love Love.

[Cola]

Tired of making shooters? Excellent!

Want to integrate serious dramatic scenes? Nooooooo.


Like Tornado said, I'll turn on the TV if I want to see a drama. Video games are my time to do whatever I want, damnit.

[VEDJ-F]

Well, you do that. Video games should be a free medium to communicate what you want just as other media are, though. So if people like her want some video games that take on more mature themes, good for them.

[pooshoes]

People want explosions and stuff like that because videogames tend to be escapist, but most importantly videogames are supposed to be fun. If I want to see the problems with the world, I'll watch the news. Furthermore, it is outright laughable that she's acting as if games being escapist fun, being things that can't be done in real life, is a problem that needs to be corrected or the industry will never become what it apparently should be.

What do you even mean by fun? Is that same as enjoyable?

Following with the Aronofsky theme, Requiem for A Dream is one of the most harrowing and unfun films I have ever watched. It's also damn near one of the best. What is it about games that make people unwilling to experience anything other positive emotions? Will we ever get to see a decent tragedy in gaming?

The whole point of art is to explore the human condition, and games will never be taken seriously as an art form if it focuses on boner-popping explosions and asset tours.

[Scott]

She's got the right idea, which is more than what could be said for other companies and devs who are scared to do something different from fear of going bankrupt if it's not a COD/Halo/GoW clone.

[Remz]

If they're bored of making shooters they should shut up and finish Beyond Good and Evil 2 already.

[Tornado]

And video games not being like other mediums is irrelevant

Actually, it's pretty damn relevant, because videogames are an interactive medium and movies/TV/art are not. The very act of making the player be in control of a stories' progress completely changes about how the narrative works and how people would react to it when it attempts to tell a story, and changes what the narrative has to do in order to keep peoples' attention.



Off the top of my head, try to make an anti-war game (one of the oldest and most emotionally complex themes in the movie industry) and not miss the point by an even wider margin than most anti-war movies usually do.

Well, you do that. Video games should be a free medium to communicate what you want just as other media are, though. So if people like her want some video games that take on more mature themes, good for them.

Good for them indeed. And when people complain about it, like they have just about any other time in recent memory videogames have tried to tackle those huge issues because gaming as a medium cannot support it (at least not any time it has tried before even when telling comparably low-key stories), and we'd be right back to square one.

What is it about games that make people unwilling to experience anything other positive emotions? Will we ever get to see a decent tragedy in gaming?

The whole point of art is to explore the human condition, and games will never be taken seriously as an art form if it focuses on boner-popping explosions and asset tours.

Well, when you put it that way...


I find myself not caring in the slightest about whether videogames are ever taken seriously as an art form. Because it doesn't seem worth it if we have to put up with that attitude.

Edited by Tornado, 14 May 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Nepenthe]

Actually, it's pretty damn relevant, because videogames are an interactive medium and movies/TV/art are not. The very act of making the player be in control of a stories' progress completely changes about how the narrative works and how people would react to it when it attempts to tell a story, and changes what the narrative has to do in order to keep peoples' attention.

I mean the medium is irrelevant insofar as what themes you're allowed to explore. Of course, making a game that successfully champions anti-war themes is going to be completely different than producing an anti-war film (although you can argue both face ironic hurdles inherent to their medium because they rely heavily on conflict to be entertaining in the first place). But my question is, why does a video game being a video game mean you're not allowed to explore anti-war themes at all, (or at least not allowed to do so without being called a stuck-up, pretentious fun-killer)? And I keep asking this question: in the grand scheme of things, why do you think a successful market for high-brow games, or even the introduction of deeper themes in generally low-brow work, would mean the complete obliteration of the market for pure low-brow games when this has never been the case for, well, any medium...ever? Artsy-fartsy games have been coming out for PC and app markets for the longest anyway and Call of Duty is still making ridiculous bank.