Comment Re:Why games lack artistry (Score 1) 95
You almost understood my point. Let's start by asking this question:
Why didn't Matt get a publishing deal, while Don did?
Here is what Matt did wrong:
1) The name of his game didn't evoke a strong image in the mind of the publisher, as you said.
2) He tried to explain his game, rather than show it.
3) He failed to stay on track and dominate the conversation.
4) The content he was trying to show was too deep for a pitch situation.
5) Matt failed to show his strongest material first, i.e. his concept art.
Here is what Don did right:
1) He had a good name for his game, as you stated.
2) He showed his game, rather than explain it.
3) His presentation was shallow, and showed usable selling points. The audience could instantly understand what his game was about, even if it was morally reprehensible.
4) His presentation, being a 2-minute movie, didn't allow for interruption, and thus commanded the attention of the audience. It also showed the strength of Don's art team.
How does this correlate to the topic "Why Games Lack Artistry"?
This little morality play's basic message is this: depth is hard to pitch. You can't pitch a 200-page design doc that details a rich storyline and meaningful content. It's also very difficult to sell a game that takes a good while before the player actually feels entertained, as in a novel or movie. Both publishers and customers, when booting up the game, expect to be entertained immediately, and not halfway through the game. In the morality play, Matt makes the fundamental error of thinking that the depth of his design doc and the concept art that design doc inspired was a selling point. Obviously, he was wrong.
So, why do games lack artistry? I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that something as ephemeral as "art" (especially in a story sense, rather than a visual one) isn't an obvious selling point, and it is especially difficult to illustrate before the game is actually done. There aren't a lot of people out there that can command the funds necessary to make an artistic game, and, even if they did, they would be selling to a niche audience, much like art-house movies do now.
Why didn't Matt get a publishing deal, while Don did?
Here is what Matt did wrong:
1) The name of his game didn't evoke a strong image in the mind of the publisher, as you said.
2) He tried to explain his game, rather than show it.
3) He failed to stay on track and dominate the conversation.
4) The content he was trying to show was too deep for a pitch situation.
5) Matt failed to show his strongest material first, i.e. his concept art.
Here is what Don did right:
1) He had a good name for his game, as you stated.
2) He showed his game, rather than explain it.
3) His presentation was shallow, and showed usable selling points. The audience could instantly understand what his game was about, even if it was morally reprehensible.
4) His presentation, being a 2-minute movie, didn't allow for interruption, and thus commanded the attention of the audience. It also showed the strength of Don's art team.
How does this correlate to the topic "Why Games Lack Artistry"?
This little morality play's basic message is this: depth is hard to pitch. You can't pitch a 200-page design doc that details a rich storyline and meaningful content. It's also very difficult to sell a game that takes a good while before the player actually feels entertained, as in a novel or movie. Both publishers and customers, when booting up the game, expect to be entertained immediately, and not halfway through the game. In the morality play, Matt makes the fundamental error of thinking that the depth of his design doc and the concept art that design doc inspired was a selling point. Obviously, he was wrong.
So, why do games lack artistry? I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that something as ephemeral as "art" (especially in a story sense, rather than a visual one) isn't an obvious selling point, and it is especially difficult to illustrate before the game is actually done. There aren't a lot of people out there that can command the funds necessary to make an artistic game, and, even if they did, they would be selling to a niche audience, much like art-house movies do now.
