Culture Clash

(November 2004)

Bride of IP

One of the biggest challenges that the games industry faces, creatively, is that it's still way too easy to consider the medium of gaming in the shadow of other media – movies, comics, whatever. This isn't to say that we think games are inferior, but rather I submit that gaming often considers its future and makes important trend decisions based on how other media have done things in the past. And that doesn't work for games: you can safely assume that film can follow the same general trends as television, that comics can follow the same trends as novels. But interactivity changes everything. There is no past experience to draw on when envisioning the future of gaming, because games are unique in that they engage the consumer directly. Unfortunately, we still do often make business decisions based on what we've seen, say, Hollywood do in the past. One example of this is intellectual property: specifically, the industry often chides itself for lacking creativity if intellectual property isn't consistently new and unique rather than licensed or franchised. And this may be the wrong way to think about it.

Long history tells us that gaming, like the creative reveries on which it bases itself, is best suited for long-term stuff. Role-playing games are measured in campaigns, and no one ever calls a campaign creatively stagnant because it goes on longer than a week. Perhaps it's not unreasonable, then, that video games be considered in terms of franchises. Indeed, video games possess very special quality that should not be so willingly tossed aside – the ability to allow us as players to return to worlds and revisit characters that we have loved, and of whose adventures we have been a part. The difference, again, is interactivity. Being an active participant in something is miles better than sitting placidly and reading or viewing it (though that can be fun too), especially if you have the opportunity to actively participate in something that you'd never want to get involved in in real life. Heaven knows that I'm thrilled to help Garrett out, but I'm damned if I'd be caught dead near Shalebridge Cradle by myself. So what exactly makes consistently new IP better than franchise IP?

Developers would argue, quite fairly, that “franchise IP” is a fancy way of saying “lots and lots of sequels.” To many, looking back at the Hollywood hit machine, sequels imply more of the same. Moreover, your average developer wants to work on one of their ideas, not a follow-up to the idea that their boss had two years ago. That's not unreasonable. But there are ways around it; Warren Spector suggests one. Another very workable solution was posited by Stuart Roch in his New Studio Model from the October 2004 issue of Game Developer . It's palatable to publishers, who see dollar signs when they hear “sequel,” and to developers, who will have the opportunity to work on some really original and innovative new IP – IP that publishers would never gamble on without Roch's studio model – as well as add to worlds they've already created.

Furthermore, not everything need become a Battle of Ikthor 9 or Minor Larceny Bubblegum 6 . There is a time for stories to end, as Robert Jordan needs to learn and game developers (if not publishers) seem to already know. If we insist on looking back at Hollywood to make trend decisions, we should recognize the value of the “inspired by” credit. Spiritual successors like Fallout, Bioshock, and Sacrifice are gorged on original creativity and IP. I can't imagine anyone beavering away at Sacrifice griped about being stuck making Archon 3 .

I won't argue with the complaints against blind sequelism, because they're valid. Original IP is more creative, and no one can blame a developer for wanting to develop their big game idea. What I will say, however, is that these complaints might be leveled by an industry consistently looking back at old, non-interactive media and trying to apply its creative tenets to a completely new, interactive media. There is an added dimension in games that upsets all assumptions. The beauty of the New Studio Model is that it will suddenly become much cheaper and much safer to make games. Publishers don't nix innovative games because innovation offends them; they nix them because games cost millions to make and a “surefire” license or sequel is a much safer investment than something really unsual (the fact that The Katmari Damacy sold out in like four minutes is apparently lost on them, but oh well). Roch's model would free up extra dollars and render publishers more willing to take risks.

I do see the irony in saying that games should quit looking to Hollywood when making trend decisions and then supporting Roch's very Hollywood New Studio Model, and also in saying that there's nothing wrong with franchise IP then supporting innovation. The point is that there's no particular reason we can't have both in this business, and it's unfair to consider our industry creatively stagnant merely because it produces a lot of sequels. Sequels leave the magic door at the back of the wardrobe open. That's a very powerful trait that games should take advantage of, so long as it doesn't completely suffocate innovation.

Imagination is the nativity of games, and imagination is naturally creative. It's impossible to be imaginative without creativity – the TV says so. And it's unfair to claim that creativity is lacking in games merely because they succeed other games, provided that the same level of passion and commitment went into both. Economics are far more likely to stifle innovation than franchise IP is, given the inherent risks associated with innovative or unusual games. Certainly support innovation and creativity, but not at the cost of one of gaming's most valuable qualities.