Top 5 developers that should be seeing other people

Be it that they feel unsafe doing anything but the stuff that has proven to be working, that they are strong-armed into doing that by owners, publishers or shareholders, or that they simply like what they are doing too much to try other fields - some developers are stuck doing stuff that, if it was for the better of the gaming in general, they should not be doing.

5. Polyphony Digital Too much Gran Turismo for their own good Polyphony Digital's name is synonimous with racing games. Stuck in gargantuan development cycles of Gran Turismo games, they haven't had much time to do other stuff. Many gamers think that their meticulous approach to details can not be applied outside of a very refined genre they have helped define, but those of us who do probably remember Omega Boost for PS1. Everything about this PS1 game was great Gran Turismo was a driving sim that used to put everyone else out of the competition and helped Sony define Playstation as a  superior platform for gaming. The approach to details that PD had meant huge development cycles that forged the game that was worth every dollar and every day spent on its development. Today, that is not the case - competition has caught up with Poliphony Digital and, while not delivering games nearly as huge as Gran Turismo, they learned to make up for it by making game more approachable to user, action more flashy (damage model in Shift/Forza vs. GT) and their games better in segments that PD never really cared about.  It is time for PD to take a short break and try themselves in something else. Even if they fail at it, their careful approach is sure to bring something that other games will start ripping straight away.

4. DICE 
Chasing the Call of Duty dragon

Yeah, DICE did shooters back in the last millennium, but back then they were known for great pinball games and, even more, for awesome racers. For people who still remember software rendering, they were also the best of the best in making software rendering engines that made their games almost as pretty for those without those high-tech "3D cards".

For a 1998 title, Motorhead sure looks great, and Rallisport Challenge 2 for the first Xbox looks as good as many of today's games

And then they made Battlefield - a fresh, multiplayer-oriented shooter that offered a different, more tactical approach than Quakes and UTs of the time. In the days when they still had a complete creative control they decided to place Battlefield2 in modern setting, rather than WW2, being one of the first blockbuster developers to tap into the modern warfare. And then, they were bought by EA. 

When EA started their obsessive quest of taking down Call of Duty, DICE were the first to give it a shot, with Battlefield: Bad Company. Along with that, they developed Mirror's Edge, showing that, given the creative freedom, they can still make something good, original and fresh. The commercial failure of Mirror's Edge was, unfortunately, a signal to EA that creativity doesn't pay, and that the DICE developers are best making stuff that makes money.

With every new iteration of Battlefield (BF:BC2 and its Vietnam expansion and now Battlefield3, with Medal of Honor multiplayer sandwitched in there) their games were forced to be less Battlefield and more Call of Duty, and it seems that it is going to stay that way for a long, long time. Let's hope that the modern war FPS market will come to over-saturated crush like the rhythm/music genre, so they can make something fresh again. But not before Battlefield3 comes out - That shit looks stunning!

3. Lionhead
Paying for broken promises

Lionhead is stuck in a cycle - Peter Molyneux promises something, developers deliver less than that, and then spend another Fable development cycle in order to catch up with his promises, only to have him promise something else that will not be delivered until the next iteration. It has to stop.

Fable is big for Microsoft, but not really that big of a title. Sure, it establishes quality family-friendly gaming, but it's something they do not need people behind Populous, Dungeon Keeper and Black&White behind - it can be outsourced to another good studio, and Lionhead should lead creation of new IPs for Big Boss. And Microsoft desperately needs new IPs.

And, let's not even get started with Milo&Kate! There will be more talk about Microsoft giving the dullest tasks to its elite first-party teams, but let's say it here: there is nothing wrong in the idea of giving your best guys help you out with the under-the-hood jobs, until the point where it drags them away from creating games.

Lionhead's creativity has been proven countless times. They should be creating new IPs and not polishing the old ones. Playing the safe card by making them develop another Fable game would be playing a stupid card. Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper, Black&White and The Movies are also PM's creations. Let the guy add something new to that list, Microsoft, so you can exploit it.

2. RARE
Not making games

Developers in RARE must feel like the most deceived  people in the world. They have a job in one of the most respected developers in console gaming history, with gaming portfolio as impressive as anyone but Nintendo, and they are stuck doing dull tasks and making shovelware for Microsoft.

Instead of making, for example, a new Killer Instinct, the creators of  Donkey Kong Country ended up making Xbox360 avatars; instead of doing another Banjo/Kazooie or Conker, they were told to do Kinect Sports. In the age of total console FPS mania, the creators of the best console FPS of all times are stuck doing dull, uninspiring jobs.

The truth is that many great people have left RARE, and Microsoft probably doesn't feel comfortable enough to finance a new IP or a reboot of a generations-old one with guys who have not really proven themselves in charge.

Here's an idea: let RARE make the next Fable! The ground is pretty clear, there is not too much space to fuck it up (can you fuck it up more than Fable3 did?) and it will sell well even if they do. It will serve both as a proving ground and a test of talent for RARE, and MS will surely profit from it. The way things stand, one of the biggest names in their first-party game-makers list isn't making games - and that is not good.

1. Crystal Dynamics
Raiding Tombs

Crystal Dynamics are going to make nothing else but Tomb Raider stuff for a long time - and the only reason for that is because they are guilty of making good games. 

Yeah, they have made Gex and Pandemonium, but Legacy of Kain is the reason it is so sad to look at what CD is working on these days. The story of Raziel and Kain took us to one of the most iconic journeys in gaming history - setting an epic, complex and stunningly real tale into a unique, magical world with an atmosphere so palpable we can still smell it. And creators of that world are now telling us tales about an Indiana Jones with titties.

Even if it seems that Crystal Dynamics are not in as bad of a position as RARE (not only they are making games - they are making good games that sell really well), the helplessness of the situation is what puts them on the number one place on this list. There seems to be no escape for them: as long as they make good Tomb Raider games, they will be strong-armed to make more; and if they start making bad ones, they will probably be closed, along with what remains of Eidos.

The only hope of us seing a new LoK game (preferably a re-boot) is Square Enix starting to treat Tomb Raider like Call of Duty, assigning another developer (IO interactive seems like a good pick) to take turns with CD in developing Lara Croft games, ultimately making room for them to backdoor-escape from Hell.

Mana Hangover - Comic #1 - Kombative Kommunikations

The movie based games myth

There is a common belief that all the games based on movies and movie franchises suck balls. There are too much good movie-based games around to call them an exception that proves the rule. Two of the games that I consider to be among top-something of all time - Star Wars : Knights of the Old Republic and GoldenEye are based on movie franchises, and the list doesn't end there. The majority of Star Wars games are great - from side-scrolling gems on the SNES, to flight sims like X-wing and Tie fighter titles or the awesome Rogue Squadron, all the way to modern shooters of Dark Forces/Jedi Knight franchise and The Old Republic RPGs. Heck, even the not-so-serious Racer Titles, Battlefront RTSes and The Force Unleashed H'n'Ses were pretty good games. Battle for Middle Earth was fucking epic And while we nowadays praise the Wanted or Bourne Conspiracy for "not being bad movie games", and have to search very hard to find a great one (GoldenEye for the Wii is one. If you haven't played it, do it now), things were not so grim in the past. Disney movie tie-in games were mostly very good (Aladdin, The Lion King), and Batman Returns, Dick Tracy, Jurassic Park and many other titles from the 16-bit era stand as good titles that use their movie tie-ins as a marketing vehicle, and not as an excuse for their shortcomings. So, what makes today's movie games suck more than the games of that "golden age of tie-ins", but still makes Star Wars games (and certain other titles) great? Two things - development cycles and publisher care. Ghostbusters didn't cross any streams, but it was a decent title Development cycle for a movie is around 1 year (from the moment it is greenlit to theatrical release), and in the 16-bit games it took less time than that to make a game. Movie based games had bigger budgets than their non-licensed counterparts and all the pieces for making a good game were in. Today, games take around two years to make, and the developer of a movie tie-in game doesn't have that time. In order to catch the hype train, they have to cut corners and make a game that is at best average (Toy Story 3, Kung Fu Panda, Avatar) or, more often than not, plain bad (Iron Man, Battle:LA). If they decide to completely miss the hype and release the game months or years after the movie, they risk the licence backfire - those who liked the movie forgetting about it, those who didn't like it not being interested about the game, and those who didn't watch it feeling that there is no point in playing the game without watching the movie it is based on. Sure, the game being great (Blade Runner, Chronicles of Riddick) can save the day, but games that are just good (Wanted:Weapons of Fate, Bourne Conspiracy) are more likely to flop than not. The exception to that are the franchises where publishers and producers really care. When a publisher/producer wants not only to make a game that will benefit from the movie, but the game from which the next movie in the franchise will also gain something - great things may be born. That is what happens with Star Wars - the parent company does not publish games, novels and comics just in order to cash in on the success of the movies, but also in order to make fans hyped up about the next theatrical release between the franchise installments. Sixteen years have passed between the third and the fourth Star Wars movies, yet the franchise was never out of the media. With Arkham Asylum and Arkham City the Dark Knight hype train will keep running full speed, and four years between two Batsy movies will pass in a blink of a gamer's eye. The transition from people caring about an individual movie to people caring about the "universe" is what makes long-term cash cows. Once that transition is successfully done, the franchise stays in fans' hearts even if the tie-in material starts to stagnate. E.T. - The father of shitty tie-ins. Ghostbusters were huge in the early nineties (interesting fact: Mortal Kombat's father, John Tobias, was one of the artists on the great The New Ghostbusters comic book series), but the same can not be said for the end of this decade - yet the Terminal Reality's game sold pretty well. The same applies for Telltale's "Back to the Future" episodic games. Built in once established, if a bit neglected, universes, the games still attracted fans. With novels, cartoons, comic books and games, you can increase the market penetration of your movie franchise, making almost everyone exposed to some piece of your universe - thus making every other piece of that universe approachable. It also works the other way around; Microsoft is doing an amazing job expanding Halo's reach (pun intended) by publishing everything from novels (some of which are pretty good) to cartoons, encyclopedias, comic books and action figures, keeping fans interested in the franchise even if there is, like now, no new Halo game in sight. You can publish Battle for Middle Earth years after the movies and expect to sell well (if a game is good), but you can not expect the same from the Prison Break (there is nothing but TV series, plus the game sucks) or the Saw. If you are Rockstar, however, you can ignore my point and earn 35 millions on making The Warriors game years later. Of course, you can decide to cover as wide a market as possible and spend a shitload of money on marketing and still hope to sell good - Scarface:the World is Yours succeeded in that, even if the licence played a really tiny part in that success. It won't hurt you, also, to make sure that the game is at least decent (the first Godfather game sold pretty well, the second one flopped badly). Of all the solutions, rushing the game to release along with the movie, no matter how bad it is, is the worst solution - it hurts the fans, the franchise, game industry, the developer that makes the game,  and does not make a profitable solution in the long run. Unfortunately, that is what we are to continue to expect from movie tie-in games, since the publishers, who are spending a shitload of money on marketing for the movies, don't care about the franchises in the long run; they want to milk that cow until it's dead dry and kick it down the ditch before they go on with their formula to find another creative property to rape. The smart producers and publishers are rare, but their efforts to provide a stream of quality products deserve all respect, and the result of their franchises becoming huge cash cows is a nice reward.