DICE: God of War creator suggests games are like porn -- "no capacity to reach high emotional levels"
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Feb 10th 2006 at 12:45PM }
Speaking yesterday at the
D.I.C.E. Summit, David Jaffe wasted little time in criticizing the games industry for lacking soul, suggesting that the
absence of strong writers, directors, and actors has prevented creative growth. "It's like the porn industry...
Sort of." He confessed that some days he feels like games simply don't have the potential to be the "next
great entertainment media" because, like porn, "there's no capacity to reach high emotional levels."
Jaffe also expressed his bitterness about low wages for game creators—which likely deters a wealth of
creative-minded individuals from working in the industry.Additionally, Jaffe voiced his frustration about the industry's "obsession with cinema," pointing to King Kong and the game's lack of a HUD. "[What's] wrong with a HUD? What's wrong with a health bar that feels good to the player when he replenishes it? And why are we applauded in the press for abandoning the native language of videogames?" Jaffe added that he was embarrassed that developers continue to ape the film industry, which he confessed he was also partially guilty of doing, since Raiders of the Lost Ark was the inspiration for God of War.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pancakeshouse @ Feb 10th 2006 12:51PM
I don't know if that statement could be any more stupid/annoying.
32_Footsteps @ Feb 10th 2006 12:56PM
Well, it could probably be more stupid and annoying. I just haven't figured out how, yet.
The most obvious stupidity is that video games can't reach high emotional levels. Jaffe, just becuase you obviously haven't figured out how to pull it off doesn't mean nobody has.
jc @ Feb 10th 2006 1:08PM
I wouldn't say "games simply don't have the potential to be the "next great entertainment media" because, like porn, "there's no capacity to reach high emotional levels".
I remember a game called 'Shadow of the Colossus'. Maybe David Jaffe heard of it perhaps?? Most of the game had alot of "capacity to reach high emotional levels" (poor Agro).
I think the components are out there to make great games... it is just going to take some originality and hard work to create.
Nintendohaw @ Feb 10th 2006 1:16PM
nope you gamers are nerds. Jaffe is right. It's a similar argument to what Ebert says and actually less harsh. He says the industry is impedeing the advancement not the media itself. At it's current state i'd have to agree that Games lack that capability. The closest would probably be the MGS games for fantastic storytelling, but even kojima admits that games will never be as good or compelling as movies. How about that fanboys? Gamers need to STFU and stop trying to make games what they arent
GlitchCog @ Feb 10th 2006 1:18PM
The only thing that separates video games from movies is the interactivity. To draw a parallel, movies are like watching a play while video games are like performing in a play. I don't think anyone would argue that performing in a play isn't an art. Video games are just a new media that is unfortunately inundated by patrons who like to shoot guns and play sports.
And Raiders of the Lost Arc was a rip off of Duck Tales:
http://www.pursam.org/teemings/issue05/penitent.html
Bodah @ Feb 10th 2006 1:22PM
I think games do have the potential with the proper designer at the helm. However, Shadow of the colossus is a very poor example. The one thing the game has going for it are of course the boss battles that feel repetitive after the 4th colossus. What little of a "story line" it had felt tacked on and uninteresting. I have no idea why people feel the need to place this mediocre game on a pedestal. With a playtime of less then 8 hours I feel cheated out of my $50.
Exo @ Feb 10th 2006 1:23PM
You people need how to goddam read. He sitn saying that its not possible for games to be like that, he is saying that not enough companies are putting in the effort or the money to accomplish that.
I have to agree with that. to many companies dont put any heart into their work and we get a bucnh of crap in the end.
Jay @ Feb 10th 2006 1:30PM
You need to know how to 'goddam' spell. you 'sitn' you.
I just find it humorous when people say "do this" and then whilst educating dives into something else equally crippling.
ck @ Feb 10th 2006 1:30PM
I agree with Jaffe. Games like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus are few and far between. Let's take a look at the biggest (selling) games of last year:
Madden NFL '06
Star Wars Battlefront 2
NCAA Football '06
Mario Superstar Baseball
Star Wars Episode 3
Gran Turismo 4
Resident Evil 4
This is just a small list, but probably the best selling games (taken from wikipedia). It's always the sports titles that sell the most. They don't need a story. But even games like RE4 and Star Wars are either sequels or movie franchises. Publishers are never going to give game designers the creative freedom they need when they can produce another sequel or cash in on a movie franchise. And this trend will continue no matter what.
The point Jaffe is saying I think is that games that are creative and original are not the norm. It's not like he's saying they cannot be created.
The video game industry has been around for about 30 years. It's still in it's developmental stages. I'm sure in the next ten to twenty years there will be tremendous growth in game development as it becomes a more acceptable form of entertainment (same thing happened with movies). Just give it some time.
Matthew @ Feb 10th 2006 1:30PM
I have to agree with Jaffe. Also, I don't feel the zest of videogames anymore. I still like them; I just don't get excited anymore. I felt the "zest of videogames" during the NES and SNES era, even during the 64 and Playstation era. But nowadays, it doesn't even come close. I'm seeing way too many games that look the same, play the same, you name it. Sequels. God, it's awful. I saw the Xbox 360 collection of games, and I was simply appauled. I said I still like games, but if the industry continues to go down this path, games will no longer be an entertainment choice for me.
WizarDru @ Feb 10th 2006 1:31PM
Well, I can't tell...but from the context (as well as the context of this years theme at DICE) I think what he means is....IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, games can't reach high emotional levels. And, generally, he's right.
Few games ever hit you with a serious emotional impact beyond the adrenaline rush of action, the frustration of difficulty or the amusement of humor. I can't think of many games that deeply disturbed me the way that Silent Hill 2 did, for example. Psychonauts worked on multiple levels, for another. But look at today's WSJ, and you'll see the producer for Black saying, basically, "it's all about the killing and gratioutous violence."
Many games SHOULDN'T try to do that, but more should. Why is it that, despite playing multiple horror games, the three I rate highest are all old and standouts? Silent Hill 2, System Shock 2 and Undying (RE4 is fantastic, but more of a "Boo!" kind of game...SS2 UNNERVED me so much at points I had to stop playing for a while).
Nook @ Feb 10th 2006 1:55PM
WizarDru has it. I sometimes think about games like Deus Ex and the original 2 Thief Games, and they had a magic that was unmatched even to this day. And let me tell you I still have long conversations about System Shock 2 with my friends. Its hard to really explain it, but its most prevolent in older games. One of the more recent games that has this feeling (and by recent I mean 2001) is No one Lives forever 2.
p.s. sorry my examples were only FPS's but they are magical.
Pancakeshouse @ Feb 10th 2006 2:01PM
Dear #6,
Besides the fact that I don't aggree with you on your standpoint of Shadow of the Colossus; you should feel cheated because the game only cost $40 since it came out.
yo @ Feb 10th 2006 2:08PM
I cried when Aries died.....
not really.
jp007 @ Feb 10th 2006 2:09PM
"The closest would probably be the MGS games for fantastic storytelling"
I have to say, after recently sitting through MGS2 with a buddy, and then starting MGS3 just last night, that these games have some of the WORST story telling ever. It's HORRIBLE. The acting is 2nd rate porno acting. Story elements and objectives are repeated 2 and 3 times in the same dialogue. How dumb do they think the audience is? Ok. I get it. The Boss defected to the Soviets. You don't need to go over the scenario 3 times in the same cutscene. That DETRACTS not just from the storytelling, but, oh yeah, the GAMEPLAY. Isn't that the whole purpose of the game? Let me get to the damn tactical espionage action. Cutscenes are fine, but MGS cutscenes just flat out suck.
While I can appreciate what MGS is TRYING to accomplish, the games seriously fall extremely short of their potential, to the point where I don't even think it is an enjoyable gaming experience anymore. Definatly not a title that has me buying a PS3 either.
Mephy @ Feb 10th 2006 2:12PM
Jaffe is right. Gaming is like porn now, because both industries would rather sell you something that caters to the lowest common denominator. Sad thing is, they've been doing it for so long, that's all most gamers are willing to buy now. No one is willing to touch a game like killer7, just as an example. Even THAT game pandered to the lowest form of human entertainment, but it did so in a unique and artistic way... but judging by its sales, people don't want art. They want a GTA clone or a Halo wannabe. No risks, no change and absolutely NO ART.
So yeah, Jaffe is right. The industry has reemed itself in the cornhole. Lovely to know that by buying the industry's tripe, we helped them do it, eh?
32_Footsteps @ Feb 10th 2006 2:16PM
Well, if you're just looking to say that there's a dearth of games evoking emotion, well, I suppose you can. How ever, you can say that about books, movies, television, and every other form of entertainment with equal validity. If you want to make the argument, then all Jaffe is doing is confirming that 90% of everything is crud.
Moogle @ Feb 10th 2006 2:23PM
Heh. WizarDru, I wrote a paper on the legitimacy of videogames as an artistic medium, using System Shock 2 as the example.
I kinda get what he's talking about, however. A good game pulls the player into the story. The problem with that is that the player also has control of the pace, and if they get bored or too excited they can ruin the mood the creator wants to have by slowing down, taking a breather, or goofing off. I'm guessing that "high emotional levels" doesn't include fright or humor, as those don't really involve sympathy or any really meaningful emotional response.
The player is also generally detached. In SS2, and also in F.E.A.R. I've noted recently, the player is actively portrayed as being detached and seemingly emotionless. The story has to happen around him, but almost every time a game tries to tell me how the player's character should be feeling, I've rejected it and it broke the realism of the game for quite a while.
SS2 was creepy as all hell, but most of the storytelling was done in logs, and in the resulting carnage. The player gets to follow the story, and takes part in the later parts of it, but you don't really get to interact with people. I think in part it is successful because it doesn't let you mess it up.
The most deeply emotional response I ever remember having to a video game was when I was playing the alien campain in AvP for PC for the umpteenth time, and was enjoying being a scary monster. I casually walked up to a woman, intending to bite her head off, and she curled into a ball on the floor, whimpering in terror. I'd seen it happen a hundred times before, but for some reason, this time it sounded so real, I became so sympathetic that I couldn't bring myself to kill her, even though I could have used the health. I know I'm just weird, but this poor frightened bucket of bits tore my heart open... As I skittered off, I couldn't help but laugh at myself for hoping she'd be rescued as I fled the station. Also one of the weirdest gaming moment for me.
Bryan @ Feb 10th 2006 3:14PM
Apparently he never played many of the Japanese "visual novel" games that we don't see here. Although the PC version does have animated pornography, the versions made for console (typially PS2 nowadays), remove the X-rated scenes, but still maintain a great storyline. Although there are many games in that genre where the story is just a means to an end (the sex), the most popuar ones in Japan nowadays just contain the sex as part of the story, just a tiny piece in a bigger picture. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up "Fate/Stay Night," the fastest selling PC game in Japan.
I know I'm making a vast generalization here, but American companies in general, just like to show off the violence and sex without any depth of context, GT3 and GTA:SA comes to mind here.Japanese games on the other hand, have a large amount of character development, plot development, and overall depth.
I have a friend that works in localization, and I learned that their company always had games like "Sakura Taisen" on the table, but doesn't feel confident picking it up because it probably wouldn't sell very well over here in the States. Game companies must always be mindful of their audiences, and the US in general just doesn't want those kinds of games, so we end up with GTA and God of War.
Popular Japanese games and companies that you can look up on Google and most likely Wikipedia:
- Key (makers of "Air" and "Kanon")
- Type-Moon (makers of "Fate/Stay Night" and "Tsukihime")
- Red Company (makers of the "Sakura Taisen" series)
Artimus @ Feb 10th 2006 3:17PM
I just play games to have fun. Sometimes that means detailed stories and powerful scenes, sometimes it means a quick go at Mario Kart. Same with movies. Sometimes I watch a movie for emotional value, othertimes for pure entertainment.
It's just fun...
Rare Hare @ Feb 10th 2006 3:28PM
Jay(#8): " You need to know how to 'goddam' spell. you 'sitn' you.
I just find it humorous when people say "do this" and then whilst educating dives into something else equally crippling."
Wow. Let's find a little grammar if we're going to criticize it, shall we?
Fezmid @ Feb 10th 2006 3:34PM
Has nobody here played Final Fantasy 7??? Now THAT game had a lot of emotion in it.
It can and has been done. Just not frequently.
Exo @ Feb 10th 2006 3:35PM
@ #8
Oh no the grammer police. I feel so ashamed for misspelling something on a reply to a blog, what will I ever do Jay.
Well at least Im not a loser that sits and complains on how people spell.
RP @ Feb 10th 2006 3:40PM
I take issue with Jaffe's comments about how more money will solve these problems. Isn't that what happened to the movie industry? Why should more money be spent? I say spend less money, offshore/outsource the hell out of things to somewhere where the programmers still give a damn, and can all the people who are content with mediocrity. Then the designer can still get paid a bundle, games prices stay down, and we get some new cultural subtext to the games we play.
Josh @ Feb 10th 2006 3:43PM
I greatly disagree with him becuase I find many games to have better story lines and production then most movies. The MGS series is one and the horror games everyone can agree is scarier then most horror movies hollywood puts out. Hell even at certian parts in MGS 1 and MGS 3 I got teary eyed.
I also dont ever remember Hideo saying games will never match movies, i've actually heard him say they will and he plans on doing it with MGS 4. But he did say that games are not art.
The only way movies are more emotional then games is becuase movies have real life people in them. Most people think how can you feel anything towards an animation.
The MGS game stories blows away 95% of what hollywood has made and put out.
Matthew @ Feb 10th 2006 3:50PM
Artimus, what you say is so simple yet so true. What everyone is talking about now is very superfluous. While there are exceptions, why do you think most people go out to see a movie. Of course, to entertain themselves. What's the most common emotion in everyones lives? My answer: boredom. Everyone is always looking to entertain themselves, whether that's through music, videogames, movies, whatever. Games, for me and I hope for many others, have to be fun. If I'm bored one day and ask myself what I should be doing, I'm not going to tell myself to play videogames if what I feel is presented to me is boring. It all boils down to people simply having fun. Entertaining themselves. Like Nintendo and many others have said, if games stop being fun, the industry will die. Period. I hope I didn't sound too harsh.
nazuraki @ Feb 10th 2006 4:00PM
Perhaps these people have never heard of a little game called Zelda.
Oro @ Feb 10th 2006 4:04PM
Why doesn't anyone ever criticize Chess or Tetris or Legos for not being able to incite an emotional response? Games aren't books or movies and they shouldn't try to be. When I want to read a book or watch a movie, I do that. When I'm playing a game, I want to play, not watch and read. Things like story, plot, atmosphere, mood, are secondary things that you could tack on after you make a good game. But you have to make a good game, first.
Bryan @ Feb 10th 2006 4:45PM
Oro, the reason nobody criticizes games like Tetris and Chess for lack of emotional connection is because that wasn't the point of the game. The problem comes from the games where, as mentioned in other comments, it really feels like the developers made a half-assed attempt at making a story. It's all fine and good that you play games for the fun of playing, but you're comparing apples and oranges there.
mike @ Feb 10th 2006 5:25PM
The problem comes from the games where, as mentioned in other comments, it really feels like the developers made a half-assed attempt at making a story.
---
No it's because you're not accomplishing diddly squat by playing games, it's like a drug.. you escape for a while then turn it off. Even the most incredible 'achievement' in a video game leaves you crestfallen, because you just wasted 20 hrs of ur life.
Music and Video, though, do not fall under this category because you can share them with groups of people in a ... non rivalrous way.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Feb 10th 2006 6:21PM
I'm just wondering what "higher emotional levels" is he talking about.
I'm not about to freakin' cry over any goddamn game, ever, that's for sure, but I sure as hell experience other types of emotions while playing games pretty regularly. I get angry (VERY angry at times) when playing video games, especially against griefers, I develop an emotional attachment to friends I've never met, but play with regularly over XBox Live. And when I achieve something I thought I wasn't incapable of in a video game, I get a very real sense of satisfaction and achievement.
I don't get any one of those feelings from other types of entertainment or art, with the possible exception of watching my favorite sports teams do well, and/or doing sports myself.
So is it only that sorrow, sadness, real tears would elicit the highly coveted "games ARE art" badge from the "art critics" in the crowd?
I'm also wondering why is it that games HAVE to reach higher emotional levels in the first place? Sure, I was deathly afraid of the bad ass older kid that was twice my size when playing cops and robbers with the neighborhood kids, but was that because of the game I was playing or the fact that he could pummel me to near death anytime he thought I'd done something to annoy him?
The worth of video games is not measured by how much people cry when they play them, that's for sure.
Chris @ Feb 10th 2006 6:31PM
It's clear that the industry is pushing quantity over quality these days, and the urgency to get games (in particular, sequels) out for key buying periods is totally compromising creativity. Games can certainly be emotional, if they have a solid and well-executed storyline. Zelda games have often reached this zenith. Beyond Good and Evil hits some solid emotional notes, too. So it's definitely possible to have a good game that makes you care not only about the protagonist but also the characters he or she encounters.
The industry has to change, though. There are too many games on shelves these days, too many sequels, too much crap. It's tough to wade through all the dreck to find the good stuff. And usually, "the good stuff" is games that have been in development for several years, weren't rushed to market, and offer something new.
I hope that in the coming years we'll see better writers and directors getting involved in game development. I think it ridiculous to say that games can't deliver an engrossing, emotional experience. You know, if anything, they're in a much more capable position to do this than movies; after all, you typically spend 10+ hours as the protagonist, fighting his fight and/or guiding his journey. Surely this is enough time to develop an emotional bond with that character... so long as story elements in the game give you an insight who he or she is and why they are doing the things they are doing. I mean, how many times has a game made you feel bad about having to kill someone? How many times has a game made you consider the harsh reality of having to kill someone (or scores of someones) for what you think is a greater good? It would be nice to see more games with a little bit of conscience, rather that just assuming you're comfortable in the role of mindless assassin.
Ah well.
Chris
Bryan @ Feb 10th 2006 7:13PM
@mike:
I don't know how you play your games, but from what I've seen from both myself and friends, games we find great and involving stay with us long after we've put down the controller. Many times I find myself or my friends talking about how much we liked this aspect of the story, or how that aspect could've been improved or changed.
Much like a good movie or TV show, there's something to talk about games after the experience itself has ended. Likewise, if we play a bad game, we wish we had those x hours of our life returned to us, but the same can also apply to a bad movie or show.
RPG plots can be shared in a "non rivalrous" way, I mean take a look at the level of discussion that surrounds FF7 on many gaming forums, even to this day.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Feb 10th 2006 8:23PM
Go figure, gamers need to be set straight on this.
Even a game industry with soul (there have been plenty of great games throughout history with soul, though they're clearly in the minority) is never going to break into the realm of art. The comparison to games and porn is PERFECT, because no matter the production quality and creative content in porn (of which there usually isn't any, but has been known to happen) it is still filled with gratuitous, extended sex with the primary purpose of sexually titillating the viewer. Without that, it is not porn. In the same vein, as Ebert articulated and was dumped on by largely ignorant and illiterate gamers, games fall prey to the same trap in a different form by requiring a degree of user input and player challenge/choice. That's what makes them games, and it will always keep them, as a whole, from becoming a form of artistic expression. The visual and musical works contained IN the game can be artistic creations, you won't find too many bigger fans of Uematsu Nobuo's work than me, but as a whole, in comparison to movies, literature, or theater, something that games often try to imitate, the very requirements that make it a game and not any of those other things are what will always keep it from breaking into the realm of art.
In response to the comparison of certain games to Hollywood's creations, merely because there are bad, unartistic movies out there that pander to the gratuitous moviegoing public doesn't negate the ones that don't. Similarly, the existence of Danielle Steel novels do not negate the legitimacy of Mary Shelley's work. The argument is based on format, not execution.
I'm sure intelligent, well-thought out arguments HERE will largely fall on deaf ears, but I had a few free minutes and thought that Jaffe's comparison deserved some praise. I enjoy games as much as the next cat, but as games. Entertainment, not art.
Pince @ Feb 10th 2006 9:32PM
#33- Interesting post. Its a respectable way to think of video games, but I'd have to disagree. For one thing, you never truly define what it is to be art. More often than not, you simply identify movies and literature to be within the realm of the artistic and games to be intrinsicly excluded.(a good comparison, but an unclear one)
Now, first of all, with something as hard to define as "art" it is silly to try to say games cannot be it. (I could simply say I disagree with you because my definition of art is more broad, for example) In fact it comes off as a little pretentious in some ways to assume such a rigid definition of art. I will agree that video games will have a difficult time achieving respect as an art form if they simply ride the coattails of cinema and literature, but I believe that games could, despite the very nature of "game" which you claim excludes them from the realm of art, be art.
Jaffe makes an intelligent comparison, but it is also very bleak. If anything, both games and pornography are not art, because in those realms respectively, art does not sell. People who buy porn expect...well...porn and, at least from looking at what sells and what doesnt, many gamers will buy a game that has very little artistic or creative value...that is, mindless fun. There is nothing wrong with that, but such a fact cannot lead to the conclusion that games cannot be art.
As a final note, I am amused by the fact that games as non-art are compared to cinema as art. I am not disputing that film is an art form, I just find it a funny comparison to make in a time when there seem to be more video games with artisitc merit than movies, considering the huge steaming piles of crap that are continually shoved out the door of film studios these days.
Matthew @ Feb 10th 2006 10:30PM
Here we go with this "is it art or not argument" again. You know, I think it's come to a point where really it's a preference point. You either see it as art or not. I've also thought about this subject, and you know what, if you think about it, what is art? You know, paintings, movies, games, books, plays. It all falls under "creativity." Even professional chefs have to be creative with their cooking. That's essentially what it is. Ultimately though, I personally look at videogames as entertainment.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Feb 10th 2006 10:56PM
I can spell it out if you'd like, I apologize for lack of clarity.
Cinema, literature, and theatre are all artistic forms of storytelling. Your "quality" dispute was already addressed in my post, just because many movies coming out of Hollywood with no artistic merit doesn't negate the ones that do. Games, even story-driven ones, cannot be of any significant artistic merit because of the requisite things that make them games.
You missed my point. No pornographic movies with artistic value as movies exist not because one would not sell, but because such a thing is impossible, because of the requisite focus of porn on sexual titillation.
I won't dictate any definition you wish to ascribe to "games as art," because a game can be its own art form, as anything else can be. However, as a storytelling medium, it falls short and is as intrinsically inferior as porn.
Tim @ Feb 11th 2006 12:26AM
God of War = Most cinematic-style game ever made. It's like a movie but you're controlling it. And it feels great, until you play it again and it's the exact exact exact same. Sounds like a movie to me.
LaughingMan @ Feb 11th 2006 2:46AM
On one hand, I agree with him that video games have legs enough to stand on their own. There's more than enough talented people working to create their own niche in video games; by aping cinema it can feel like you're trying to apologize for being a game creator.
On the other....cmon. You made one ok game, get off the soapbox. Genres mix all the time with everything. Music, video, art, culture, etc. People borrow things from here and there, add their own creative input and make something new. And if games played the exact same way they did 20 years ago, Jaffe would be saying the exact oppostie "Why don't games try and be more like cinema?" Wah wah wah....something always has to be wrong.
TastelessRamen @ Feb 11th 2006 5:23AM
Your argument is flawed, Yoshi.
You seem to be saying that games cannot adequately express "artistic" points because the player has direct control, that they're interactive.
But what you are failing to realize is that film, music, pictures, they're all interactive as well.
When I go out to see a movie, I bring to the table my assumptions about it will unfold, expectations about how it should unfold, and whatever life experiences or opinions I have which are going to change how I see the movie.
Perhaps the apple being handed to the teacher in one scene is just an apple to you, but if my father was killed in a tragic apple accident, then it would probably have a different impact on me.
A lot of what makes a movie "good" or "bad" is how immersive it is, and whether we can relate to it's content and it's characters. In that respect we are putting themselves in the role of those characters, and vicariously sharing their experiences.
That's why, after watching a movie you find yourself going, "oh, that Katie Hollaway was a bitch, a complete bitch."
or, "I didn't understand why Rudolph did that, why would he sacrifice everything for a jar of play-doh."
This feeling of immersion, and relation to what is in the form is what makes art. It's the reason that an artist is better able to appreciate an illustration, the reason that a composer is better able to appreciate symphony. They can relate better to what they're experiencing than someone else. What could be a better vehicle for story immersion than actually being IN the story?
In the heyday of film there were many detractors saying that it could never be art, and they all look pretty silly now. In seventy years, if we're still around, I think you will too.
Stuka @ Feb 12th 2006 7:02AM
I think Jaffe is right in his theory, although his analogy needs work. The games industry right now isn't too much like the porn industry. It's too much like the American movie industry. Numerous sequels, not enough original ideas, too much formulaic crap. Yep, that sounds like Hollywood to me.
That said in both the games industry, just like in Hollywood, the occasional great and original idea pops up. But there is no reason why it shouldn't be reversed where great original games are the norm and the occasional Madden pops up.
Alex @ Feb 13th 2006 1:00AM
The reason Japanese "visual novel" type games don't (and probably won't) sell very well in the USA is because 1. they're very linear, and many US gamers don't like that style; and 2. many of them are lacking in actual gameplay.
Bryan's example of Fate/Stay Night is really text-heavy, and really is a visual novel, in the book sense of the word. Same with Air and Kanon. The "gameplay" consists of clicking the mouse to get the next line of text to read, and periodically making a choice that branches the story towards multiple endings. They've got replay value as long as you care enough to wade through the text to get a different ending (and usually different visuals).
Other games, like the aforementioned Sakura Taisen, have some strategy or RPG-like elements to them, but usually aren't particularly challenging.