Richard A. Bartle, professor at The University of Essex and co-creator of the classic MUD1 (1978), wrote a paper in 2013 titled “The Decline of MMOs”. In this paper, he examines the challenges facing the MMO market and possible solutions.
Quoted below is a portion which I found particularly interesting, as it applies to all video game development regardless of genre:
Movie-making used to operate a “studio system”, whereby a film was associated with a studio rather than its director or actors. This eventually fell apart because directors were poached by other studios (or set up their own) and their creative importance became apparent. Film improved as a genre because of this as it reduced risk: audiences would follow a favourite director or actor, meaning that even if a film flopped it still recouped some money. Games are still generally stuck in an equivalent “developer system”; players think of a “Bioware game” or a “Rockstar game” or even a “Nintendo game”, but not a “Rob Pardo game”. Until players learn that game design is important, they’ll follow the studio; this means that if a game flops, the reputation of the whole studio suffers, rather than that of the designer.
(Rob Pardo was the lead designer of vanilla World of Warcraft as well as its first expansion, The Burning Crusade)
With the imminent release of Mass Effect: Andromeda and the ensuing disappointment resulting from pre-release footage and streams, I have been seeing a number of posts along the lines of “How could the studio that made Baldur’s Gate have messed up this badly?” and “Mass Effect 1 and 2 are my favorite games of all time, how could this happen?” It is clear that these people hyped themselves up for Andromeda because they consider themselves passionate fans of Bioware and the Mass Effect franchise.
Never mind the fact that most of Baldur’s Gate’s developers no longer work at that company (James Ohlen excepted, now working at Bioware Austin), and most of Mass Effect 1’s lead developers were not part of the Andromeda team. Instead of expecting consistent quality from a corporate entity with a high employee turnover rate, wouldn’t these dissatisfied gamers have been better served by instead following the actual talent who worked on their beloved games, even as they moved to new studios and teams?
A recent snafu concerning a woman falsely identified as Andromeda’s Lead Animator incidentally lead to a discussion related to this topic in the thread for that game. It was almost unanimously affirmed that no individual developer should be associated with any aspect of the finished product, because there are too many factors and variables involved in game development. This is essentially a rejection of Professor Bartle’s proposal, and a defense of the status quo “developer system”. I personally find it baffling because of how different it is compared to other mediums such as film. When discussing film, it is very common to mention the director, screenwriters, and cinematographer involved. Their styles, previous works (liked or disliked), and general backgrounds are all considered relevant when discussing the final product.
Some people in the thread argued that Lead Animator is simply too far down the totem pole to be considered noteworthy, an argument which I find more understandable (although I’m not quite sure which lead positions should and shouldn’t be considered noteworthy).
I’m interested to see more opinions: Do you think that individual developers in the gaming industry should receive greater recognition (whether it be positive or negative) as opposed to everyone just following the studios? Do you pay attention to the talent behind the games you play?
