Video games are fast becoming an enormous part of the entertainment industry. With AAA-quality titles being hugely anticipated every year, millions of dollars spent in marketing with billions more earned and more powerful hardware being developed every other day, it’s not preposterous to estimate that in twenty-to-thirty years time video games could overshadow the film industry. However, how much innovation and originality will it cost to get there? Let’s take a look at some points that are plaguing the creative growth of the games industry.
McFranchises
The words “annualizable franchises” (thanks Kotick!) are among the most defining of this console generation, though they are not to be mistaken with sequels. In a general sense the development time for an original game can take anywhere between two to five years, with sequels usually taking around two years. Annualizable games on the other hand are usually shared between multiple developers so that a title in that franchise is released at least once per year – cases in point being Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed and the now laid to rest Guitar Hero. The phrase “some is good, more is better” is not always apparent in the games industry since #1: games are expensive, and #2: consumers will get burned out playing the same game every year. And in the mind of most mainstream gamers one game will be enough to last a couple of months, unlike a lot of us gaming enthusiasts who are willing to buy a new game every few weeks. If Joe Consumer only has an Xbox 360 and buys maybe four or five games a year, and being a CoD and Assassin’s Creed fan, half of his money is going to the same companies every year to fund them virtually making the same games.
Even heroes die.
This is a very strong issue because the mainstream audience generally won’t take the risk to spend money on a game that they don’t know about – they rely on advertising and words of mouth to tell them what’s good. This helps accentuate the phrase “the rich get richer” because the games that stand out most over the years are the ones with the bigger budgets behind them. In the earlier days of video games people looked to the bigger developers to innovate and present something new, however it’s slowly shifted to the complete opposite with people looking to indie studios to surge inspiration. This is because the larger companies feel comfortable creating titles that they know will make money, and have little to no interest in taking risks in making something different anymore.
When developers put all their time and resources into making what’s familiar and release it every year instead of spacing out releases, eventually people are going to get bored. And instead of looking back on some franchises’ legacies we look back on them with exhaustion and annoyance. We saw it happen with the Tony Hawk series, we saw it a few days ago with the Guitar Hero series and we’re going to see it with Call of Duty. To non-believers of that last point let me ask this: how many years in a row are you going to happily spend hundreds of hours reaching the level cap in multiplayer, only to do it all again next year? Hmm?
Would you like Black Ops with that?
Remakes, reboots and re-imaginings.
The three Rs that have been funding the film industry over the last decade have made their way into games now too. There’s a bit of leniency towards the thought of Hollywood rebooting older films since there is such a dense history in it. Games on the other hand have only been commercially available for under four decades, which begs the question: what’s the point of game reboots? It’s understandable that often since the original iteration of a game’s release there have been newer generations of hardware that have added capacity for glitz and glamour. However I am of the belief that a great game of its generation shouldn’t be overshadowed by its doppelganger in the future (though contrary to this, I’ll admit I am looking forward to the 3DS’ Ocarina of Time remake). It often distracts from what made the original great, and in essence, makes it obsolete. Though having said this, there are times when a remake is welcome and can help engage a newer audience that may have missed it or were simply too young to have experienced it, such as the aforementioned OoT, Pokemon Gold/Silver, Bionic Commando Rearmed and Metroid: Zero Mission. These work because they’re either older and less appreciated games (Bionic Commando, Metroid) that deserve a refreshed experience or were remade with careful consideration of what make them stand out in their era.
Some examples of arguably unnecessary reboots are DMC (Devil May Cry), Medal of Honour, Tomb Raider and Aliens vs Predator. What all these games have in common is that their first titles were released between the years of 1996 and 2001, meaning their franchises aren’t any older than 15 years old. Even in the film industry this is considered young, though exceptions go to the new Spider-Man reboot apparently. Tomb Raider, the oldest of the bunch, has seen ten main releases to its series with its eleventh currently slated for release later this year. As said earlier 15 years seems a little early to be completely revising a game but factoring in the release of ten games during that time, it almost makes sense why a company would be forced to rehash: to keep Lara Croft relevant. Being idolised as somewhat of a sex-symbol in the 90s by male gamers seeking to portray how “mature” games have become (though fronting that argument with a big-busted cave explorer probably wasn’t the way to go) she lost touch with the rest of the world in the 2000s because the quality of her appearance was taking priority over the quality of the experience (coughAngelOfDarknesscough). Arguably the only Tomb Raider to become relevant to gaming since the late 90s was last year’s critically acclaimed Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, utilising local and online co-operative play as its core experience. What’s strange is that instead of continuing to explore (no pun intended) that aspect further developers have decided to take her back to before she became Tomb Raider. What’s even stranger is that the same treatment is being given to Devil May Cry after only four titles since its birth in 2001.
Whaaat? In what universe are these the same Dante?
Film Adaptations
Ask anyone if they remember a truly good video game movie and you’ll more than likely be met with a disconcerting look and a phrase similar to “Uhh…” Why is this? What is it about the transition between movies and games that tend to go wrong? Some argue it’s because games are a much more personal experience, that games’ storylines don’t hold up well when presented primarily, or that game films often have a ten hour experience uncomfortably shoe-horned into two. Video game adaptations of movies have always been a staple problem, but are often overlooked since for many decades now big-budget films always have a huge marketing and merchandising push behind them. T-shirts, toys, books, cartoons, school gear, it’s a no-brainer to casually throw a game out there too. For some reason though a movie adaptation of a game always seems to sting fans much harder, though it could be because they’re often poorly written, quickly made, shallow and resemble almost nothing of what makes the games memorable. This double-standard hit its stride with the release of the Super Mario Bros Movie starring Bob Hoskins, Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo in 1993. Since then we’ve been blessed with multiple high-profile gaming movies like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, Doom, Resident Evil, Wing Commander and the list goes on. The worst offender to this issue is visionary German filmmaker Uwe Boll, responsible for film versions of Bloodrayne, FarCry, Alone in the Dark and Postal.
Though on the upside over the last couple of console generations a lot of games have been blurring the line between video game and blockbuster movie. With consoles now packing surround sound capabilities, high definition output, large media storage, multiple gigahertz processors and all kinds of other technical jargon, it’s almost enough for some people to be confused with what’s a movie and what’s a game. Naughty Dog’s Uncharted series have been continuously pushing the boundaries in visual entertainment by attempting to “max out” the PS3’s capabilities, and after having played through Uncharted 2 multiple times it makes me wonder what the third instalment has to offer when it releases late this year. With consoles fast becoming the central entertainment hub of people’s households it even makes online film distribution a much more worthy choice of people’s time. Services like Foxtel, ABC iView, Zune Video Marketplace, Plus7 and Netflix in the US offer a mix of free and subscription-based on-demand services that work quickly and easily, provided you have high speed internet access.
In conclusion…
The video games industry is a business, with its companies run by business people. Despite what we hope and want, it always comes down to money and how much. If a game shines for its innovation and ingenuity but only strikes a small fraction of the target audience (which for this generation is essentially everyone) then it’s often considered a failure. In the earlier days of gaming things were at least seemingly happier because gamers were a small demographic with similar tastes in what was good and what was bad. Though with games today mostly striving to be adored by as many people as possible, original games are much bigger risks for companies to take than to continue with a recognisable brand and ensure steady cash-flow. The best we can do as gamers to support this industry and help it grow it into something respectful and socially endearing is to pay attention to the people who have the gall to try new ideas in a market of full of “me too!” mediocrity. Because I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sure getting sick of Military Action Game starring Gun Guy and its series of cookie-cutter follow-ups.
