"I would say that the standard for talent-based reality shows applies: you don't audition for American Idol because you want to be a great musician (first, last, end of story), and so you don't apply for America's Next Best Game Designer if you want to be a game designer."
I can not tell you how much I agree with this statement.
I believe/think it wholeheartedly, but I should say that in American Idol's defense, there are things that they do for the individuals involved... I've seen musicians develop, certainly, through that show. But not so much as musicians as performers. And I don't see how being a good performer is going to do you a heck of a lot of good as a game designer. There's a certain amount that you can learn by being able to think on your feet and engage competitively in an intense environment that a reality show would provide, but I think it's more likely to do harm than good to someone who genuinely wants to be the best designer possible and not just to be popular.
Last summer, they did a reality series for aspiring directors, although I've forgotten the name of the show. A local guy was in it, and used another guy that I know as his talent, so that was one reason I watched it. I was also interested in seeing how the show would work, since I've worked for (done business with) many starting-out filmmakers
( ... )
Huh. I wonder how many of these happen without anyone ever really knowing about them. I could certainly see Spike TV or G4 having done a show like this one already, just without as much publicity.
The director one actually makes a certain amount of sense, though maybe I just think that because I'm outside the field. But it seems like that field is a lot harder to break into creatively than game development, which is more of an industry, and requires more than just someone with vision at the center. I think that's what bothers me about this; there's already too much of a tendency to think that the game designer fills a "director" role, when the reality in most game development is that truly great games require an entire team. There are parallels in that of course a director needs actors, set designers, composers, etc, but the technology element with games makes a difference, I think. I don't know; maybe I've just convinced myself that there are more parallels than I previously thought.
I think one similarity between game and movie production is that regardless of who has creative vision, the project depends on big money before it can happen. So in the case of large scale projects, the producer or corporation funding it has as much to say as the director or creative team, or whomever.
I'm sure the idea behind the game-creation contest is to indulge the fantasies of all gamers who sit around thinking they have the next great gaming idea, if only someone else would put all the work (and money) into it. As I'm sure you know, all gaming forums are peppered with posts about how gamers would re-design what game, or what they want to see in a game.
Btw, MY idea for the next great game is a Sid Meier's style Zombie Civilization game. Instead of starting with a primitive civilization, you start with a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which you are trying to survive and gradually rebuild a city, as zombies continue to ravage and attack. I am convinced this would be a winner.
Yes, and there's a huge difference between designing a game and making a game.
I think the ratings themselves aren't a hugely bad thing to be after -- it could be generally positive for the industry and for the individuals. But with the game industry being what it is, there are a whole slew of complicating factors.
Oddly, I think you should. Like I said, I don't see that this is necessarily negative for the people who apply -- I kind of respectfully disagree with hdiandrew below -- unless they don't know what they're getting into, and think this is actually about making games instead of being a reality show / popularity contest.
On a whim (after watching a snippet of Beauty and the Geek in passing), I considered applying to all of the various reality show auditions around here that I might be qualified for (in the sense of being what they actually purport to want), but the act of applying and (assuming I made the initial cuts) showing up for unpaid auditions would just not really work well. In fact, it would sort of suck.
I'm rather curious now what sort of pay (if any) contestants for these shows get just for being on them. If it's unpaid, then no, not happening, but with pay... it could be fun. What I really need to do is see if I can sneak myself in as a judge instead. ;)
Beauty and the Geek was really appalling. I actually liked the idea for the show were it not for how the "beauties" made me want to gouge out my eyes. They made them give a tour of a space museum in the one episode I watched, and the tours started with the first "beauty" utterly failing to identify the large replica of Sputnik when asked to point it out, and it went downhill from there.
Sounds like a lame way to cast a new 'Real World'. There will be a skater punk playing Xbox and wondering why the games can't kick ass like he does - cut to him out doing some tricks on the pavement. Then there'll be a gay guy lameting the fact that there aren't more gay-friendly games. They don't want a game designer, it sounds like the want a "huge personality" that plays games. Trying to tap into the market of gamers at home, with a kind of 'look they're one of you' angle. Game design obviously takes years and hundreds of hours and teams ... all I can figure is maybe they could partner with some smaller studio like those making cames for download via Nintendo's Wii or I think there's an Xbox or Playstation equivilant. So the game won't be 'cool skating game designed by talent on show' rather it will be 'simplistic quick to market download BS with skater punk on the cover as a Brand. Then people could download which character tie-in game appeals to them. That's all the popped into my mind.
I do wonder what kind of appalling ways they're going to be presenting games and game development in. But certainly, they're not going to be recruiting first the most promising minds in game development any more than Idol actually recruited the best voices -- the willingness and desire for the spotlight comes first, and secondly the concerns you mention about being entertaining to watch.
What's kind of painful to think about is that it is likely to be a huge wankfest for people who want to talk about making games without actually putting in the effort. A whole slew of ideas sound very cool and actually wind up being tremendously unfun when actualized. So this is more likely to stroke egos than it is to actually generate interesting game ideas. They could well prove me wrong, but my faith in MTV is not huge.
Comments 36
I can not tell you how much I agree with this statement.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The director one actually makes a certain amount of sense, though maybe I just think that because I'm outside the field. But it seems like that field is a lot harder to break into creatively than game development, which is more of an industry, and requires more than just someone with vision at the center. I think that's what bothers me about this; there's already too much of a tendency to think that the game designer fills a "director" role, when the reality in most game development is that truly great games require an entire team. There are parallels in that of course a director needs actors, set designers, composers, etc, but the technology element with games makes a difference, I think. I don't know; maybe I've just convinced myself that there are more parallels than I previously thought.
Reply
I'm sure the idea behind the game-creation contest is to indulge the fantasies of all gamers who sit around thinking they have the next great gaming idea, if only someone else would put all the work (and money) into it. As I'm sure you know, all gaming forums are peppered with posts about how gamers would re-design what game, or what they want to see in a game.
Btw, MY idea for the next great game is a Sid Meier's style Zombie Civilization game. Instead of starting with a primitive civilization, you start with a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which you are trying to survive and gradually rebuild a city, as zombies continue to ravage and attack. I am convinced this would be a winner.
Reply
Such is the woe of all commercial game development, indeed. ;)
I have a similar game pitch, actually, with some extra twists. I could tell you, but then I'd be afraid you'd STEAL IT zomg.
Reply
There's such a huge difference between having an idea for a game, and DESIGNING a game.
But then... they don't really care about that. They care about drama, and ratings.
Reply
I think the ratings themselves aren't a hugely bad thing to be after -- it could be generally positive for the industry and for the individuals. But with the game industry being what it is, there are a whole slew of complicating factors.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm rather curious now what sort of pay (if any) contestants for these shows get just for being on them. If it's unpaid, then no, not happening, but with pay... it could be fun. What I really need to do is see if I can sneak myself in as a judge instead. ;)
Reply
Reply
Reply
What's kind of painful to think about is that it is likely to be a huge wankfest for people who want to talk about making games without actually putting in the effort. A whole slew of ideas sound very cool and actually wind up being tremendously unfun when actualized. So this is more likely to stroke egos than it is to actually generate interesting game ideas. They could well prove me wrong, but my faith in MTV is not huge.
Reply
Leave a comment