Gaming industy <--> Movie Industry

[Mnemon]

Hi.

 

I have been wondering about this for some time now, being a gamer and interested in gameing since a long time. Game development started out with small garage type development, people experimenting with the possibilities. Not all that was produced was great, but nearly everything was innovative as no standards were established at that time. Games start to make more and more money, and turn into ever bigger projects needing a lot of financial support - eventually, in the recent years, the market turns out more and more risky - a single bad title can ruin a company, sequels and staying close to well tried and established conventions become a necessity, and there are fewer and fewer publishing companies left. A lot of older gamers that remember the "early times" of game creation are feeling unsatisfied with the not exactly innovative blockbuster types of games.

 

Now compare this to the state the movie industry is at the moment. It started out, much as the gameing industry, as small franchises. Directors were the true stars, actors little known, other than for their roles. Movies became more and more competitive, more sophisticated. Eventually, Hollywood turned out to be the major success machine, and movies were an economically feasible franchise - slightly challenged by TV, but coming back with the Multiplex Cinemas and Dolby Surround, as well as CGI. There are few publishers that still are operating today. However, movies are considered a cultural thing, an art form - there are movies being made sponsored by government (mostly Europe) and private fundings, and a good number of "independent" releases come out each year that are well received and cherished, most of which are based more on intricate and innovative stories, as opposed to (most of) the Hollywood blockbusters. Interestingly, the movie industry is also getting more decentralised - less and less movies are actually made in Hollywood directly, any more, and with Asia (mostly Japan) and Europe (mostly France) different types of movies are challenging the Hollywood lead. There are a number of competitions, festivals and the like that help new young talents get their feet in. You can actually study/take courses in movie related subjects.

 

How are movies produced? (abstract)

• Director/Screenwriter come(s) up with an idea/writes a script.
  
• Script is presented to possible Publisher, that pre-funds the movie based upon the script, and a rough, yet somewhat variable timeframe. Some movies are made without Publisher support but through public funding (mostly Europe/Asia).
  
• Movie is produced and filmed by Director & Crew (including diverse jobs as actors, set constructors, etc.) using third party technical tools (Cameras, Lightning, etc.)
  
• Late in the Cycle: Advertising Campaign starts - with trailers and other visual material.
  
• Post Production and Pre-Screenings for selected Audiances, eventual changes in cuts etc.
  
• Release.
  

How are games produced? (abstract)

• Few Publishers, that hardly do any Development themselves anymore.
  
• Relatively Independent Developing Teams, that might switch Publisher from game to game. Examples are Troika, likely Obsidian, and a couple other Development teams that are not closely bound to a particular Publisher for each title.
  
• Some Developers are actually seeming to move towards producing Engines (i.e. the equivalent to the third party technical tools - Cameras, Lightning etc.) and not games per se anymore. Especially true of ID software, somewhat Valve, who license these tools to other Developmers, that use and apply them for their games. There are small groups of non-commercial amateur developers using these tools as well (Modding - just the success of Counter-Strike and simlar proves the potential in that area).
  
• There already is a high degree of specilization in the Game crews - Actors (i.e. VO work), Texture Artists, Level Designers etc. all of which have a somewhat similar counterpart in the movie development.
  
• There are something like festivals and game awards - though very limited in comparison - going on.
  
• Games certainly become more and more part of culture per se. Most Prominent Example: Lara Croft/Tomb Raider.
  
• Game devolpment has arrived at a "professional" level, as you can, though limited, study specifically game related subjects by now.
  
• I'd argue there are different styles of games by now - there is a "typical" French type of games these days, for example, and Eastern Europe seems to turn into a mixture of "Bollywood" and Asian cinema of the gameing Industry.
  

The differences:

• Games are, so far, not considered a creative art form by the general public.
  
• There is close to no way to fund a game other than having a big publisher help out.
  
• Games are seldom trying to be innovative, though there are exceptions like Tron 2.0.
  
• The artistic part seriously seems to fall back in respect to the purely financial aspects. Blockbusters dominate, massively.
  
• No Indications of games being funded through public aid.
  

Now the big question - could/is the gameing industry moving towards a similar way as the movie industry? Where do you see things heading towards? Will we have screen play writers / directors + individual crews type of development, with other companies supplying the engines and similar tools? Will Games ever reach a similar acceptance as an "art form" as movies managed? Will there ever be publically funded games, as part of the cultural establishment?

 

I assume the possibilities are there - but I guess Games lack in respect to generally accepted classics, that the movie industry can look back upon. IMHO - from all the games I know Planescape: Torment was the closest to "art" we had yet. Whereas Max Payne 1+2 clearly shows that it is possible to transport the Block Buster Action Movie, almost unchanged in terms of conventions and style, to the PC. It would be great to see it happen - especially to see the chances of indy style productions in the game industry happening. I have my doubts though that it will.

 

-Mnemon

 

(Please excuse the most likely numerous spelling/grammar errors.)

[EnderAndrew]

I think for a long time now, many game developers have been shooting for a more "cinematic" and immersive experience in gaming. However, in Hollywood we see unexpected small-budget films rake in the dough from time to time. I see fewer surprises in the gaming industry.

 

Computer games are almost becoming more formulaic than Hollywood.

[Raven]

video games and movies wont come together until mgnails and Admiral Chemix creat a major motion picture on Kotor: Ancient Empires. TH4T W0U7D B3 S000000 K007!!! whatever....

[Maria Caliban]

Planescape: Torment was 'art'? Only if your aesthetics are malnourished via a diet of superhero comic and reality TV. Eh

[EnderAndrew]

Art is a subjective word.

 

If the game designers hope to achieve an effect on the player, and they successfully pulled said effect off, then I'd argue the game classifies as art. Now, maybe only a few people "got it" and liked it, but it's art none the less.

 

Now, if you want to discuss which games classify as "good art" then, that's another story.

 

And I'll take SqaureSoft titles over the Baldur's Gate series for production value and story any day.

[Maria Caliban]

EnderWiggins:

"Art is a subjective word."

 

Yet the best art is universal in its appeal.

 

" If the game designers hope to achieve an effect on the player, and they successfully pulled said effect off, then I'd argue the game classifies as art. Now, maybe only a few people "got it" and liked it, but it's art none the less."

 

I think the problem with the word 'art' is that it's become impossibly broad. I've seen it defined as anything not being directly related to survival or reproduction. As the polish we place on practical, everyday activities.

 

The problem with your definition, as I see it, is that it means that art must communicate with the audience. I don't see that as being necessarily true. Take the discussion we had of Emily Dickinson not too long ago, if her poetry had remained locked in a cabinet for all eternity, would it not have been art? What about works of creativity that no one gets? Or the mass media 'artistry' of the Tom Green show?

 

At my heart, I am a cultural and aesthetic snob and I don't want lowest-common--denominator/mass-produced/unoriginal/made-for-video works to be called art. I'd rather have a definition of art based around beauty, significance, or creativity, even if that just leads to more subjectivity on what is beautiful, significant, or creative. I would also like it to suggest superior ability. I want there to be a difference between an artist, an artisan, and an imitator.

 

I've never actually finished a Baldur's Gate game, though I have them all. However, it's difficult to discount their impact on the world of cRPGs. I think the quote is, "You'll know a classic when you're swarmed with bad imitations afterwards."

[EnderAndrew]

Well, when Emily Dickenson wrote, I have to believe that she was trying to express herself via her poetry. Perhaps she was her own audience and never intended anyone else to read her work.

 

I have to believe that at some point, she did want to reach out to someone else despite being a total social recluse. It's part of the human journey.

 

When I define art as being a form of expression, I mean exactly that. I don't mean to judge art by how many people receive it. I judge art by how effective it is in delivering it's message.

 

There are artists who are quite skilled, very proficient with brush and canvas. But if their subject matter is mundane, and their finished product lacks any real meaning, then I would consider it bad art despite technical proficiency.

[Guest Surlent]

Movies have been around like what ? Almost 100 years ?

People have learned to accept them as part of culture (whether pop or not) and larger audiences have more interest in them.

Who knows how popular games will be after 100 years and will there be nominee festivals and such.

E3 is already damn big show in gaming business and the net is crawling with activive ppl interested in games.

 

Computer and video games have been around like 20 years now and already are sold worldwide with incredible graphics.

Remember when color movies were first made ? Was it after decades of black and white? I consider 3D graphics as a new step similar to the color cinema. It became relatively quick compared to movie visual development.

Also I have noticed that the age fork is increasing as well. Seen 30-40 year old

ppl have interest in gaming as well young kids start playing more early.

Gaming isn't nowadays biased to boys only, girls are playing as well.

Many articles recently have said that game developers are interested making games more interesting for girls

 

And the movie industry delops ? lol

Hollywood movies are IMO too self repeating and only special effects there seem to

make difference. What comes to plot and innovatity they suck except in rare case

like the first Matrix, but seeing it three times or rather three parts depends how you like to view it, it lost some of its shine.

And movies made outside Hollywood rarely get enough recognition to be sold worldwide.

[Mnemon]

EnderWiggin

I see fewer surprises in the gaming industry. Computer games are almost becoming more formulaic than Hollywood.

 

I agree. We are very much at the strongest point of Hollywood supremacy over the industry - relatively spoken. There are some exceptions, but few games "deliver" in respect to creativity and originality. This is the now, I was speculating about the how could things be, however.

 

Mara Caliban

Planescape: Torment was 'art'? Only if your aesthetics are malnourished via a diet of superhero comic and reality TV.

 

Okay, that was a quick shot example taken from the top of my head, and we go a little off topic here (off topic is fine though). Point of the original post was not to define what "Art" is in reverance to Computer Games, but what a possible way of games being produced, in respect to financing, and organisation, might look like. Regardless of whether the outcome can be defined as Art. Quite a number of movies are not to be considered art either IMO. Actually most that come out every year aren't. Torment was, naturally, a bad example in terms of utilising the visual and other possibilities of the genre. It came closest to being "Art" in as much as being closest to a "Novel". I am not saying coming close to a quality "novel" - but closest to the general format.

 

Mara Caliban

If someone asked me to give them the name of an 'artistic' game I'd head them towards Syberia, Riven, or Silent Hill 2 before I picked Planescape: Torment.

 

I agree about Syberia, actually - haven't played Riven/Silent Hill 2 (long enough) to comment on these. Sounds like I should have a look at them sometime . I don't really believe we have any artistic game at all per se yet - not as art is done elsewhere. I have yet to see a game that takes the Genre "Computergames" to it's boundaries or experiments with the stylistic options we have. At the moment the only trend that really exists is to try to make things more "realistic" or "blow things up spectacular". Naturally that is far from art per se.

 

Mara Caliban

Doom, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Myst, Everquest, and the Final Fantasy series all qualify. I'm certain the connotations of the word 'classic' can be debated as well. Perhaps I should say that these games are at the forefront of various artistic traditions within the electronic gaming medium.

 

True. That's what I was aiming at when writing "closest to art". Your take and definition is downright accurate where my wasn't. I guess a couple would have to be added - some "Adventure game", "Jump n' Run" and "Shoot Em'Up" certainly qualifies in the classic section as well, even though those aren't genres that are still getting (a lot/any) follow up titles these days.

 

Mara Caliban

At my heart, I am a cultural and aesthetic snob and I don't want lowest-common--denominator/mass-produced/unoriginal/made-for-video works to be called art. I'd rather have a definition of art based around beauty, significance, or creativity, even if that just leads to more subjectivity on what is beautiful, significant, or creative. I would also like it to suggest superior ability. I want there to be a difference between an artist, an artisan, and an imitator.

 

Again I agree. No Computer Game, as of now, can be ranked as "art" in comparison to what Literature and Painting has produced. Movies and Fotography have some examples of art, yet, a good deal of what is produced ain't "art". Still both are found worthy to receive funding as art projects. Coming from a literature studies background I'd argue that any movie working on an existing book ain't creative in it's onset.

 

Surlent

Movies have been around like what ? Almost 100 years ?

People have learned to accept them as part of culture (whether pop or not) and larger audiences have more interest in them. [. . .] Remember when color movies were first made ? Was it after decades of black and white? I consider 3D graphics as a new step similar to the color cinema. It became relatively quick compared to movie visual development.

 

Indeed - that was part of the original post, though I only merely implied it and not spelled it out at all. What I was hinting at is that in several aspects the gaming industry developed rather similar to what the movie industry does, in a quicker timeframe. My question was will we see the gaming industry arrive at the full circle - will we see games being produced as movies are these days? That is will developers (that are not bound to any Publisher) approach publishers with a concept (finished "story board) for pre-financing, then lend "cameras and equipment" (i.e. engines produced by other companies) to visualise that original story board?

 

The other way round variation of the Publisher approaching the Developers - which is, usually in respect to the Film industry the case with sequels - already is practiced, as we can see.

 

Surlent

Hollywood movies are IMO too self repeating and only special effects there seem to

make difference. What comes to plot and innovatity they suck except in rare case

like the first Matrix, but seeing it three times or rather three parts depends how you like to view it, it lost some of its shine. And movies made outside Hollywood rarely get enough recognition to be sold worldwide.

 

And here I disagree. Yes, we never will get away from the Hollywood-like games. Those _will_ be the heavy marketed blockbuster type things. However, in respect to movies there are a lot of releases that are not Hollywood style crap - not doing great on the earnings but have a stable enough income basis of people interested in more innovative and more interesting movies to be able to get financed and make some income. There are alternatives to Hollywood - those are the movies that I actually watch. Most of them likely ain't "art" either - but they are by far more "creative" than what Hollywood produces.

 

Again, my question was, will independent games, produced with licensed engines have a market chance despite the blockbuster style of games? Will there be "gamebuffs" (like filmbuffs) that are interested enough in those to keep the companies going? We have an active indy scene in both music and movies that you can delve in if you are looking for alternatives. Another question in my orginal post was wether you think at some point (5, 10, 20, 50 years from now) we'll actually see games being funded by state or private organisations trying to help out the "creative arts" - that type of funding is how quite a number of European movies come to be? I wasn't speculating about the now, but about the might be, and about where the gameing industry is heading in terms of organisation and financial structure. Might the "modding community" turn out to be some form of "independent" movement, where more innovative games are produced?

 

-Mnemon

[Raymondo2000]

Computer and video games have been around like 20 years now and already are sold worldwide with incredible graphics.

 

It

[Diogo Ribeiro]

There are endless things one could throw to the discussion. One would be what is art meant to be, but we already know the lack of consensus in that.

 

Still, what exact definition of the word are we aiming for here? Art as in the accepted definition that reflects works which are universally accepted as being art; or art in the sense of depicting human ability itself, of being artful, of having a certain skill in a given field? If we're talking of the later, than likely everything we produce is likely to be art (with the possible exception of the afforementioned items geared towards survival or reproduction), because they are testaments to human skill.

 

If we're talking about the former, then how and when did videogames qualify as being art? There are various forms of digital art (computer generated art being an example), but why should videogames qualify? Lets suppose that one of the reasons to consider videogames art would be the 'art' (as in, human skill) involved in creating long, efficient and elegant code that would in turn create the proccesses which run the game. If this would be the case, then why not consider any other computer program as art, too? Either one runs along due to said code.

 

Perhaps it is the end result; the ability to create a compelling form of media? If this is the case, then we'd have several other computer programs to contend with as well, based on that concept (image producing, 3D model-creating, audio composing, etc., all are able to create an end result which can be quaified as art).

 

Or is there something else?

 

From a personal point of view, i believe that videogames cannot be considered art (with some exceptions) for several reasons. For one, the medium is very young and its potential has been barely used. While other forms of art were born, lived and age well, videogames are still giving baby steps. The medium hasn't established itself as a medium capable of presenting forms of art, or at least, forms of art which could be universally recognized as such. Videogames aren't the suffer with this kind of perception, tho'; the first steps of cinema were marred by inflamatory remarks by elitists who claimed that movies were for the mentally inept, uncapable of relying on a book and needing images to understand things.

 

Second, neither players, publishers or developers are seriously considering the issue that the medium can be more that simple entertainment. The majority of gamers are interested in entertainment (*); the majority of developers are interested in complying with that line of thought; and publishers enforce this mentality by generally rejecting risky, out-of-the-box propositions. I feel the medium is severely put to waste by mass market mentalities. This isn't to say that other forms of art do not have different attitudes in their midst (how many painting styles failed to capture the attention of art appreciators who were more interested in painting's aesthetic aspects?). But the focus of the industry is basically that of mass market, which, under any context, promotes a standardization of ideas and a rejection of innovation and experimentalism (which to me is more important to the development of any form of expression).

 

Also, my (hopefully) last point is, that i think that the interactivity videogames provide somewhat dillutes the concept of art (or of what i would perceive as art). Now, interaction between the public and the artform isn't necessarily bad; the dadaist Happenings were precisely that - an event which involved the audience and usually had them contribute to the creation of a final art form (i think this was a dadaist element, but my memory may be playing tricks on me).

 

But when taken into context of videogames, that interaction from the audience is no longer there. The audience is not throwing random conceptual elements into something that will become a whole due to their input; the end result (the game), is already there. This results in the videogame being created with the primary concept of interaction, and in different ways for the player to interact with it. Its no longer about carrying a mesage, its about how the player will look at the theoretical message and understand it. It may seem weird that i am mentioning this as a problem, because the meaning of art, and the understanding of meanings adjacent to a form of art are dependant of the viewers' 'interaction' with the artform itself; but there is a reason. I believe art, in order to be understood, requires a keen perception of both the artist and the audience. However, i see videogames are created in a way which makes them easy to understand from the get go, which inherently facilitates the audience's perception, thus ruining the effect.

 

But perhaps this is the way art will be re-evaluated in the future; the fusion of several art mediums into a single one, with the viewer's interactivity with the new form of art being the primary factor which defines the object's relevance.

 

(*)I believe that, while some gamers are discerning enough to compreehend some developers' goals when placed into a videogame (such as, say, Hideo Kojima's fears of the digital age included in the more recent iterations of the Metal Gear Solid series), most gamers simply do not care. Kojima can express himself in his creations, but most gamers will simply not understand, not relate or simply not care with it. They prefer to be entrenched in the concept of gameplay than in the concept that there might be something more than that. Games like Deus Ex carry a concern towards the abuse of power, the concept of choice, the analysis of what terrorism really is; yet, players make online polls about favorite weapons and sneak guides.

 

 

If someone asked me to give them the name of an 'artistic' game I'd head them towards Syberia, Riven, or Silent Hill 2 before I picked Planescape: Torment.

 

While i don't think Torment would be a good example of an artistic game (though in my mind it successfully combined visual and literary ideals into a single, definite form), i would also avoid nominating Syberia, Riven or Silent Hill 2 as artistic games. To me, games like Vib Ribbon, Ico or Rez (and perhaps Torment, though at an inferior level) stand as good examples of artistic games, in the sense of providing several elements which blur and produce something more than a game, or that can be considered more than a game.

 

On a more inquisitive note, what elements did you find in those games you mentioned that made them artistic, or more artistic than Torment?

 

 

Games are seldom trying to be innovative, though there are exceptions like Tron 2.0.

 

Having played the game recently, I'd be interested in asking what exactly would be considered innovative in the game, because i fear i may have missed it.

[Child of Flame]

Beyond Good & Evil was a true interactive cinematic artform.

 

<kicks Ubisoft for not giving it a decent ad campaign>

[Child of Flame]

I agree about Syberia, actually - haven't played Riven/Silent Hill 2 (long enough) to comment on these. Sounds like I should have a look at them sometime . I don't really believe we have any artistic game at all per se yet - not as art is done elsewhere. I have yet to see a game that takes the Genre "Computergames" to it's boundaries or experiments with the stylistic options we have. At the moment the only trend that really exists is to try to make things more "realistic" or "blow things up spectacular". Naturally that is far from art per se.

Beyond Good & Evil was like that, it was amazing. Stupid Ubi had to turn it into a guinea pig to test gaming community strength. :angry: F*cktard idiots. :angry:

[EnderAndrew]

I'll have to look for a copy.

[Azarkon]

Now the big question - could/is the gameing industry moving towards a similar way as the movie industry?

 

I'd like to hear the answer to this question from some game devs as well, but I think you should specify what you mean by "moving towads a similar way." Do you mean that games would have big budgets? MMORPGS already do; in fact it might be argued that a MMORPG can have *MORE* of a budge than movies, since its development occurs even after release - and in particular, is exactly that that attracts people.

 

Or do you mean that gams would become more "cinematic" or "mainstream"? These questions, I think, would depend on socio-economic and cultural circumstances much more than the industry itself. What's the value of a $50 game in the minds of most people compared to a $10 movie? Do people actually have the free time to play games, given work and family responsibilities in America? What about traditional Protestant work ethics and the fact that games haven't exactly the best press amidst circles of "making it" in life?

 

Will we have screen play writers / directors + individual crews type of development, with other companies supplying the engines and similar tools?

 

This already happens to a degree with the licensing of engines. PS:T used Bioware's IE engine, and the Unreal engine has also seen some use. In fact I'd even say that the beauty of the Unreal franchise is not the Unreal line of games themselves but the continued development of that awesome engine.

 

'Course there are some difficulties with licensing other engines, as BIS saw with the LithTech engine. Still, if in the ideal case games are such that a game development studio becomes a collection of artists, writers, musicians, and designers, then I'd think that all those programmers hoping to get into the game industry via that route would be hugely disappointed...

 

Will Games ever reach a similar acceptance as an "art form" as movies managed?

 

I call upon the power of Gromnir to respond to this quote!

 

Will there ever be publically funded games, as part of the cultural establishment?

 

The answer to your questions seems to all rest on whether games will ever become mainstream enough for people to see it as a medium of communication rather than merely a instrument for the sake of entertainment. This is a fascinating question and I hope that someone in the industry can provide us with a good answer.

[Mnemon]

Reply to Role-Player's Post

There are endless things one could throw to the discussion.

 

Indeed. I am surprised there weren't more coming around. On the other hand I have been pre-occupied elsewhere for quite some time now.

 

Still, what exact definition of the word are we aiming for here? Art as in the accepted definition that reflects works which are universally accepted as being art; or art in the sense of depicting human ability itself, of being artful, of having a certain skill in a given field? If we're talking of the later, than likely everything we produce is likely to be art (with the possible exception of the afforementioned items geared towards survival or reproduction), because they are testaments to human skill.

 

Nothing all that fixed IMO. To me art that manages to "be" art is something that transcendents beyond pure pictures/letters and entertainment. There is a difference between being skilled at producing something and producing art. A lot of the big Hollywood style action movies involve a lot of craftmanship and talent, yet none of that is used to produce Art. Hollywood largely only produces "entertainment", similar to what the Game Industry does. You will find movies that transcendent beyond the level of entertainment, that explore human nature our society in a multitude of ways and leave options to interpret and re-interpret the content in the context and believes of whoever experiences (as opposed to consuming, which is the case with pure "entertainment") that movie (or art in general). Just because of that art always IS subjective to a large degree, by necessity. I am sticking with the movie comparisons because I established that in the first post, and because it is the most similar genre and industry to the gaming industry. Plus both are team orientated creations, as opposed to literature and photopraphy (usually).

 

As a few examples of movies that where artful for me, lately - "Ping Pong" by Fumihiko Sori and "S

[Mnemon]

Reply to Azarkon

 

Now the big question - could/is the gameing industry moving towards a similar way as the movie industry?

 

I'd like to hear the answer to this question from some game devs as well, but I think you should specify what you mean by "moving towads a similar way." Do you mean that games would have big budgets? [...] Or do you mean that gams would become more "cinematic" or "mainstream"?

 

No, and no. What I meant was that, if there would/is a possibility that after all the concentration and economical focus that happens right now, there might come a chance for more "artistic" games, along side the way it happened in the movie industry, to be financiable. I.e. if there ever would be alternative ways of financing movies. Especially in Europe movies and other "art" can fall back on public support and funds - resulting in a quite different "cinema" then what you get from your general hollywood like movies.

 

I think the way Valve goes with "Steam" is actually quite interesting. They are building a way to publish games without having to rely on a publisher. Giving the high modability of the Source Engine and the wide variety of "mods" that were build upon the old Half-Life [i.e. Quake] engine, I could imagine Valve offering mod-teams to market their games using the "Steam" network in exchange for some share of profits. After all, they did release fan-made mods for Half-Life as "official" projects in the past.

 

If such a marketing model would result in other companies offering similar possiblities there might be some interesting changes coming along - as long as other ways of covering the initial costs of games then what we have now develop as well.

 

Do people actually have the free time to play games, given work and family responsibilities in America? What about traditional Protestant work ethics and the fact that games haven't exactly the best press amidst circles of "making it" in life?

 

Now you are opening a completly different can of worms. I will only comment on this shortly, because getting into detail here will throw the thread way, way off-topic quite quickly. First of all, that people have so little free time is a problem of our capitalist systems. It is not like there is too much work for too little people. Second, I - and a lot of "art" - actually considers the "making it" in life as you bring it forward here, to be an utter rubish attitude that supports and helps captialist exploitation of people. In short, appealing to circles holding up these values, is not anything I feel worthwhile to do.

 

PS:T used Bioware's IE engine, and the Unreal engine has also seen some use.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Whoa, it was so long ago that i posted the above that i had forgotten about this thread.

 

I just popped in to say i agree with everything you said, Mnemon, and that your points are very good, and very well put (much better than what i did, but that should be a given already).

 

 

Cheers.

[Eurmal]

First, I thank Mnemon for having brought up the interesting topic.

 

I also vaguely compare independent studios like Obsidian/Troika to indy film makers. However, I think not so many people put the issue this comprehensively.

 

I have a similar idea on that some companies are specialized in building engines while others are specialized in making content, too.

 

I think in a way, Bioware and Obsidian relationship is somewhat desirable. Of course, I don

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

5. Innovation which may interest talented writers.

 

J.E.Sawyers

[Eurmal]

4. Platform

 

About DVD and Video Tape, we