Interview Brian Mitsoda on Bloodlines

[Hory]

I love when people think of art as "self-expression" devoid of the motive to make money. It's not.

Well, duh, it's a spectrum, not either 100% the artist's vision or 100% someone else's. The point was that the balance is strongly tipped against the artist.

Most of the greatest works of art were commissioned with even their subject matter predetermined by the, yes, "businessmen" and not the artist.

No, they were patrons, and even if they imposed subjective constraints they were still doing it for the sake of art, not so that they can profit from it. When you do the latter, the whole methodology changes.

A true artist knows that creativity is functioning within constraints. A skilled artist is one that functions within tight constraints via well-honed technique.

Yes, but that's not relevant until we know which kind of constrains and from which sources produce the best creations. For now it seems that commercial constraints seem to do the opposite.

Being "anti-establishment" or wearing black make-up and writing stories about your feelings doesn't make you artistic. Sorry.

Still, there's a higher chance that it will than there's in being common-place, having no fashion taste and not writing anything.

 

[Castanova]

No, they were patrons, and even if they imposed subjective constraints they were still doing it for the sake of art, not so that they can profit from it. When you do the latter, the whole methodology changes.

When a patron comes to you and asks for their portrait in oil, I'd say those are constraints a mile away from "subjective." Especially given that it's usually implied that you need to make the person look reasonably good/rich/respectable/smart. A publisher comes to a developer and says, "I want an RPG but it needs to have good graphics and the combat needs to be real time." Does that doom the true artist to make a shit game? No, it doesn't.

For now it seems that commercial constraints seem to do the opposite.

No, they don't. You think Oblivion would have been better without commercial constraints? You really think they would have put in levitation given another 3 months of development time? No. They just didn't want to deal with the difficulties of building the world to allow levitation. You think BioWare would make any other game than the one they're already making? No, they clearly believe a good RPG is non-interactive and contains plenty of romance sub-plots. Blame the artist, not the patron.

Still, there's a higher chance that it will than there's in being common-place, having no fashion taste and not writing anything.

Uh, and? Yes, an artist is better at art than a non-artist. And black is blacker than white. Your point?

 

[nomask7]

Why was MotB one-trillion times better than the original campaign of NWN2? Something to do with the publisher giving the designers some creative slack? I think so. It's not a unique phenomenon either. The exact same thing happened with NWN and its second expansion, which was almost as bizarre as MotB, and almost as good. The Shivering Isles is much more unusual and interesting than vanilla Oblivion, which is generic shite to the core. Expansions—not so much to lose financially speaking, more creative freedom for the developers. Is there any other reasonable explanation?

 

[Vibalist]

When a patron comes to you and asks for their portrait in oil, I'd say those are constraints a mile away from "subjective." Especially given that it's usually implied that you need to make the person look reasonably good/rich/respectable/smart. A publisher comes to a developer and says, "I want an RPG but it needs to have good graphics and the combat needs to be real time." Does that doom the true artist to make a shit game? No, it doesn't.

You simplify things, I think. If all the publishers did was demand that a game had a few commercial features, such as good graphics and real time combat, there would still be room for a creative publisher to take the game in all kinds of strange and interesting directions gameplay, setting and story wise. The problem, I think, lies in that the demands don't stop there, but also include things such as "the game should be easily accessible for everyone" which probably leads to story, setting and gameplay being made for the mainstream gamers in mind. For rpg afficionados like us this means the game ends up boring and streamlined, and without the spark of uniqueness that we want. So I would say that business does get in the way of artistic expression.

There's absolutely nothing that suggest that a game cannot have both artistic creativity and streamlining. Bloodlines had plenty of stuff that made it appeal to the average kid, such as being a superbad vampire who could toss people around and soak up bullets all day. Now granted, the combat parts of the game were poorly done, but Bloodlines is still a good example of a game that tried to do both. If it had had more development time, it might have succeeded too.

 

[Hory]

When a patron comes to you and asks for their portrait in oil, I'd say those are constraints a mile away from "subjective."

Of course they are subjective if the patron creates the constrains based just on his beliefs. If they were objective, they would be things like "in the gallery there is room left only for 2 small paintings".

Especially given that it's usually implied that you need to make the person look reasonably good/rich/respectable/smart.

Maybe you're right, and maybe that's why portraits of good/rich/respectable/smart people aren't particularly known for their artistic value. Mona Lisa and what else?

A publisher comes to a developer and says, "I want an RPG but it needs to have good graphics and the combat needs to be real time." Does that doom the true artist to make a shit game? No, it doesn't.

No, except that publishers don't come and say that. As soon as the game risks being too deep for the market, devs get put back in their place.

No, they don't. You think Oblivion would have been better without commercial constraints?

I see no reason why it couldn't have been, but probably it wouldn't even have existed if it wasn't for the commercial motivation.

You think BioWare would make any other game than the one they're already making? No, they clearly believe a good RPG is non-interactive and contains plenty of romance sub-plots. Blame the artist, not the patron.

In this case, the consumer is the patron, and yes, I doubt Bioware would keep making that kind of game if it didn't have them. An artist usually appreciates his creation as well. If Bioware games are targetted at teens, the artist will have to override his adult preferences, thereby appreciating his creation less. Without the teen audience as a constraint, he'd have made something that he would have liked more.

Uh, and? Yes, an artist is better at art than a non-artist. And black is blacker than white. Your point?

Why are you asking me? You started this line of silly arguments about the author's extremism and fashion.

Now granted, the combat parts of the game were poorly done, but Bloodlines is still a good example of a game that tried to do both. If it had had more development time, it might have succeeded too.

Maybe it's precisely because it wasn't really mainstream that it didn't succeed, and maybe it's because it wasn't mainstream that we find several things to appreciate about it.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Why was MotB one-trillion times better than the original campaign of NWN2? Something to do with the publisher giving the designers some creative slack? I think so. It's not a unique phenomenon either. The exact same thing happened with NWN and its second expansion, which was almost as bizarre as MotB, and almost as good. The Shivering Isles is much more unusual and interesting than vanilla Oblivion, which is generic shite to the core. Expansions—not so much to lose financially speaking, more creative freedom for the developers. Is there any other reasonable explanation?

The initial release has to cater to the biggest market segment. It's that easy.
And truth to be told this segment is not the one with the highest standards.

 

[nomask7]

Why was MotB one-trillion times better than the original campaign of NWN2? Something to do with the publisher giving the designers some creative slack? I think so. It's not a unique phenomenon either. The exact same thing happened with NWN and its second expansion, which was almost as bizarre as MotB, and almost as good. The Shivering Isles is much more unusual and interesting than vanilla Oblivion, which is generic shite to the core. Expansions—not so much to lose financially speaking, more creative freedom for the developers. Is there any other reasonable explanation?

The initial release has to cater to the biggest market segment. It's that easy.
And truth to be told this segment is not the one with the highest standards.

...which is what I said, in the case you thought I said something else. I'm still open to other explanations though. It's just that there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to support them.

 

[Volourn]

"Bioware games are targetted at teens, the artist will have to override his adult preferences, thereby appreciating his creation less."

NEWSFLASh; The average BIO game purchaser. like the average gamer, is probably mid 20s; not teenies - espicially since their last two games have been rated M as will as DA, and ME2 will be as well. *shrug*

 

[xantrius]

NEWSFLASH: ’teens’ was ’obviously’ a metaphorical litotes for the insipid infantileness that is the dumbfuckery of Bioware, as aptly seen in e.g. their portrayal of love within their games; which correlates with the retarded M-rating; which is encapsulated by The Age of Dumbfuckery.

:sireus:

 

[Zomg]

Vintage 2006 Codex: Budgets (including promotion) are the problem entirely, therefore expansions have more room to shake off trashy blockbusteritis because they're cheaper to make and are somewhat pre-hyped. Everyone agreed to the point that we stopped repeating it and all the new people have forgotten it.

 

[nomask7]

Vintage 2006 Codex: Budgets (including promotion) are the problem entirely, therefore expansions have more room to shake off trashy blockbusteritis because they're cheaper to make and are somewhat pre-hyped. Everyone agreed to the point that we stopped repeating it and all the new people have forgotten it.

So what were the 2006 examples with no MotB to ride on, etc. ? It's always useful to have more examples.

 

[MaskedMartyr]

I think the first Homeworld should be called a good example at an artistic game. It was a very unique gaming experience back then and it still is now.

munch on some shrooms and watch the swarms maaaaan

 

[Zomg]

I meant the law of budgets was old Codex boilerplate, with the current propostion of good expansions being a corollary.

 

[inwoker]

Developers are not Shakespeare. Should not write books.
And ffs, make gameplay in games.

 

[Morbus]

Good writing is good gameplay.

Sometimes.

Touché.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Writers are not Warren Spector. Should not develop games.

 

[Longshanks]

Warren Spector. Should not develop games.

 

[Wyrmlord]

:evil:

 

[doctor_kaz]

The discussion of "commercial viability" vs. "artistic merit" doens't have a lot of relevance to video games, because games aren't dumbed down in an artistic way to generate more sales. They get dumbed down in the gameplay department. You can debate the artistic merits of Mass Effect all that you want, but one thing that you can't say about it is that the subject matter was purposedly dumbed down or that it had no artistic or creative merits. The soundtrack, for example, was clearly chosen to fit the setting.

Deus Ex: Invisible War is another example of this. It has a lot of artistic merits, but the gameplay was utter shit, thanks to the X-Box.

Assassins Creed was also a very artistic game. You may not like the game, but it was.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Warren Spector. Should not develop games.

You must really hate Deus Ex, huh?

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

The public understanding of the publisher/developer relationship is kind of fucked, to put it mildly. BEST CASE SCENARIO, they understand the focus of the game from the beginning and coordinate to keep it faithful to their initial goals for the project and the devs' as well.

SEE: Psychonauts. Ed Fries championed the project while he was at Microsoft, and unfortunately when he left, they were looking for games to cut, and Psychonauts got the axe. Double Fine had to hang on by their fingernails for a while until they could find a publisher who WOULDN'T want them to change just about everything "so the mainstream gets it." Thankfully Majesco picked them up, but had no idea what to do with it, so they released it to a blaze of no publicity at all. Not a great publisher-developer relationship, but on the plus side they didn't swoop in like "WE WANT RAZ TO BE ABLE TO KILL PEOPLE WITH LASER BRAIN POWERS NOW!" Double Fine obviously wasn't going to tolerate that shit, and their resolution on that very nearly put them out of business. Major props to Tim Schafer for many things, including sticking to his guns on that one.

If you're making something with a certain artistic bent that you're committed to and the person funding it runs in and demands that there be clowns involved, what can you do? You can attempt to put in that feature in a way that 1) somehow works and 2) satisfied the "money," but often you're not given that luxury - you don't have extra time or money to do it or you can't wedge it in with subtlety.

YES, art can work well within constraints. But often a money-based structure means that you have to make changes PURELY because of a business reason or some preference of a higher-up, irrespective of the needs and focus of the game itself. So I say YES, they can be art, but if you have someone screeching that a dreamlike, cerebral experience like, say - Ico - needs to have a bit with shooting or HAS to have titties in there somewhere, it becomes significantly goddamn harder to make it something good, let ALONE "artistic." That is my point.

Business and art aren't polar opposites. They just often don't coexist very well.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

So I say YES, they can be art, but if you have someone screeching that a dreamlike, cerebral experience like, say - Ico - needs to have a bit with shooting or HAS to have titties in there somewhere, it becomes significantly goddamn harder to make it something good, let ALONE "artistic." That is my point.

Business and art aren't polar opposites. They just often don't coexist very well.

So you claim the mere presence of boobs does not improve any game significantly?

 

[Vibalist]

So I say YES, they can be art, but if you have someone screeching that a dreamlike, cerebral experience like, say - Ico - needs to have a bit with shooting or HAS to have titties in there somewhere, it becomes significantly goddamn harder to make it something good, let ALONE "artistic." That is my point.

Business and art aren't polar opposites. They just often don't coexist very well.

So you claim the mere presence of boobs does not improve any game significantly?

What the hell is the matter with you, Annie?

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Eh, they could be moobs, or put on AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC CREATURE. Like a Sonic character. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT, CODEX, YOU BUNCH OF CLOSET FURRIES?!

(kidding. Sort of. But no, seriously, there are some places tits don't belong. I know it's hard to imagine, and you want to pretend like it's not true, but think about it - not all titties are inherently good. You know you've seen at least one pair that made you wince. THINK ABOUT IT. PULL THAT MEMORY OUT OF THE RECESSES IN YOUR BRAIN WHERE YOU HID IT AND SCREAM FOR A WHILE AS YOU REALIZE I AM RIGHT, OH YES, ANNIE IS SO RIGHT)

But you see my point, right? OK, let's say you're making a super sexy game, where tits are in it, and all of a sudden the publisher says NOOO, let's cover those bonochies, this game is now gonna be rated E-10. How angry would you get? Motherfucker got in the way of your art! And also your titties! OMFG and such! NOOO MY ART!

 

[Gragt]

Damn, I want titties now!