Has American McGee earned the right to present anything?
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Sep 16th 2006 at 7:30PM }
Gamasutra's running an interview with game designer American McGee. The man's name is a marketing tool in its own right. McGee recognizes it saying, "Certainly it helps in branding the games. With today's game market, building proper awareness is as important as building a good game."So, what does he think his name means to gamers?
"I've seen positive and negative responses. For the 'fans,' I think they have come to expect something a little different from the mainstream. That's my hope anyway. For the detractors, I get the sense they feel I haven't earned the name-above-the-title right. In either case, it does seem that it brings some awareness, and all PR, good or bad, is a good thing."
When Alice came out, many moons ago, we had only known American McGee as a level designer for Doom II and Quake, and let's be honest, he hasn't done much for gamers since. Yes, American McGee Presents Bad Day L.A. ships this month, but two games in how many years? Will Wright seems to get more done on his coffee break and he doesn't slap his name on the top of every game. Can you imagine a title like David Jaffe Presents God of War 2?
When is it appropriate to slap the developer's name on the title of a game? How many game developers are at the level where it matters to the consumer?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Premaximum @ Sep 16th 2006 7:39PM
I love seeing Sid Meier's name before the title of games. The first game I saw with it was Alpha Centauri. Since that, every time I see that name I know the game will be quality stuff, and worth at least looking at.
Slapping your name onto a game can be both a good or bad thing, really. It doesn't matter too much to me from a consumer standpoint whether or not the title of a game has the developer's name in it. The only real thing it does for me is determine whether I give it a second glance.
With someone like McGee, after seeing his name before a title of a game, I would probably skip over the game. It gives you some sort of idea what to expect.
Is it moral to sell a game because of your own popularity as a designer? Maybe, maybe not. In my opinion it's no different than a Quentin Tarantino movie with his name slapped on the cover.
However, I will say this: Putting one name in the title of a game, if you weren't the -sole- creator of the game, is a little bit conceited. It takes away from the team who made the game, which would be a company (Like Ubisoft, or Blizzard) and gives credit to only one person. That's probably the only gripe I have with it.
Fo0dNippl3 @ Sep 16th 2006 7:41PM
He also did Scrapland.
GunForHire @ Sep 16th 2006 7:41PM
I've heard of this guy before, but only from hearing about the Alice game - what the hell's he 'famous' for anyway?
Sidewinder @ Sep 16th 2006 7:49PM
I would like to point out that American Mcgee has also produced a little game called "American Mcgee's Scrapland."
Just wanted to point that out, since you mentioned him only putting out 2 games in so many years. Yeah, I know. The ratio is still pretty lopsided.
And Scrapland is similiar to all the other games bearing his name in that it's got a good premise, but it totally screws up the execution.
Varian @ Sep 16th 2006 7:49PM
Sounds like Joystiq is jealous. In the old days, it was customary for the designers to put their name on their game. Think of M.U.L.E. with Daniel Bunton's pictures glossed on it. We need more of this stuff instead of this bloated body of artists that consists of most development teams. When games are designer based, as opposed to production based, this is common and ought to be.
sjenky @ Sep 16th 2006 7:50PM
If the bust a move guys can call an image of a spitting baby "box art", mr. McGee can do whatever he wants.
Besides, it works for me! I immediatly check out any game bearing his name. Alice was wonderful.. when's his version of The Wizard of Oz coming out anyway? :-D
Nmaster @ Sep 16th 2006 7:51PM
Branding in games should really be limited to famous people, generally outside gaming. For instance, "J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings" works, although I guess since he wouldn't be involved that's a bad example. "Mark Ecko's Getting Up" is a good real example.
If anyone has earned the right, it's people like Will and Shigeru. But can you imagine "Miyamoto's Twilight Princess"? In other words, the only ones that really deserve it are the ones that don't need it, because they'll get the credit and fanfare anyway.
Cabcru @ Sep 16th 2006 7:51PM
I think it's a great thing. It makes it easier to avoid his games like the plague.
bouchert @ Sep 16th 2006 7:52PM
It took a while before I even knew he was a person. When his name first started popping up, I thought American McGee was...well, the American division of some McGee parent corporation or something.
Kyle Rogoff @ Sep 17th 2006 1:25AM
I think it's only effective if the name evokes the quality of previous games (Meier, Wright, etc.). In that role, it serves somewhat of a similar role as those companies that have rarely, if ever, delivered a poor quality game (like Blizzard).
Branding like McGee's only provokes an emotional response ("I like him","I find him annoying", etc.) This might generate buzz or whatever, but I doubt emotional effects have as much of a sales impact as memory effects.
msdarnell @ Sep 16th 2006 7:54PM
I rarely advocate violence against anybody, but I sincerely wish American McGee wanted to go mano-a-mano, Uwe Boll style.
From his presumption that his games have not, to a one, been entirely without merit or playability , to his snarky behavior and suspect "urban nerd" style of dress, he demands a beatdown. Him speaking about the quality of gaming is like Simple Plan talking about their great music.
When people like Miyamoto and Kojima do not place their name on their games, it's because the quality speaks for itself. American has to put his name on his product because it is the only source of distinction for his straight to the bargain bin crap.
Khuffie @ Sep 16th 2006 7:54PM
"When is it appropriate to slap the developer's name on the title of a game?"
Short Answer: Never.
Metaly @ Sep 16th 2006 8:07PM
Putting your name in the actual title is pretty obnoxious. If it's just sort of a sidenote on the box art (like Hideo Kojima's credit on the last couple of Metal Gears, for instance), it's no big deal. It's like the difference between a movie poster with "a Steven Spielberg film" VS "John Carpenter's Movie with His Name in the Title #2489."
Just as an example of what not to do, did anyone see the press release for that Civilization bundle? (This is the official company line.)
"The set will include: Sid Meier's Civilization I, Sid Meier's Civilization II, Civilization II: Fantastic Worlds, Civilization II: Conflicts in Civilization, Civilization II: Test of Time, Sid Meier's Civilization III, Sid Meier's Civilization III: Play the World, Sid Meier's Civilization III: Conquests and Sid Meier's Civilization IV."
Thanks, Sid! I almost forgot you were involved for a couple nanoseconds.
AK @ Sep 16th 2006 8:08PM
AK Presents: This Post.
See how nobody cares?
Like others have said, good games speak for themselves. Developers don't speak for good games.
(There's always the exception to the rule, but American McGee isn't that exception)
Psychonauts beats Alice or Scrapland hands down, so I guess that blows his theory out of the water.
"Buy my game, I'm not "mainstream". My name is
American McGee"
tooler @ Sep 16th 2006 8:14PM
I'm all for game designers slapping their names on the box. It gives the impression of authorial control, the idea that games are a work of art and not a paint-by-numbers sort of thing done by a team of a million people. Yes, there is a team involved in the grunt work, and there can be some pretty brilliant code, but I think it would improve gaming's image if the general public were to understand that there is a creative focus in video game projects.
So what if you don't think his games are that great- they are still HIS games. M. Night Shyamalan puts his name on all his movies and they all suck. It's for the best, I say- credit where credit is due.
Kanpai @ Sep 16th 2006 8:19PM
All this rumbling reminds me of the old days, when the old Atari devs got tired of not receiving credit for their games, so they went and formed Activision, and every activision cart from back then says something like 'concieved and developed by so-and-so' right there on the cart. Granted, games back then only took one guy, but even though games today can have almost as much staff as a movie, if someone's spearheading the project, you're not really inclined to know about it. Granted, there are exceptions (Miyamoto, Newell, Romero, etc.) but there are still loads of games that you may not know anything about who created it. Is it fair for everyone to know who did SimCity (and therefore be influenced as a result to buy or not by Wright's other games) but not who did Alice or Bad Day LA? Ultimately, i would say no. But isn't this really a question of taste, anyway?
kobewan @ Sep 16th 2006 8:21PM
Tim Schafer is pretty much the only one that I can think of. He's good enough that anything he makes merits a second look, but he's not famous enough for everybody to know what he's working on.
Seriously though, can you imagine "Shigeru Miyamoto Presents The Legend of Zelda : Twilight Princess" or "Hideo Kojima Presents Metal Gear Solif Four : Guns of the Patriots : Substance : Limited Edition"? Those could be considered box art of themselves.
Intellectualdiot @ Sep 16th 2006 8:27PM
My original comment was an ambivalent one towards this practice as I found nothing particular disturbing about it or American McGee's exploitation of it (Simply put, it does make good business sense - it certainly got your gaming journalists to pay more attention to the software than it probably deserved), but after considering the difference in between the various mediums where an artist "signing" his work is commonplace and the inherent nature of the gaming industry, I now find a bit of fault with it.
In an age where development teams are becoming increasingly more convoluted and individual prowess is dwindling in the face of more democratic and prudent business endeavors, perhaps it is a bit unfair for publishers and developers to push a title as the vision of a single individual. Clearly Hideo Kojima is the mind behind the Metal Gear Solid series, but does his influence justify his name getting the ONLY headline? Would Metal Gear Solid be Metal Gear Solid without the art of Yoji Shinkawa? Without the music of Muraoka (among others) in MGS1 and Harry Gregson-Williams in MGS2? Without the unparalleled graphical fidelity we have come to expect, perhaps demand, from the MGS series, how many of you would even care about the overwrought sociopolictial themes Kojima has become revered for? At what point can we began to seperate the reasonable influence of one individual, these so-called visionaries, and account for the tireless work that other individuals record without a modicum of fanfare?
I'm not arguing against the praise of influential individuals in the gaming industry (nor Kojima himself), but rather I am questioning the potentially unscrupulous practice of using a name of an influential figure that, in effect, exerts little in the way of developmental prowess. This would appear to be no different than using the Halo brand to sell Halo 4 alone, rather than focusing on refining the gameplay and presenting an enthralling experience. My question is not whether or not American McGee, or any other designer, has earned the right in the past, but whether or not they have earned the right in the present.
Shall we call this the "Todd McFarlane" syndrome?
Andy Simpson @ Sep 16th 2006 8:27PM
I think for Alice he was justified in using the "American McGee's" tag because his Alice was noticably different to Lewis Carroll's.
After that it became unjustified ego-stroking. Game-making is a collective effort and it should be recognised collectively.
Zeke @ Sep 17th 2006 5:32PM
There are a lot of developers who deserve it, but it seems the ones who don't are the ones who take advantage of the name-over-title trend. I'd like to see Yuji Naka start doing it, because then I'd know to stay far away.
BklynKid @ Sep 16th 2006 8:44PM
I see a man so in love with his "name" that he tries to purposely use it as a brand. I also kind of associate it with crap. And I'm not trying to be an ass either. The games that came out under "the name" just haven't been that great.
msdarnell @ Sep 16th 2006 8:41PM
I've made the Todd McFarlane-American McGee connection several times here. Glad to see I'm not alone in seeing it.
Also, the marketing is only successful if the name inspires confidence in the brand/product. Nothing American McGee has done inspires confidence, rather it is a warning sign that the game so marked, will be nigh unplayable.
What was his one claim to fame, outside of being part of a TEAM on Quake II? Making Alice in Wonderland creepy? Way to add spikes to a nuclear bomb. Lewis Carrol needs no help in being creepy or disturbing.
jonAgain @ Sep 16th 2006 8:45PM
It's not ego-stroking. American was at EA when it was becoming a big deal to put an individuals name above a game title. American had nothing to do with it. Now he's stuck doing it because it's expected. It's not hurting you, so get over it.
msdarnell said:
"...his snarky behavior and suspect "urban nerd" style of dress, he demands a beatdown"
Msdarnell: You are an idiot.
Pat @ Sep 16th 2006 8:51PM
I believe we're moving into an age where individual developers become the superstars and ambassadors of the video game industry. I think this movement is one that'll move gaming into the mainstream because, let's face it, we're a society that loves its personalities.
Having a name attached to something --be it a director to a movie (Spielberg, Tarantino, etc.), a producer to an album (Timbaland, Kanye West, etc.), or a video game (Will Wright, Miyamoto, etc.)-- allows the public to build up a familiarity with a particular personality, and in turn gives them an idea of what to expect and whether they'll be comfortable with the product or not.
Basically, I'm saying I have no problem with individuals rising up to be the stars of the industry, because I believe that's what we'll need in order to break this hobby of ours into the true mainstream. Can't wait to see Miyamoto cheesing it up on Access Hollywood in a few years!
msdarnell @ Sep 16th 2006 8:52PM
I have been called far worse by better people than you. I do love your concise reasoning however. Thanks!
HallwayGiant @ Sep 16th 2006 8:52PM
Does it really matter what he names his games? If your going to make a argument, why not say he's only made a handful of which which most have receieved pretty mediocre reviews...
jonAgain @ Sep 16th 2006 8:53PM
msdarnell said: "Way to add spikes to a nuclear bomb. Lewis Carrol needs no help in being creepy or disturbing."
Reading an Old Man Murray article about him doesn't mean you've played his games.
http://www.wolf3d.co.uk/jagcredits.jpg
Anyone else who has their name in the credits for Doom, raise your hand. Nobody?
Anna @ Sep 16th 2006 9:03PM
#9 Bouchert, untill reading this article I figured it was a company. I thought it was some stupid company name.
Does he have the right to brand? Sure I guess so, but the only name I think of involving him is Alice, and it didn't seem interesting enough for me to grab.
I think to make the brand, you have to make a name for yourself first, not try and brand and then make a name.
Disco @ Sep 16th 2006 8:56PM
I think it was just his attempt at branding the title. "American McGee's This", "American McGee's That"... That's probably what he wanted.
As far as if someone has the right to place their name on it... I would only say that'd be appropriate if the person in question had a major hand in design, direction, and production, more so than anyone else involved in the project. And even then, it's still pretty egotistical. Making a game is a team effort. If he had his own development team and called them "Team McGee" or something, that'd be what you should slap on there.
msdarnell @ Sep 16th 2006 9:04PM
Is American McGee your dad, or what?
Yes, I have in fact played Doom, Alice and played the demo for Bad Day LA. Judging from the critial and commerical reception of all his games to date, I am hardly alone in my opinon.
Apparently, another person who happens to be more famous than I shares the same opinon. Shocking. I guess I ought to never have opinons that coincide with anybody elses.
American McGee, by my estimation and the estimation of nearly every game critic creates a mediocre product. That alone does not automatically grant him derision, but his behavior in interviews painting himself as a misunderstood genius does.
Nobody here was credited on Doom, so I suppose we have no right to ever critize another game, ever. Any movie reviewer that has not produced a top ten grossing film should never review another movie. Astounding logic.
John Scalzo @ Sep 16th 2006 9:05PM
American McGee's name is above the title because you couldn't sell a game simply titled "Alice" to a bunch of 12 year olds in 2000.
Plus, American McGee's Alice is a pretty good alliteration and lengthens an otherwise short (and forgettable) title.
Judd @ Sep 16th 2006 9:47PM
This is an interesting post, because I was thinking of this same thing when I saw "Artie Lange's Beer League" yesterday. The film was originally just called "Beer League" but to avoid confusion with the film Beerfest, they renamed it. Being that this film is only being shown in a couple hundred theaters, the "star" is Artie Lange (and also Ralph "The Karate Kid" Macchio).Although he is known among fans of the Howard Stern Show, Lange is hardly a well established actor appearing in things like MAD TV and "Dirty Work".
There are many instances in film,videogames, and TV(Stephen King's, Stephen Spielberg's), where a title has a name on top. Sometimes it's strange how some films by a person can have a name in front and some cannot. For instance, "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas" was not directed by Tim Burton. But a film he did direct, "Big Fish" for example, doesn't have his name in front.
Back to the point of the thread. this is my rule of thumb as to if a film deserves to have the name above the title. THE EXECUTIVE PRODUCER. Although the writer may come up with the story, and the director may create the films world, the producer is the owner. I'm not saying the producer is more important to the creation of a film, TV show, or video game than a writer/director/actor, but that person is the owner.
As an example, it would be acceptable for a baseball team to be called "George Steinbrenner's New York Yankees"(it really wouldn't but this just an analogy), but it wouldn't be alright to call it "Joe Torre's New York Yankees" or Derek Jeter's.
So in the case of "Beer League", even though Artie Lange was one of the multiple producers, since he was not an executive producer, I don't think it should've been called "Artie Lange's Beer League". But I do think that giving a film a title like "Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs" is OK because the producer is presenting it, even if they are not involved with the entire creation process.
I checked up on American McGee on IMDB and this is what I found on the Alice page.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251576/fullcredits
They mention him as a writer, but not as one of the two producers of this game. They don't have a page for Bad Day LA on IMDB, but if he isn't a producer of that game he doesn't deserve the title.
Colin @ Sep 16th 2006 10:07PM
I think what ends up happening is after American McGee's Alice, which, if I remember correctly, was a branding move by EA, American moved into consulting. Thats when he moved into the project Scrapland by Enlight. Enlight then wanted to put his name on the cover because it brings more attention to the game. The fact that scrapland is being discussed here and now is a mere tribute to that fact.
Branding works. Its a market move. Love it or hate it, there are worse things going on in the industry. And I dont think making "celebrities" is a bad thing in a blossoming entertainment industry
ultran @ Sep 16th 2006 10:09PM
Way to be a jackass lately guys.
futurebiblehero @ Sep 16th 2006 10:18PM
I don't think it matters. As a child, I don't recall losing too much sleep over trying to find out whether or not David Crane deserved to have his name plastered all over "A Boy And His Blob". I still don't know who David Crane is (and finding out is surely just a few keystrokes away).
On the other hand, I'm sure it does matter to all of the other people on the team that contributed to the game and didn't get their name gratuitously placed on the front of the box.
MetaHuman @ Sep 16th 2006 10:36PM
I don't know his work since I'm primarily a console gamer, but the fact that he gets to label his box is an example of how much independence the industry allows today, whereas in the '80s, someone like Warren Robinett could get fired for putting aknowledging his own work in a company were individualist and unique contributors (such as soundwork, artists or programmers) were stuck to equal salaries and no credit at all, but rather under the company name.
So I say let him do whatever the hell he wants. While he may or may not be a genius, that fact that he is doing it at all is just an exercise of what he sees his work as.
Famous game designers are still obscure as general creative artists. For instance, you might hear that Miyamoto is the Spielburg of videogames, but unlikely the opposite.
And guys, while you might not see a "Hideo Kojima Presents" but you might see KOJIMA PRODUCTIONS, though there is nothing wrong with that.
While I'm not saying that Miyamoto or Kojima needs more respect [because their work speak for themselves], I think they have the right to name credit to themselves or emphasize the creative team behind all the work.
Moriarty70 @ Sep 16th 2006 10:46PM
I once read an interview with McGee back in the days of Alice and he said that he was forced by the Marketing Department to put the name on it, and that it was almost taken off but readded at the last second.
iEnigma @ Sep 16th 2006 10:47PM
I think it's great that American McGee has his name on his games. Whenever I see an "American McGee" title, I run like it has leprosy. Scrapland had a good idea, but f'ed up the execution. I haven't downloaded the demo of "Bad Day LA", but every comment I've read about it says it's horrible. From what I've seen, I must agree. I know graphics aren't everything... but damn son. Also, I hated that he completely outsourced his game to China for the price, and then dissed the people who made the game on his blog.
The guy's an asshole.
Joey Ramone @ Sep 16th 2006 11:02PM
"Bad Day LA" is a terrible, played through the demo, crappy gameplay. Alice was mediocre at best. But he is a good spokesperson for the games industry and is chrasmatic.
Man's got a cool name, I'll give him that, but that's about it.
rei @ Sep 16th 2006 11:35PM
american mcgee did not have anything to do with scrapland until the last minute where he was brought in to raise its profile. it was a finished product made by a european developer. he's really done nothing of note on his own.
Mark @ Sep 17th 2006 1:04AM
I think it all depends upon the developer, to be honest. The most acceptable use of this, in my opinion, has been Hideo Kojima's name on the packages of his games. Toward the bottom, elegant font, "A HIDEO KOJIMA GAME." I think that's nice. It shows that a respected developer was at the helm, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it.
I've never been a big fan of people putting their names at the head of a title, whether it be in games, movies or anything else. It just seems tacky to me.
robrob @ Sep 17th 2006 12:01AM
but after considering the difference in between the various mediums where an artist "signing" his work is commonplace and the inherent nature of the gaming industry, I now find a bit of fault with it.
you ever make a movie? even a 30 second commercial has a cast and crew of 50+ people. more often than not, it's still the director's project.
whether or not you like the games is irrelevant. i like the idea of the game designer as auteur. certainly beats corproate design b y committee that brings us such rubbish as, well, the bulk of the crap on the shelves at any retailer.
kyou @ Sep 17th 2006 12:13AM
After Bad Day L.A he really shouldn't slap his name anywhyere....
Wedge @ Sep 17th 2006 12:20AM
Generally a single person does not have a huge impact on the development of a game these days. But why not put the name of the development team on the cover? Most publishers relegate the developers to a small icon on the back page, and a splash screen you'll be skipping past on start up.
I know I make it a point to pay attention to what studios make what games, so I can look out for works from good studios in the future. Making the development companies the "face" of who made the game would be the equivalant of the single designer mention these days.
mikey @ Sep 17th 2006 12:57AM
Msdarnell Presents: A pwnage of jonAgain
LaughingMan @ Sep 17th 2006 1:10AM
I think it's fine to put your name on a game. It lets the people buying games know "Hey, you liked my other games right? Well you're gonna like this" Problem is you have to do at least one good game. You can't put out below average product and expect people to buy into your brand just because you have major 'tude. I mean what's the difference between this guy and Mark Ecko- other than one guy designes crap no one wants to buy and the other makes clothes.
jesus_bon_jovi @ Sep 17th 2006 4:10AM
has anyone played Bad Day LA yet? i played the demo a few weeks ago.. it was soo bad.. it felt like a bad game from 1998. The whole every disaster imaginable happening in one day thing was kinda cool idea. But the characters are really stupid.. so is the AI.. The graphics are clunky and so are the controls.. it seriously feels like those bad PC games from the late 90s..
RamenJunkie @ Sep 17th 2006 5:31AM
Wil Wright doesn't slap his name on everything, he just makes himself an in game character in his games instead.
wiin @ Sep 17th 2006 6:07AM
Well the thing is I have nothing against American McGee, as a matter of fact I haven't played Alice or Bad Day.
But I think this whole discussion is pretty useless. Who cares about his name if his game is excellent, or sucks ? I never bought a game because the creator was famous. I buy a game when it looks great.
Take Kojima : no one here remembers the first "Zone of the Enders", or Boktai ? And how crappy they are ? I mean, Kojima is doing one thing right, and it's MGS. The rest is pretty overestimated. Same with Molyneux and his overrated fame. A name isn't a game. I think there shouldn't be a relation between them.
Jenever @ Sep 17th 2006 9:12AM
When designers have legitimate creative control (as opposed to the big-budget cookie-cutter shit we see so much of), there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have their name on the product, for the same reason that directors, authors and artists can. Yes, there're development teams, and no disrespect meant--I'm a programmer myself--but they're interchangeable grunts. The design and execution is (or should be) a reflection of the designer's vision.
Authors have editors, research contacts and everyone involved in production. Directors have a large cast and crew. Artists have assistance for the production and assembly of large works. It's a team effort, sure, but in all cases the final product is the responsibility of the man in charge, and he deserves credit.
And as well as assisting consumers (another commenter or two has expressed the something to the effect that 'those that deserve it don't need to': that's bull. People have different tastes. Whether or not someone's name is on the box has nothing to do with whether something is a 'good game', or whether the designer meets *your* benchmark of quality. As an example I greatly enjoyed a pair of games called Millenium and Deuteros, which few people would have heard of. Short of looking I'd have no fucking idea who designed it, but I'd love to play another management game by the same guy if I saw it in a store--if I could recognize it. Too bad his name wasn't in the title.), it's a double-edged sword. It also introduces accountability. Do you think designers would be more, or less inclined to produce something they could be proud of if their name is on it in bold letters? I have never played any of McGee's games, but that's irrelevant. Clearly there's a market if the publisher is letting him do it again.