Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic 171

Posted by CmdrTaco from the didn't-that-happen-a-couple-years-ago dept.
Raiford writes "A Reuters feature story describes how the computer gaming industry is shedding its geek persona in an attempt to attract Hollywood's best visual effects, sound, lighting and animation experts into the gaming fold. The story quotes the executive vice president of Electronic Arts on how rapidly advancing processor technology is demanding an expanded skill set and that Hollywood provides the ready source to meet the demand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic More

Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic

Comments Filter:

  • Gang war (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:06PM (#4353886)
    Yeah, like the Drama club geeks are going to work with the CS geeks.

    "Best step off, this be technical theater territory."

    "Eat it, lighting nerd! The Computer Club rules!"
    • They have a interdisciplinary class which is immensely popular called Building Virtual Worlds. You grab a programmer, a musician, a modeler, and someone to script (rough outline, as tasks move around a bit and aren't very formalized), and make a virtual world. You get to play with neat VR hardware like headsets. In the past, notable efforts have included a Godzilla game with a breath input (a flap in front if your mouth), an Akira game, and so on. Modeling software that's cutting edge research stuff used for fast prototyping and building with some neat UI work is available, since it's produced at the university.

  • All I say is FUCK EA. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry but Electronic Arts is a console company front and center. Go read any EA PC forum. Promised patches that never appear, bugs bugs and more bugs that never get fixed, etc. They seem to release 1 patch for each pc game that fixes the stuff nobody complains about, then they move on to the next project. If you are lucky, a year later you get your patch, only they call it 2003 or 2004 or whatever. Anyway I'm not even gonna read this article cause EA makes me want to puke.
    P.S. Go read any Battlefield:1942 forum for a lot of negative comments.

    • Re:All I say is FUCK EA. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why do console games rule and PC ports drool?

      It's the same reasoning behind the Macintosh. Standardized hardware with standardized drivers, a standardized system and standardized APIs. The game company knows what they are coding for when it comes to a console, they have the specs and they can test and push the limits of the hardware.
      At best for PCs, gaming companies can write for Windows. People running Windows, or Lunix for that matter, have a rainbow of hardware to choose from, cheap or expensive, which means a rainbow of drivers which may or may not be compatible or meet the software's minimum requirements. The gaming companies port their game over using the most generic and basic requirements then leave it up to the PC user to make it run right.
      After all, that is why they have a PC since getting their hands dirty under the hood is their raison d'etre. Sadly most PC users are lamers who are happy their PC has plug-and-play functionality and everything works 75% of the time so they can seem 31337 when their computer is just right and everyone else is posting to boards "TIHS GAME SUX0RZ U DIE GAEM CUMPANY".
      Carmack was smart when he came out with his FPS games he made sure everyone knew "USE THIS VIDEO CARD AND DRIVER" and they went out to get the new technology to play the game and play it right in addition to setting a standard for gaming companies to follow.
      This is why PCs are losing out as a gaming platform besides the fact I can get three consoles for the price of whatever passes for an ultimate gaming box nowadays.

  • Wouldn't they (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Savatte ( 111615 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:10PM (#4353903) Homepage Journal
    produce better games were they to attract some top-notch game designers? Like some of those crazy designers from japan. It's nice to have realistic lighting and animation, but in the long run, playability is key. If gamers wanted reality, they would step outside
    • out... side?

      • Re:Wouldn't they (Score:5, Funny)

        by mobets ( 101759 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @02:08PM (#4354340) Journal
        yes, it is that realy big blue room. The resolution is superb, but I still say the physics are a little off.
        • The biggest problem is that you can't respawn. I can't wait until they release a patch to fix that.
          • As far as I'm concerned they could just skip the whole respawning-patch and give me a nice save/load function. Also get some japanese game designers (anyone involved in Tekken or DOA would do) to work on the women to make them more giggly, with bouncier breasts and that strange desire to show off their panties.

            Furthermore - is it too much to ask to be able to see my XP? I've been slaying people for months, but my level does not seem to increase.

            If the developers have an unstable version with these features, I am willing to beta test.
      • http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20000615& mode=classic
    • The companies have realized that they can sell many more games if they just focus on the "average joes" who buy a game because it looks cool. Games with great gameplay are few and far between, IMHO, and with an increased focus on graphics-this and lighting-that, the gameplay department of newer titles is sure to suffer.

      Not that i dislike high-end graphics- they can REALLY add to a game- but they shouldn't be the main focus of game development. Unfortunately, until Joe Average wises up and decides not to buy a game based on just some screenshots on the back of the box, things own't get any better.
    • ...produce better games were they to attract some top-notch game designers? Like some of those crazy designers from japan

      I'd really like to know where all this reverse racism comes from. I mean really, Japanese game designers are no more skilled than designers anywhere else in the world. Generally speaking, of course.

      All those "crazy" dating and rhythm games are just run-of-the-mill over there. Plus, you don't see the *really* crappy Japanese games because (gasp) they're not exported!

      So really, knock off the racial superiority gibberish. I don't mean to sound preachy, but you started it.
      • I didn't mean crazy as in insane, I meant crazy as in coming up with creative ideas that we wouldn't dream of in america.
        • That's what I meant by "crazy" too. I'm just saying that most innovative games that come over here are very common over there. Dating sims run like water over there, for instance. Ditto for sexual games.

          True, there is the odd unique gem, but they aren't produced in Japan any more often than they are in America, Europe, or elsewhere.
  • Will that help attract chicks to play Electronic Art games?

  • Jocks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've noticed at least on my campus that the jocks are seeming to take over the gaming area. While the geeks remain a constant force. I think it's the competitive appeal of modern games, and how they are getting closer to real life.

    • Re:Jocks (Score:2, Insightful)

      by czion3 ( 612261 )
      Same here it semes to be more of a comptetion like who can win In Madden NFL or who can get the farthest in game x.

  • Game Industry? How about EA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:14PM (#4353923)
    Come now, EA has been on this path for over a decade. They used to publish tons of games, from the great to the crappy, all of which were at least great fun for someone. Now they just publish the super mainstream "Safe" games like Madden and Sim* while taking VERY VERY few risks.

    • Re:Game Industry? How about EA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MonkeyBoy ( 4760 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @01:01PM (#4354083)
      Yeah, EA is risk-adverse. It's cubeland office environment inspires much loathing from anyone who's worked elsewhere in the industry, too. EA used to have an interesting philosophy, back when games were either completely done by a single individual or a handful of people. But the bar has been raised very high now, with dozens of people working on any title (I'm amazed at the number of Japanese titles have 100+ team members), which means that more sales are required to break even.

      That said, EA did try to axe The Sims multiple times during it's development process. So to say that The Sims was a non-risk is obviously untrue - some execs were very scared of it. Now that it's an established "brand", much to those execs chagrin, it's obviously turned into a non-risk...
    • Agreed... The shooter games that EA publishes have been among the simplest and most linear I've played. (thinking of Medal of Honor and Battlefield 1942 here).

      On the other hand, they do seem a bit more "polished" than a lot of second-tier shooter releases. (by that I mean the audio is good, and there aren't enough bugs in the first release to make the game seriously unplayable =)

      • Re:Game Industry? How about EA (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How, in any sense of the word, is Battlefield 1942 linear, or even simple? I suppose you could call the vehicle control aspect of the game 'simple' when compared to a real vehicle simulator but when compared to other FPSes the game falls into the "more complicated than most" category. The game has got some problems but not the ones you mention. Lack of 'polish' is a problem with BF1942, however. (IMHO) I'm waiting for a patch or two before I resume playing.
        • I meant linear in the sense that the single-player game is simply a linear path through all the maps. Also the game has been tweaked out for action/fun rather than realism. (e.g. no M1 Garand)

          1942 claims replayability because of the "smart" AI, but in my experience the AI is basically dumb as dirt :[.

          Multiplayer is where it shines, of course - but the net code is pretty awful. I'm not sure the average buyer of 1942 would be persistent enough to actually enjoy on-line play...

          I would say that 1942 is a lot more polished than, say, Operation Flashpoint or America's Army. The audio is great, the in-game server browser actually works (a first! although they get serious negative points for pushing you to install Gamespy Arcade - ugh). I'm hoping they will fix the net code in future patches, we'll see... (IMHO they would have been much better off licensing a good engine like Q3A or Torque than baking their own - MOHAA had awesome net play, thanks to the Q3 engine...)
      • Have you even played battlefield 1942? Could you explain the linearity? I don't see it.

        sig: Wahoo! My 400th comment.
  • The rise of the new generation of consoles and the corresponding fall in computer game sales was the least surprising trend of the past year. We knew it was coming, but now that it's here, the change in the landscape is breathtaking. It proves something PC gamers are loathe to admit: Like Internet stocks, PC gaming in the 1990s was an aberration, a bubble. Driven first by the CD-ROM and then by 3D accelerators, PC gaming took the lead in cutting-edge content. Full-motion video, 3D environments, sophisticated gameplay, online gaming: These things made PC games unique. They helped computer games move from the realm of the hobbyist into the mainstream.
    And while computer games will never return to a mere hobbyist markey, their heyday is, for the forseeable future, at an end. like some kind of silicon brachiosaurus. computer haming is being brought down by its own weight. It's simple economics: A single piece of a computer gaming rig - the accelerator card - costs more than an Xbox, and doesn't look nearly as cool, come with a DVD player as a basic feature, or display on a huge TV.
    Mainstream computer gaming is one controler and an Internet connection away from being thrust into irrelavence. One someone finds a way to effectively and comfortably replicate the fine controls of a first-person shooter for consoles, and once the major console makers get their onlinge gaming services up and functioning, PC gaming ill find itself loping toward the tar pits.
    Not even The Sims can save it.
    They too, are heading for the consoles.

    • Re:PC games are dying (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:28PM (#4353958) Homepage
      The only way that PC games are going to truly die is if :

      * The FPS and RTS genre's games are MUCH easier to play with mice. The dreamcast could accept a mouse -- can any others, and do the games work with it?

      * 640x480 just isn't good enough anymore (and your TV set can't even do that well.) Consoles will have to be able to display to SVGA monitors just like the computers do. HDTV is another option, but how many people have HDTV now? Not very many.

      * And last, but not least, you can't justify an Xbox to do your taxes. People are going to buy PCs for `productive' things, and when that's done, they'll want to play a game.

      (Now, if a console can run Turbo Tax, that might be what's needed to drive the final nail into the PC game coffin. Of course, if that happens, then that console you're using ... is basically just a PC!)

      Like it or not, but certain genres of games are still dominated by PC games -- in particular, I'm thinking of FPS and RTS games. Maybe this will change in the future ... we shall see.

      • tv resolution is around 350x250something, i'f i'm not mistaken.

        why do you want insane resolution to have clearer, sharper images, when the most basic of optics isn't even being respected: FOCUS. when you are facing a column and the rest of the room is on the left and the right of the column, isn't the room supposed to be blurred?

        And another, similar, thing:
        about hi res in games... i do not get it...: if IRL, you can't read a sing that is 50m (~150feet) away, why do you want to be able to see it when you play a game?

        Instead of increasing resolution, more polygons, more whizbang, why don't computer game creators make *realistic* looking games?

        (about those who are revving up to scream "we want gameplay, not realism!!!", yeah, ok, but a rocket that goes at running pace, "laser blasts" at 100mph, washed out textures and blocky polygons just suck...)
        • There should be a mod for "bitter." Or "bad mood."

          Thanks
        • NTSC TV resolution is 525 lines. What we see is 640x480. There should be enough resolution that from my viewing distance ~8 feet, that I can not see the individual pixels anymore. If the image looks like a window into another world, then I'll be satisfied for resolution. Granted if I had a 13inch set and not 26 from 8 feet I couldn't see the pixels anymore. I'm just saying the resolution isn't high enough yet for most big TVs.
        • why do you want insane resolution to have clearer, sharper images, when the most basic of optics isn't even being respected: FOCUS. when you are facing a column and the rest of the room is on the left and the right of the column, isn't the room supposed to be blurred?
          Two reasons --

          1) that's hard to do with current 3D hardware (though I seem to recall some recent cards doing blurring like that.)

          2) I don't know about you, but my eyes can move around independant of my head, and can focus on whatever they see. Unless your game can determine where exactly your eyes are pointed and focus on just that part of the screen, this would not work.

          3) It may be more realistic, but blurring doesn't add much to the gameplay of your average FPS, and may take away from it signifigantly.

          Also, FPSs are not the only class of game out there. RTSs benefit from lots of pixels -- I remember playing Dune II at 320x200, and I don't miss that resolution at all. I'd much rather play Total Annihilation (which is still several years old) at 1024x768.

          Even RPGs like Baldur's Gate greatly benefit from the additional resolution that a TV cannot deliver. Yes, I know there's a console port of it now. In the few minutes of playing with it at CompUSA, I found it very annoying and found myself longing for the PC version instead.

          • Re:PC games are dying (Score:3, Informative)

            by Babbster ( 107076 )
            Small OT note on Baldur's Gate (Dark Alliance) for consoles: It is not a port of Baldur's Gate but rather an extremely simplified Diablo-like game (thought not nearly as fun as Diablo) - the only thing Dark Alliance has to do with Baldur's Gate is the title and the D&D setting. Anyone who bought Dark Alliance because they thought it would be anything like the original PC game would have to be very disappointed.
      • Console hardware is subsidised, the games cost more but you have less chances of having hardware incompatiblities. Games companies like consoles, piracy is much harder. If you fit a PS2/XBox chip you lose your warranty, that would never apply to a PC would it? Yes, PCs may have better hardware and graphics but many gamers buy the hardware then can't afford the games.
      • FPSs and RTSs, yes... but you forgot one more: Simulations. That will be the last genre (assuming this happens at ALL, which I can bet dollars to chipmunks that it won't) that gets ported to consoles.
      • and antying else that requries more than 2 (or 4 w/ an add on) players to be fun

        pc games aren't going away although the recent quality does suck generally (although not completely)
      • * The FPS and RTS genre's games are MUCH easier to play with mice. The dreamcast could accept a mouse -- can any others, and do the games work with it?

        I could never see mouse use taking off in the living room situation... it would just look strange (or stranger!)

      • Re:PC games are dying (Score:3, Informative)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        This argument gets stupider every time I see it, and we've all seen it a LOT, especially since the XBox came out.

        "It's just a weak PC."

        "Why would I buy a console if I already have a PC."

        "Why do I keep starting/participating in arguments about PC vs. console gaming?" (Yes, this last apparently applies to me as well.)

        Here's something that so many people here (and elsewhere) don't get and are often too zealous to acknowledge: Right now, both PC and console gaming have their places.

        Can we get better resolution for gaming on the PC? Of course we can. Then again, I would note that there still isn't, for example, a football game on console OR PC that looks as "good" (read realistic) as what I see on good old NTSC television. This tells me that, potentially, 480 (or 500, or 525, depending on the signal, set, etc.) lines of interlaced resolution could be enough. I certainly haven't played any console games where I shook my head and said to myself "this sucks because it's not 1024x768 or higher." -- by the by, it's worth noting here that I own all three current consoles and a competent, though not uber, gaming PC.

        Do mouse and keyboard work better in some games than a console controller? Possibly, though I consider this a matter of taste. The only game genre where I see this argument being near-absolute is in the area of RTS games, simply because of the current scale of the battles that go on and the micromanagement required. FPS games, on the other hand, can be played quite well on the current console controllers - most people are just ACCUSTOMED to mouse/keyboard and refuse to consider getting used to, or even trying, any other configuration. It seems relevant to note here as well that one of the reasons FPS fans prefer their mouse and keyboard is that it allows them to control their "avatars" in ways which are fundamentally unrealistic (if a flesh-type human turned as fast as people do in shooters, their neck would snap).

        And finally, one of the more common arguments is "I can do so much more with my PC than just games." This is, without a doubt, true. However, you then have to consider what MOST non-industry people need to do on their computer. Word processing, spreadsheets, tax preparation, etc. can all be done quite efficiently on a computer with 10% of the power of current gaming rigs. Given the right operating system, any of us could do our daily work in these areas plus web browsing on a 300-MHz computer (probably even lower) with a 2D graphics card and a PC speaker.

        All of these items in my mind conspire to make the PC an endangered species in the world of gaming as consoles continue to improve. Already, the only PC title that can compete with the most popular console titles is The Sims (with its multitude of expansions). Think about it: A game like Halo or GTA3 could potentially have 75% penetration amongst gamers on a particular console - and those are games that have actually generated revenues without the massive PC piracy that goes on which is another factor that I think assures the eventual mostly-dead status of PC gaming.

        Bah, I'm as dumb as anyone. I keep feeling baited into these discussions despite the fact that I'm exactly the guy who doesn't care either way...a gamer. :)

    • A single piece of a computer gaming rig - the accelerator card - costs more than an Xbox, and doesn't look nearly as cool, come with a DVD player as a basic feature, or display on a huge TV.

      What does it matter the size if the tv if you're playing at NTSC resolutions? I suppose you could spend the thousands of dollars needed on an HDTV for it, but then the cost argument falls flat on it's face.

      You're probably right about PC gaming dying, except in the area of online games, and especially any kind of sim game, and it is largely about cost, but more out of ease. Most people can't figure out how to upgrade a computer, nor do they need to. They simply don't care about high resolutions, they're used to the blurriness of TV's and aren't bothered by it.

      PC games will never completly die, the PC has a far wider range of uses than consoles, making thier cost justified already. Most people will end up owning PC's, and throwing in a $90 video card, and being able to play any game is prettymuch a nobrainer. It doesnt take a $300 videocard to make a computer a usefull gaming rig. You buy a PC for many things, including games, but the only real use for a console is the games.
    • dougmc is basically correct, and his post can be summed up thus: PC gaming and console gaming are different markets, albeit with similarities and some overlap. Many games that do well on one don't do well on the other. The technical and logistic differences dougmc mentioned lend themselves to different types of games. Many of the people who play a lot of games on one do not play much at all on the other. The average age of gamers on PCs is about five to ten years higher than on consoles. The console market is, I think, a bigger market. So it has bigger money behind it. The hits there tend to be larger than the hits in PC games. All that leads to pulling talent away from PCs and to the consoles, where there's more money to be made. That brain drain has accelerated in the last two years, which may be why there's a relative dearth of hot titles out on the PC the last year when compared to the consoles. The dip might be an anomoly that could balance itself out some in the next couple of years. Each time a console comes out it looks like a great bang for the buck its first few months. But each console has a life expectancy of three to five years. Long before that the progress of the PC makes the previous generations of consoles look pretty blah. Consoles will never kill PCs as gaming machines. They're different markets with different economics driving them. As long as there are PCs people will be playing games on them.
    • 5 years away maybe, but yes. With Doom III headed to consoles, other big titles that are traditionally PC only brands (Starcraft, for instance) being released on consoles first it really is only a matter of time. However, I still prefer a crisp computer monitor to a TV set (and I have a nice 16:9 telly).

    • Re:PC games are dying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @02:16PM (#4354380)
      PC games are dying


      He might be right, here's why:

      About 2 years ago I played Diablo for the first time on the PS(play-station 1). I was addicted immediately, and played 4 or 5 hours at a sitting. For whatever reason I decided to buy the PC version(it was like 10$ in the bargain bin or something) and I tried it on the old PC. What I noticed was that for the most part, it was the same game. The controls were equally playable, the graphics were just about the same quality, etc. The strage thing was, after a day or so...I decided to stop developing my character on the PC, and went back to the Playstation.

      So to recap, I tried the PS version and liked it...then I tried the PC version and liked it the same...then I decided to stop playing the PC version and went back to the PS version. Why?

      Furniture.

      I have a very warm and cozy living room, and I sit in a nice comfy lazy-boy adjustable chair while I play on the Playstation. After a long work/school day of sitting in a straight-back chair...you most likely just want to lay back and relax. Playing 4 hours on the lazy-boy is much more appealing than 4 more hours of sitting in front of a PC.

      • So to recap, I tried the PS version and liked it...then I tried the PC version and liked it the same...then I decided to stop playing the PC version and went back to the PS version. Why?
        Because you have neither a good internet connection or any friends? Diablo 1 was all about multiplayer gaming. Where were you?
      • For every few couch gamers, though, there is a PC gamer that likes to get up close and personal with his or her games. Consider the strategy or cRPG (genus DnD) gamer. This gamer wants to manage his units or tweak his character's (or group's) inventory or spells.

        Certain games work on the couch -- games where you can sit back and enjoy the graphics or cutscene, for instance. The gamer that wants to have his wizard cast a fireball at the orc archers while having his fighter and paladin stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the corridor, blocking the advance of the orc warriors and thereby protecting his casters and archers, doesn't want to be six feet removed (i.e. on the couch) from his games.

        As long as this type of PC gamer exists, PC games will exist. It also doesn't hurt the outlook for the hardcore PC gaming industry that this type of gamer is often the most loyal.
    • i read that in PC Gamer's NFL game round-up too.
    • I disagree. Take Halflife or Doom for example. Arguably 2 of the best FPS games around- not because they have spectacular graphics, but because you can modify them. Secondly, a game console is a limited purpose device; you play games on it or watch DVDs. And while there may be many who want the gaming experience of an Xbox, many more want a machine that lets them check mail, write documents, check out porn, surf, AND play games.

      When patches or additions become available for a game simply download and install them. With a console, these features are a long way off. Perhaps we'll see a merger of the 2 in the future but until that happens, I think the life of gaming PCs is alive and well.

    • Err...the reason console games are popular right now is because a *new generation of consoles just came out*. So right now, the consoles are technically impressive, and consoles are popular. It's a cycle though -- as the systems age, computers will appear more and more appealing and consoles be less interesting...until the next generation of consoles comes out. This cycle has happened since the Nintendo era when people first started getting personal computers in their home at a reasonable rate, and isn't going to stop any time soon.

      Neither computer nor console gaming is going to go anywhere any time soon.

      Plus, there are genres of games that have evolved for each platform that aren't nearly as good on the others. The side-scroller will forever be a console game, as will the fighting game (a la Street Fighter). The FPS and the turn-based-strategy game will always be computer games. Games where expandability/editibility/conventional input devices are helpful will always have a plus on the computer.

      That being said, I find it monumentally frusterating how little memory ships with most consoles. Programmers can *always* pull off good new tricks to improve performance and graphics given more RAM to play with. Cut into the fancy graphics hardware a bit, and give the machines more memory, and they'd be a lot more competitive with some of the things done in the PC world.

      I mean, a 64MB of RAM total X-Box looks unpleasantly sparse when compared to a PC with twice that on the video card alone, and half a gig of system memory. Coders *can* come up with cool precomputation techniques if you give them the chance!
    • Where did this drivel come from?

      True, graphics accelerator cards cost more than gaming consoles, but you have to look deeper for the true value of a PC versus a console.

      I've been pricing a gaming PC I want to build, and I can say with certainty that a gaming PC with a buff graphics board is the better value. Assuming you already have an acceptable monitor, you can piece together a wicked gaming PC for $700-$800 tops. Besides, you're not going to buy a new TV for that gaming console right.

      Looking at pricewatch.com [pricewatch.com]:

      $100 Athlon 2000XP CPU
      $60 mobo to match CPU
      $130 512MB DDR RAM
      $80 40GB Maxtor drive
      $100 fancy case
      $150 CD-RW/DVD combo drive
      $165 GeForce4 Ti 4200 128MB
      $32 Soundblaster Live! 5.1

      Total = $817

      And you can shave off more or drop more $ on this kind of setup. This is going to last you three years, giving you tip-top gaming at that. You get to play any title ever written for the PC, especially those not suited for consoles.

      Now, when this no longer suits your gaming needs, you repurpose it as a sweet workstation or server. You cannot do that with a console.

  • The quantum leap from "Pong" and "Pacman" to "The Legend of Zelda" or "Grand Theft Auto"
    What's wrong with the words evolution or progression? It's like saying "Mankind took a quantum leap from Squibbly things in the water, to crawling in mud, to apes and finally overweighed geeks".
    "We're going to surpass Hollywood in entertainment value."
    What he's actually saying is "sure, 10-20 years ago, this was already true with Bard's Tale and the like, but now we will be able to do bad impressions of these games but with more polygons while sitting in offices taken over from the crashed dot.com companies". What isn't mentioned though is that the next consoles will be 1-2 years delayed and in the mean time some of these polygon monsters will instead be released for the PC, forcing each gamer to play the upgrade game yet once or trice.
  • Look folks, the geek image is pretty much done. Those stereotypes in high school and college don't cut it in the real world. This seems to be a no-brainer to me. ;)

    If you have a good product, with a decent plotline/script, talented people will want to work with you, because it can and often will further their career.

    Or, maybe I am just that out of touch with the neo-geek world. Could be that I guess.

    • You get over it. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward


      Geek image and stereotypes are far from done in high school, let alone college. The only difference is that now the in-crowd has just become indifferent to those they find "nerdy" or "geeky". Ask your average college student if they actually enjoy so much as one aspect of the subject matter in any given class, and they'll tell you that they don't care beyond making a sufficient grade. To them, if you enjoy thinking about deep philosophical or political issues or, gasp, you read for pleasure and you're in school for reasons above and beyond punching your ticket, then you are a geek.

      People have collectively always behaved like reactive herd animals, but more and more so I think the trend towards intellectual indifference, apathy, and even hostility, are growing. (I hate reading. I don't need to know all that to live my life the way I want to. I don't care. Ignorance is strength etc...) That's why us Americans have a raging dry-alcoholic reactionary kook for president, and why parasites like Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, and Michael Eisner can lobby away our constitutional rights almost at will.

      Judging by the results, as shown in current trends in our society, I'd say ignoring the "geeks" and corralling them when necessary is proving to be a very savvy and effective tactic to undermine their influence. When geeks were directly attacked they gained publicity and they had influence well beyond their numbers, such as the political upheaval of the 1960's or for much of the Internet boom of the 90's. However, what I'm seeing now is a trend towards using the fruits of "geek" intellectual labor as a time machine to turn back the clock on social and scientific progress e.g. the current p2p debacle, and the current efforts of religious reactionaries to stifle stem cell research and other scientific inquiries into using medicine to enhance as well as heal human health and function.
      (I'm referring to the use of hard technological measures to enforce antiquated business models, religions, philosophies, and laws that are anything but progressive or the fruit of enlightened minds.)

      My hope is that unenlightened self interest on the part of the ignorant leads them to allow science to make an end run around the blocks to it's progress, if for no other reason than that MR. and MRS John and Jane Q InvesterClass wants their baby to be born with more than just economic priviledge. Not to mention that although the rich don't trust the poor to have unmonitored communications, they definitely don't feel this sort of government intrusion should apply to people like them. So I at least have faith there will be loopholes to exploit, and that maybe at some point in the distant future they will become big enough to push a truly advanced society through. All this could happen, thanks to "geeks".

  • Tony Hawk (Score:5, Funny)

    by alphaseven ( 540122 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:26PM (#4353948)
    From the article: Unlike famous actors, video games stars like Lara Croft and Tony Hawk do not get $10 million signing fees. And because they don't drink and date, they never make the gossip columns of Hello magazine.

    Um, Tony Hawk is a real preson. Where are the editors?

    • Re:Tony Hawk (Score:5, Funny)

      by teslatug ( 543527 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:45PM (#4354017)
      uhh...any chance they made a mistake about Lara Croft too?

  • Worthless (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fondue ( 244902 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:31PM (#4353973)
    Why are Reuters printing a description of EA's offices and an extended press release as news?


    Why are Slashdot reprinting it? (Oh right, it's supposedly a games story, so up to /.'s usual standard of gaming reportage, i.e. crap.)


    Thought provoking? Hardly. Perhaps a mention of the growing number of classic developers EA have bought and sucked dry (Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, next stop Westwood) that have paid for these fancy offices would be in order?

    • Why are Reuters printing a description of EA's offices and an extended press release as news?
      Reuters IS printing an extended Press release, because there is only one thing that EA does well. Promotions. And they do it better then any company in the game industry, possibly better than any other company in the US economy.
      Everything else that EA does is strictly average on the whole. With few exceptions (MoHaa) games that EA put out are all strictly average IMHO. Look at EA's flagship title, Madden. In my opinion, the competing product has always been superior, be it Gameday on the ps1, quarterback club (Strictly the two on n64) and currently, the NFL2k series.
      There is a reason why EA has so many franchises. It allows them to merely tweak existing software, rather than make new software. Even MoHaa runs on the tried and true Q3 engine.
      No other gaming company can claim to have such an effective PR department as EA. Next time an article on games is covered in your local daily newspaper, notice how the featured product in article is made by EA.
      God help me, I used to work for EA (phone monkey), I know of what I speak.

  • This is why games are getting crappier in general! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:34PM (#4353981) Journal
    While there are still some great games, many of them with "cinematic" effects, the Hollywood-ization of the game industries are causing us to see lots of crappy games that are flashy, but also lack gameplay depth and especially challenge.

    The Sega CD bombed back in the 90s, not because of the lack of system capabilities, but because Sega focused on crappy FMV-based games and hyped them as "interactive movies" rather than good games.
    • Hell, I think they figure if they can release another knockoff [acclaimmaxsports.com] or another Sims expansion pack and make money, why should it be difficult or even give you your money's worth?

      It'd be really nice if the Europeans started building quality code again like they did for the Amiga back in the day...

      A lot of games of late seem to have been built by marketing committee, not people who actually like games and want to build a good game rather than flood the market with knockoffs.

      I certainly don't have any ideas to turn this current state of affairs around other than buying the few hardcore games coming out each year... sadly, I don't see many this year.

  • The programmers get shit on again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @12:43PM (#4354007)
    I loved this paragraph: The studios have sacrificed office space for a vast reception area with a cozy coffee corner and couches. Cubicles for programmers are squeezed high into the corners of the building, almost as an afterthought.



    Meaning, the programmers are just unimportant people that they can "squeeze" away into cubicles, while tons of space is wasted in the fucking lobby. What a shitty company.

    If I worked there, I'd organize all of the programmers to go work downstairs in the posh lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.
    • "The games industry remains a software business with a lot of programmers tweaking codes on powerful workstations. Not exactly the stuff of dreams."

      Why should they get good offices... programming is obviously not a desirable occupation.

      then why the hell do i know so many people who would give anything to be writting video games?
      • Good programmers love programming... if you don't understand it, obviously you're not autistic.

        I happily sit in my cubicle and code the day away.

    • Re:The programmers get shit on again (Score:5, Funny)

      by suss ( 158993 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @02:10PM (#4354348)
      If I worked there, I'd organize all of the programmers to go work downstairs in the posh lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.

      Or you could..... set the building on fire...

      I believe you have my stapler.
    • Yeah, the problem is that game programmers let this happen to them. They take the job because they love to write games. So in the gaming industry the "producers" (management) take due advantage of the "talent" (artists, programmers, designers). Particularly the programmers.

      In fact, game development is one of the most demanding types of software development. It calls on a wide range of knowledge (or at least ability to "look it up") from math and physics to programming techniques typical of embedded systems development (to maximize speed).

      But embedded developers typically get paid twice as much.

      So what you get is an industry full of kids willing to work for pennies. When they grow up, and need to pay a morgage, support wife and kids, etc., they sign up for a boring job leveraging MSSQL, and VB.

      As programmers in the gaming industry get treated more and more like unskilled labor, the answer becomes obvious: organize. Unfortunately, what we'll probably see is just a bunch of scabs willing to work for fun.

      -- John.

    • > If I worked there, I'd organize all of the
      > programmers to go work downstairs in the posh
      > lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.

      Then you'd get fired. Way to go!
  • That's really all I can equate this too.

    For the last 5 years game makers have been sacrificing game play to graphics in an attempt to bring in more customers.

    EA is a great example of doing this. I can remember a time when Maxis produced or distributed interesting, technical games. Titles like sim ant, sim city, or a-train.

    Those days are gone. The sim city franchise (once considered their 'flag ship' title) actually lost many of its technical features in the last release, and the next release has been delayed not by programming, but because EA's marketing people have decided to hold off on the next release due to yet another version of the sims.

    Don't get me wrong, 'The Sims' is a neat game, but the novelty (for me) wears off quickly after the AI becomes so woefully predictable. But Maxis (EA) beats the quick fad like a dead horse. 'Look, now your sim can have a puppy! That'll be $35' Meanwhile more technical and thought provoking games get better graphics and less gameplay. "We want to make the game more accessable to childern and novices" was a justification in the last Sim City game. Read: We want to dumb it down and have pretty colors.

    So, if chic means computer games are reaching a new more sophisticated level where art and game play are merged together, they are wrong. If Chic means the game industry is going more Holywood insofar as artistic quality and new or unique innovation is sacrificed to the gods of safe, rehashed ideas to maximise profits... then ok, yeah.

    • Yes, but EA's sports games have gotten so complex that you need to be an NFL coach to pick plays in NFL2k3.

      There will always be niche markets, filling those niche's will always be lucrative for those who will.

      I don't think we're in danger of every game being 'dumbed down'. Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't always the most profitable course of action.

      • Oh yeah. Sports games have if anything developed far too a complex interface. Yes, it allows you do to many new things, but it's still far to complex an interface to make it easy to just pick up.

        To me, football games lived and died around Techmo bowl. I thought that was the greatest football video game ever made. I know the '92 teams better then I know the modern teams from playing that over and over again.

        Then a few years ago my roomate got madden, and I was just lost. I won't say it was worse, but it was too hard.

        Normally, I like games that are harder, but not sports games, and that's just me. But I'm glad they continue to make sports games more complex.

        I think that's an execption to the rule.

    • Loss of Gameplay to Graphics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @01:31PM (#4354198)
      If it helps, think of that trend as the result of computers becoming popular with the Masses. Electronic Arts and the rest already know that they can get "us" to buy games. Hardcore gamers are a given. So like any smart company, they wont spend much effort to keep us attracted to their games. At this point, they want to get Jocks, Women, Artsy types, Beurocrats, Lawyers, and the rest to buy games also. In short, they are going after the AOL demographic.

      Most people from that group are just not likely to spend much time playing the sort of games that geeks typically play. However, even they can appreciate a cool looking explosion or light show.

      It is easier to sell a pretty looking game because any idiot can look at a picture and say "Ooh, thats pretty.". The same cannot be said for the gameplay.

      END COMMUNICATION
    • Not to mention the original 3D SC2k [metablog.org]... I refuse to buy another Sim* game until they get back on that track.
    • While I too object to hyping gameplay over graphics, I object very much to this equating simplifying and making games more accessible with "dumbing down". Fun and depth of play does not require complicated rules--complare the number of rules in Go to the number of rules of Chess. Too many games (RPGs are the worst at this--though some of the Sim series probably suffers this as well) simply think "the more rules/complexity, the more fun!" For someone not willing to spend more than 2 months learning a new game, a few simpler rules can result in more depth of play then many complicated rules.

      Let's see what happens with Sim City 4. Some of the changes (like automatic layout of roads) sound like worthwhile attempts to minimize micromanagement.

    • Video games have been made mostly to satisfy gamers of a certain demographic, middle class teenaged boys. We agree that the Sims is a great game. It seems to me that the continued success of Sims games and expansions is that there is a significant number of people out there that just don't care for the incremental innovations in gameplay we call 'FPS' or 'RTS.' Probably the last game before sims to see an even gender balance was Tetris, and that was 10 years ago. The sims was a game style long overdue. Not that EA should focus all its efforts on beating all the money out of the game.

      I'd also argue that good game design appeals to a larger audience than the boys who like seeing gibbed corpses. It should scale nicely in difficulty so that casual players can pick it up and have fun, but not bore the obsessed. If by "more thought provoking games" you mean Sim City, Sim City has said all its going to say. Just like every successful game out there, the sequals are incrementally working their way towards a different game. Evolutionary, not revoltionary. If you're gonna bitch, bitch that they're diverting too much money to a single source rather than branching into gameplay concepts I haven't thougt of before, not the same damn game with an extra layer of civil architeture to worry about, please.
    • I am so sick and tired of this "back in the good ole' days [5 | 10 | 15 | 20] years ago we had real gameplay and we didn't need no stinkin' graphics" line. This is a simple case of nostalgia bred from remembering the greats and forgeting the crap. I guarantee 5 years from now we will be hearing the exact same line.

      Does anyone who thinks this even PLAY the games that have come out in the past 5 years? In no particular order, I can think of Half-life, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, Baldurs Gate 2, No One Lives Forever, Soul Calibur, Age of Empires 2, The Sims (already mentioned), Black and White. Each one of those games brought gameplay in its respective genre to a new height, and it did it with great graphics in the bargain. There are always those games where gameplay is sacrificed to graphics, but those games are just another kind of crappy game. Crappy games are nothing new.

      • I still play zangband on a regular basis. I don't play any graphical game on a regular basis. Oh, and I do have a certain taste for text-based interactive fiction.

        Now, I will grant you that angband has gotten prettier over the past years (color, dynamic lighting as you walk around your text-based dungeon), but a graphics-fest it's not.

        All the games you've mentioned -- Half Life, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, Baldur's Gate 2, NOLF, Soul Calibur, AoE 2, Sims, Black and White -- all of those have fallen behind, and aren't played much, but angband players still play angband.

        And I liked Total Annihilation much more than Starcraft, though Starcraft was definitely prettier.
  • Blinkenlights has a version of pong that really is quite fancy, it is building sized [blinkenlights.de]. Though it apparenly isn't chic enough for a story.
  • The investment they'll make doing this is just another nail in the coffin for original content. They-Who-Have-The-Money won't invest unless the game is -just like- a -proven- profitable game.

    BTW, thank you HCL [darkemud.com] and NWDL [nwdl.net] et al. [fraghaus.com] for bringing great value to my Neverwinter Nights purchase.

  • Forget the effects guys.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @01:13PM (#4354118) Journal
    Flash and dazzle is nice, but not lasting. The biggest boost that the gaming industry is getting from Hollywood is from the writers.

    Games are now being scripted like movies. No more "ok so you run this guy around and shoot the red guys and save the blue guys", game storylines are becoming more and more intricate, the characters more interesting.

    Alot of script-writers are pitching games, as they would pitch a movie. I'm also seeing alot more talent being enlisted for voiceovers, etc. Personally, I see this as a good trend. Others mileage may vary.

    Though, with the gaming industry pulling in more coin than the movie industry, it's a no-brainer that they'd be recruiting a good chunk of their talent, both technical and non-technical.
    • Compare a game without a story like Serious Sam or Warlords Battlecry II to a game with a story like Half-Life or WarCraft III. Serious Sam and Warlords Battlecry II are ten times more fun in singleplayer and there's no story in multiplayer.:)

  • Let's hope this is more hype than reality..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @01:18PM (#4354140) Journal
    Several years ago, we heard this same "party line" from such software developers as Origin. They promised us a merger between PC gaming and Hollywood. We got such things as Wing Commander III. (Most people I know loved the original Wing Commander, but by its 3rd. incarnation, just got boring to play. It felt like you were just running through repetitious missions so you could view a few more minutes of the movie afterwards.)

    Now, EA is telling us that "more Hollywood" is just the thing for their sports simulations?

    Great... So what'll it get us this time? Games that feel just like watching the real thing on TV, complete with commercial breaks featuring real actors and actresses?

    The fact is, many industries find themselves getting closer together via computer technology advances. Still, it doesn't mean the relationship equally benefits both parties. (EG. Engineering folks are rapidly becoming forced to work more and more with computers, to the point where they're learning programming languages and becoming software developers in things directly related to their field. Does this mean traditional computer developers and/or I.T. staff are becoming more of engineers than they used to be? Nope....)

    I think computer programmers and I.T. have provided a number of new tools to Hollywood, and certainly, Hollywood f/x teams have been forced to become much more computer-savvy than they used to be. Does it mean game developers need to bring "Hollywood" to their table, to improve their products? I think not.

    The *core* problem,as I see it, is this. Hollywood specializes in creating passive entertainment. (Sit down and watch us act for 2 hours and you'll love it.) Gaming is all about sucking people in, actively.

  • The quantum leap... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ex_ottoyuhr ( 607701 ) <<ex_ottoyuhr> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Sunday September 29, 2002 @01:35PM (#4354221)
    From "Pac-man" to "The Legend of Zelda"? "The Legend of Zelda" was for the 8-bit NES -- not all that much of an improvement compared to more recent systems. While I agree with the article's author that it's at least equal to GTA3, I question whether it's worthy of the term "quantum leap"...

    Seriously, this guy knows as much about games and programming as EA does about, well, games and programming... All game companies out there right now, and EA in particular, need to stop hiring special effects people and get some real game designers -- i.e. on a level with Miyamoto.

    They're out there, I don't doubt; without some real improvements, PC gaming will die entirely and be replaced with consoles, which can do the junk sports games and FPSes currently popular much better than a PC.

    Let's see all this new technology actually improve the gaming experience... I say we go back to 80286's and DOS, or maybe the Apple II; they at least had innovative, entertaining games. :)


    "Games still lack one element of the Hollywood lure: glamour. Unlike famous actors, video games stars like Lara Croft and Tony Hawk do not get $10 million signing fees. And because they don't drink and date, they never make the gossip columns of Hello magazine." You _know_ they're working on this...

  • EA must die to save gaming (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I find it interesting that the entire gaming community seems to pretty much agree that EA is practically a plague on the industry. And for good reason-- it seems like all they've done for the past few years is suck in fantastic companies, suck the life out of them, and ruin or cancel any interesting products they may have had.

    I am thinking here of Ultima Online 2 and Tribes 2, the latter of which was the one game i've looked forward to more than any other in literally years. Tribes 2 will now never reach my platform of choice, and this is as far as i can tell due to administrative mishandling and subsequent shutdown by EA. And from what i hear, the game isn't terribly playable on the PC either, due to EA's policy of "OK, dynamix, we want you to get it to a shippable state NOW. No, don't bother with bugfixing, you can patch that. You're not getting it done quick enough. It doesn't matter if it's in a finished state, just ship it, you can patch it later. Ah, it's ready to ship? Good. You're all fired."

    (That WAS EA who bought sierra, right? My roommate seems to think it was too. Either way, there have been a lot of other cases of similar behavior with EA-subsidairy products that intruiged me but came out unplayable due to mismanagement.)

    Meanwhile, their killing of UO2 has, in my opinion, led the MMORPG industry into a stagnant, imaginative slump, boring everyone away from the genre. There's been too little movement in that area for too long. This may change when Star Wars Galaxies comes out, but for the moment no one i know still plays mmorpgs.

    In my opinion, the gaming industry is dying because EA has sucked all the imagination, life, and momentum out of it. Their aquisitions and subsequent shutdowns have neatly destroyed almost all the innovative guiding lights of the industry, leaving everone else directionless and ill-funded. What can we do about this?

    I would dearly like to be able to enjoy PC games again. What can we, as gamers, do to stop all this? Is there some way we can as a community encourage either the destruction of EA (and the spinoff of worthwhile groups like Maxis), or a massive, massive change in upper management?

    All i can think of is a boycott, but in my case that wouldn't make much difference because i haven't found any of EA's games interesting enough to buy in a long time. But a *number* of their cancelled games *were* things i would have bought, so maybe it would be better if we just started a petition of people who say they would buy more games if the games were more innovative, interesting, and more intent on polished gameplay than polished graphics?

    But that might not help either, since i don't think EA is particularly grounded in reality or receptive to its customers. Is there anything the little guy can do to hurt this monster?

    Maybe i should just give up, assume it's hopeless, and buy a gamecube.

    • I am thinking here of Ultima Online 2 and Tribes 2, the latter of which was the one game i've looked forward to more than any other in literally years. Tribes 2 will now never reach my platform of choice, and this is as far as i can tell due to administrative mishandling and subsequent shutdown by EA. And from what i hear, the game isn't terribly playable on the PC either, due to EA's policy of "OK, dynamix, we want you to get it to a shippable state NOW. No, don't bother with bugfixing, you can patch that. You're not getting it done quick enough. It doesn't matter if it's in a finished state, just ship it, you can patch it later. Ah, it's ready to ship? Good. You're all fired."

      They had 3 fucking YEARS to put the game out. The first patch was 50Mb in size. They wrote it for OpenGL, and wrote a hackjob layer over the top of it for Direct3D support. And they gave away 1/4 of a million freebies.

      THAT's why they got shut down. Because they were idiots.

  • same pattern (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @02:03PM (#4354324) Journal
    Game Industry goes from Geek to Chic

    Most of our ex-girlfriends pretty much made a similar transition in tastes.
  • I dunno. There is a big division between mainstream and underground games. Sure, there are the Sims, Maddens and the Tony Hawks that are generally enjoyed by a lot of people.

    But then how often do you hear the same people who play Madden 2003 talk up Everquest or Counterstrike? I still think there is a big division and the good halmark of a geek game is the online community. Check out the hordes that follow NWN religiously... or Quake. Surely not mainstream and very very geeky. How many Maddenheads out there also edit configuration files or modify other games significantly?

    Of course there is no problem with that but it is important to realize that video games do not fall under one large umbrella.
  • "Nothing good can come of this..."

  • Old News (Score:3)

    by Chasuk ( 62477 ) <chasuk@gmail.com> on Sunday September 29, 2002 @04:00PM (#4354845)
    EA has been singing this song for at least 15 years. Why do you think they are called Electronic Arts? When Trip Hawkins founded EA in 1982, it was with artistic aspirations. Their box design and advertising glorified the programmers, and attempted to give them rock star street cred.

    It worked, to a large extent. Does anyone else remember the glamour shots of Bill Budge on the packaging for Pinball Construction Set? Does anyone remember the fantasy chess game Archon? Look at this [mobygames.com] picture of the programmers from 1984.

    Electronic Arts used to be a great company. Then they started franchising popular and safe games, and produced the long but dull series of sports games for which they are now famous. EA classics include: Music Construction Set, Articfox, Marble Madness, Ferrari Formula One, the Bard's Tale series, Seven Cities of Gold. Seven Cities of Gold was designed by the amazing Bill Bunten (AKA Danielle Berry), who has a tribute page here [anticlockwise.com].

    Here is another EA publicity photo [anticlockwise.com].

    Here is a publicity shot for MULE [anticlockwise.com], which EA produced, and should demonstrate their aspirations at the time.

    And they weren't the only game company from that era with artistic aspirations: Lucasfilm Games was also in on the act. They produced The Eidolon and Koronis Rift, and Rescue On Fractalus, which, though they would be laugable now, were amazing then, and the packaging (as I recall, I may be mis-remembering) also emphasised the programmers.
  • When Sierra's Phantasmagoria I,II / Shiver / Gabriel Knight 2 and Origin's Wing Commander 4,5,6 series were on? They said we cut budget cause we are not able to use hollywood resources for our games... Boy they were wrong back then... so now it's ok to defreeze the remaining wing commander series? Those new aliens need their butts kicked... And a new phantasmagoria game wouldn't be bad either. I am fed up with cgi characters, I'd like to (re)see another live one again...
  • Here's his big break, he can jump in and become the computer 'game engineer' who saves Silicon Valley by making it work with hollywood's finest.

    Yep, we can have him play Nolan Bushnell... no Trip Hawkins... (wait, he's not with EA anymore, right?) Well someone...

    Starting out with his 'geek years' bumbling about not making much money (a scant billion or three on titles such as Sim whatever) And how he meets the beautiful (but really smart and talented) movie starlet (who coubles in lighting and special effects - she learned it from her dad and uncle).

    The movie concludes as he brings Hollywood sex and glitz to the Valley, soon the SVEI (Silicon Valley Entertainment Industry) lawers are busy whittling away more rights of the consumer for the 'betterment of the Industry'.)

    The End.

  • Umm, they need all that to attract film artists? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voodoo1man ( 594237 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @05:25PM (#4355223)
    Considering the absolite shitter the movie digital FX industry has been in the past year, and the usual recruiting practices of some of the studios mentioned (Dreamworks is rumored to lay off the majority of artists after a big project - regardless whether they have another one lined up - and then aggressively recruit cheap, fresh art school grads), you'd think EA would just need to offer them a stable job (which they do, once in a while.)

    In case anyone didn't notice, the whole article was just BS promotion for EA (I'm surprised there wasn't a paid advertisement notice at the end of it.) This, incidentally, reminds me of another gaming company *cough*Ionstormdallas*cough* that had nice posh offices and lots of BS press coverage, and not too long afterwards closed (thank god Eidos kept Ion Storm Austin, though), which is what I am hoping EA will do not too long after this (you can only release boring games for so long before everyone realises they are boring.)

    Everyone remembers John Romero, right? The guy had to sell off his Hummer after Daikatana flopped, remember? You want the same thing to happen to those horrible people that decide to publish 100 identical, yet somehow subtly different (can it be the box art?) Sims expansions, don't you?

  • except this one is more insidous. it like to exploit young people paying them little money, and driving their talent with bag of same cheap tricks - ego boost, caffeine and few shiny toys. upon signing up with EA you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, extended kind, where company can record you on camera anywhere, tape you conversations over phone and use collected inforamtion in any way it pleases. i know a few people here in vancouver, that have been with EA. many projects are delayed when managers can't choose which color tshirt of characters are and wether horizon should be more of a pinkish tinge then blue. all in all its just another corporation wanting to make alot of money. due to the fact tha t it is very hard to make games in timelines given and only those of ages 16-25 are suited for jobs...
  • but much like a government, or the RIAA, or the MPAA, game designers are trying to fix the wrong problem. Games don't really need more special effects and fancy stuff, they need to get back to quality storylines and gameplay. There are reasons that people spend so much time playing emulated games...
  • Is that where everyone on slashdot submits his or her resume to wwrecruitment@warnerbros.com with the subject: "CTO"?
  • Your video games can be as boring as Hollywood's latest special-effect laden, star powered blockbuster. Thanks, but please keep the geeks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close