Speaking with Develop, Starbreeze Studios CEO Johan Kristiansson discussed his feelings about game development, specifically as it relates to independent studios. The subjects of the interview range from the decision to release Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena in April -- the game debuted at #2 in the UK but failed to make the top 10 in North America -- to the advantages of using established franchises versus creating new IP. Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview comes near the end, when Kristiansson discusses the differences between the independent and corporate development environments.
According to Kristiansson, corporate development environments can stifle creativity, as decisions are made more slowly. He stated that independent developers have "a stronger feeling of ownership-attachment to their properties," adding that indie studios can develop "a more tightly knit team" over time.
"An independent studio is always going to be more creative," said Kristiansson, noting that publishers should allow developers to maintain control over production. He concluded, "If indies are too close to their publishers, that can also damage the decision making process and the overall game quality."
Reader Comments (23)
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:04PM Rentaro said
Indie studios have more leeway with their projects while the in-house studio next game is dictated by corporate execs. Sure there are exceptions like Bioware, but I'm going to take a reasonable guess Infinity Ward and Neversoft will be making Call of Duty and Guitar hero for a long time
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:10PM PR0F3TA said
i guess its true somewhat... but some Indi games are also alot worse then the big name ones.
i love COD4 but i also love LBP.
i love COD4 but i also love LBP.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:15PM (Unverified) said
By this logic, indie developers that work on their own to create their own games for the public at their own cost will be the most indie and creative of them all. And that's usually the case. While most are complaining about the lack of quality games this generation, I'm searching frantically for the time just to get a small taste of all the games that go by unnoticed by the mainstream. That's without paying a cent, bring commercial games into the mix and our options are truly limitless.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:16PM ch3burashka said
This guy hasn't been on Community Games.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:18PM (Unverified) said
Bioshock is a good example of this. First one was good when 2K Boston had called most decision making. Afterward T2 wanted MOAR $$$ and asked for a sequel which didn't need one, slapped multiplayer and is hoping to bank on a new success. Always happened, always will.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:21PM TuxBobble said
I'd agree for the most part. Though I would take out the "always". You'll occasionally get the gem from a big studio...
I mean, look at Mario Galaxy. That was pretty innovative/creative, and let's face it, Nintendo isn't exactly a small studio...
I mean, look at Mario Galaxy. That was pretty innovative/creative, and let's face it, Nintendo isn't exactly a small studio...
Posted: May 21st 2009 12:36AM MarioGreat said
'Occasionally' is a bit of an understatement. I'd have to say that I would disagree with Starbreeze's comment almost completely.
Almost all of the most creative and some of the most inspiring games I have ever played in my entire life as a gamer came almost exclusively came from large studios. In fact, when you ask people to list the most creative games they know, what are some of the names that inevitably pop up? Okami, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and so on. Many of the names come from large studios (Capcom, Sony, Konami, etc).
Furthermore, people forget, but many of the mega brand names of today were the creative masterpieces of yesterday. At one time, Super Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, and so on, were all new and mastered their genre using creative techniques no one else tried.
Reply
Almost all of the most creative and some of the most inspiring games I have ever played in my entire life as a gamer came almost exclusively came from large studios. In fact, when you ask people to list the most creative games they know, what are some of the names that inevitably pop up? Okami, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and so on. Many of the names come from large studios (Capcom, Sony, Konami, etc).
Furthermore, people forget, but many of the mega brand names of today were the creative masterpieces of yesterday. At one time, Super Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, and so on, were all new and mastered their genre using creative techniques no one else tried.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:21PM Giroro said
Meaning a game by one guy would be the most creative of all :P
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:29PM Sly C said
didn't a sony owned studio make both the loco roco series and the patapon series? those two series are more creative than 95% of indie games.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:44PM (Unverified) said
Somebody hasn't played Dead Space!
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:51PM garnsr said
What counts as indie these days? Is Grin indie, developing for Capcom? Insomniac, for Sony? They aren't just parts of these bigger companies, but they develop games for them to publish. Don't all indies end up needing a big publisher to get their games out? Do they stop being indie once they make a hit, and the publisher is more willing to have them make another game? I'm confused.
Posted: May 20th 2009 2:47AM (Unverified) said
In this case, I suppose, by specifying the studio as independent, they are saying they are not owned or have exclusive rights with any publisher. This is not to say that their games are independent, however, considering they are published by a third-party. That's all using technical terminology, of course, as you mentioned the subjective use of the term varies.
Yes, many indie games can get "released" (more like uploaded to the internet) without publishers, and there are countless examples, they just don't usually make much money, if any at all. But they're not about making money. That's what makes indie games unique, many such developers would be glad to take on the cost just to make something they envision.
Reply
Yes, many indie games can get "released" (more like uploaded to the internet) without publishers, and there are countless examples, they just don't usually make much money, if any at all. But they're not about making money. That's what makes indie games unique, many such developers would be glad to take on the cost just to make something they envision.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:54PM petepete said
yea because a game based on a movie really is independent. haha
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:57PM HoopyHobo said
Using absolutes like 'always' usually make you look stupid. Not all indie studios are that creative, and not all corporate studios are that uncreative.
Posted: May 19th 2009 11:59PM (Unverified) said
I agree. But I don't 'always' agree.
Posted: May 20th 2009 12:20AM petepete said
this article still can't convince me to buy a game which stars vin diesel
Posted: May 20th 2009 7:00AM (Unverified) said
I'm confused is a developer who has just released a remake criticising a lack of creativity in the industry?
Posted: May 20th 2009 9:25AM (Unverified) said
BS
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM




