Posted on Leave a comment

Don’t Miss: Inside the development of Supergiant Games’ Hades

Ever since the release of Bastion of 2011, players and game developers alike have paid close attention to Supergiant’s projects, thanks to the studio’s unique sense of style and ability to execute on its game concepts.

During The Game Awards in December, Supergiant announced and immediately launched Hades — a new Early Access roguelike title first available on the new Epic Game Store. 

Right after launch, Hades creative director Greg Kasavin talked to us about the business and design decisions behind Hades over on the GDC Twitch channel.

Below are a few key highlights from the conversation that may help you evaluate both the state of the Epic Game store, and whether making an Early Access game is right for you.

Edited for length and clarity.

We’ve been really really happy with how [Early Access] has been going so far. Thankfully, even given the Early Access nature of the game, the initial technical challenges were pretty minimal, so everybody was, for the most part, able to get into the game and start playing.

The response we’ve been getting, we’re really really happy with. I will never ever take for granted having a group of our players actually like the stuff that we work on. I will never take that for granted. So every time we launch a game and our players say “hey this is cool, thank you for making this,” I wipe the sweat off my brow and I breathe a sigh of relief. That response has been really encouraging.

As for why Early Access, we conceived of that aspect of this game as part of the whole package right from the start. It was a high priority when thinking about what to make next after our last game, Pyre, came out last year. We were really interested in a game that we could like develop out in the open once it reached a certain point, and make it the best game it could be by gathering feedback along the way by building it in partnership with the community.

For us, it opened up so many possibilities, not just from a game design perspective, but also even from a narrative perspective. From my standpoint as the writer on our games, being able to work on a game whose story could unfold a little bit more serially instead having to put the entire thing in, beginning middle and end, right in that initial launch, [that was a new experience].

So we think of the Early Access launch almost as a sort of pilot episode of a series or something like that, where it’s a lot of setup, you meet a lot of the characters, and you figure out what the conflict is all about. But the resolution of the story is not all in the game yet and we’ll roll out new characters and more events in the story over the course of the Early Access period, along with just improving every other aspect of the game with any luck.

Yeah so a lot of it does tie back to the Early Access nature of the game, and that being like really key to the whole design from our perspective. So that meant that if we were going to develop this game out in the open for a while, and we expect Early Access to last for more than a year on this game from our initial launch, we need to be able to move on it really quickly. 

So we knew for sure that we weren’t going to launch Early Access on a whole bunch of different platforms at the same time. That would basically make it close to impossible for us to update the game in a timely fashion. Our team size is fewer than 20 people. Maybe there are some teams out there who are really effective at patching games on many different platforms all the same time, but that is not a skillset that we possess as a small team.

We felt that it was vital to be able to focus on a single version of the game until we get the game to a really good state and then during that process we can start to look at other platforms toward an eventual multiplatform launch. So that’s very much our plan. 

So as we were working on Hades we got in touch with the folks at Epic and started to learn about what they were working on with their store, and we became really excited for it. It just seemed like a really good fit given the experiment we were making and the experiment they were making.

One of the factors with Hades is that we want this game to be highly enjoyable to watch as well as to play. It’s a game designed around immediacy and replayability among other factors, and you get in there and hopefully start having fun with it, have a unique experience each time, and have the action be very readable if a friend is next to you or if you’re streaming it or something like that. 

Part of Epic’s focus with the store is to help enable streamers and YouTube content creators to essentially get a piece of the action. You’ve seen the Fortnite support-a-creator program, where creators basically just get compensated for their work. I think streamers and YouTube content creators have had such a significant and overall beneficial influence on games over the years that it’s really only fair that they should be able to benefit more from the incredibly hard work that they do. So on a personal level, that spoke to me, I think it spoke to other folks I work with, just as part of the priority that Epic was interested in. 

But anyway, that’s all stuff they can probably speak to better than I can, but those are just some of the reasons why it made sense for us to go conduct our Early Access experiment off to the side, because folks on other platforms who are familiar with our games are used to our games being 100 percent complete. We’ve said in the past that we really value the completeness of our games, so folks on other platforms one day will get the kind of experience that they are used to from us, and on the same timeline as we’ve delivered our games in the past.

Transistor and Pyre both took us about 3 years to make, we expect that Hades will be done on roughly that same timeline. So we figured if that’s the experience you’re accustomed to and the experience you want to have, nothing has changed. You’ll get to play our completed game hopefully wherever as many places we can support and make sense of once we’re out of Early Access. But for now it made sense to us to run Early Access on the Epic Games store.

I’m one of the people who helps formulate the ideas that we then pursue. And one of the things I look for as the highest priority is what is the overlap of preoccupations on the team. What do the most people here want to make the most passionately, and that’s the game we should make. So we started having, very soon after Pyre launched, like within a month, we started having many, many hours of conversations. 

And some themes started to emerge from that. One of the ideas I already spoke to was wanting to develop a concept that we could continue to build on after it was out there, a game idea that was extensible, and not just a one-and-done game similar to our last three games. So that was a high priority for us. And we were very intrigued by a design around replayability, kind of a, for lack of a better term, like a more modern design sensibility than maybe some of our previous games that have a more linear campaign structure. You finish them, hopefully they’ll stick with you forever on an emotional level, but they’re not necessarily games designed to be replayed many many times. We’re really drawn to making a game that felt very immediate, that you could pick up and play in short stretches or play as for long as you wanted and still have a compelling experience around that. 

And then we started thinking about what theme would align well with that. We thought about whether we want to revisit one of the worlds we’ve created in the past, because we love those worlds. While we’ve never returned to one of our past games, it’s not something we’re morally opposed to or anything like that. We just don’t want to do it unless the time and circumstances are right.

Given our other priorities, it felt like, once again, let’s make something new, let’s make something that really, really fits this set of design goals. We looked to Greek mythology in this case as a source. In one sense, it’s a well-worn theme for video games, but in another sense, something that we felt was both a perfect fit for what we were doing. In some ways it’s really unexplored.

As the person doing the writing, I was very drawn to a particular angle on Greek mythology. What I feel is often lost in the shuffle is that the gods are a big dysfunctional family that we can see ourselves in. I think part of the reason these characters have survived for thousands of years is because they relate so strongly to so many people and they relate not because they are gods but because they are human. So we wanted to explore some of that. It felt rich with potential for us, so yeah we started making it. 

So that’s a long answer, but yeah, we wanted to make a roguelike dungeon crawler where you defy the god of death. It felt exciting to us to figure out what that game was going to look like. We love playing roguelikes. We’ve been really inspired by some of the Early Access successes over the years. These games like Darkest Dungeon, Slay the Spire, and Dead Cells. Games that started off really strong, like from the moment you dropped your $20 on them, you knew that was money super well spent and then they only got better and better from there.

So we’re like, “oh man what if we could pull off something like that!” We felt that if we planned for it to be Early Access maybe that improves our chances of handling that kind of process properly.

I just wanna make games that feel fresh also, I really value games that feel like they have a kind of reason for being, that don’t just feel like they’re you know kind of the same as other games that are out there. But I think that what we’ve made has plenty of our dirty signature all over it and has our particular marks on it to make it feel distinct.

Hopefully she’s not watching this, but I think Jen Zee’s one of the greatest artists working in the industry and it’s a huge honor to be working with her. She reinvents her style on every single game we’ve worked on. She’s of course just one member of our team, though she does create the overall sense of style and the look and does all our wonderful character designs and everything. The work of Darren Korb our audio director who does all our music and contributes key voices to this game and all the sound effects, he is a man of many talents and of course his work has really helped our games always stand out over the years, and I think this game is no exception.

It’s always exciting to see what my colleagues will do on each new game, and I think for us that’s been part of the fun of kind of choosing a different theme and setting every single time.  

Depth in games I think works on many vectors. We aspire to have gameplay depth, and we aspire to have narrative depth, and hopefully the two together create an overall very rich experience. But I think you’re referring more to gameplay depth so let me speak to that. We really, really value in each of our designs for our past games, the sense that you can discover different successful playstyles as you go.

So we really favor designs that let you experiment, that give you the latitude to experiment and encourage you try different things and experiment with different tools within the context of the gameplay. And then just when you find what feels like a perfect combination — a very effective set of skills and tools and abilities and so on — maybe you get nudged into a new set of tools and abilities that is even better or maybe just different in an intriguing way. 

If you look to each of our previous games they’ve all done some version of that, but in the case of Hades I think it really synthesizes a lot of our best ideas from our previous games. In Bastion, there was this goal around immediacy, it was a game with very little preamble. You just pick it up and start playing and we wanted you to get right in there with Hades and just immediately figure the gameplay out.

It’s about making the most of a situation that you can’t entirely control in some cases. So we find that that kind of structure can make for gameplay that continues to be surprising and interesting over time, and defining enough overlapping systems that can interact with each other to where suddenly richness emerges from the play experience. And in our own playtesting, we find that we’re not having the same experience over and over, and we’re compelled to start new runs. That’s all stuff that we really look for. 

Our process has changed a lot in anticipation of this. A really key aspect of this whole game for us has been that we’ve just planned it more in general. And part of it is anticipating an Early Access launch. 

I hope this doesn’t sound too obnoxious as an analogy, but it almost felt like training for a marathon or something like that. We’ve basically moved internally to a monthly milestone cadence, so every month we have a milestone where we have certain goals, and the month is divided up into certain phases. At the beginning of a milestone is when we can make more major changes to the code and so on, and then we lock the code down and we can still make data changes, and fine tune things.

From my standpoint I can still be adding new narrative events or changing the voice over and stuff like that because that’s all part of a data-driven system and its not like fundamentally altering the code by me adding or subtracting events.

And then toward the end of the milestone, we’re then testing, bug fixing, polishing, making final changes to get everything ready. At the end of that, we playtest and kind of do it over. We’ve been working this way for a number of months now, knowing that basically once this game is out there we just keep doing that and those major updates become major updates that we’re committing ourselves to. If you quit out to the main menu you’ll see right there on the main menu it says when our next major update is coming. That basically is in line with our internal milestones.

So that really has been the biggest shift in our internal development. Whereas with a three-year project, our milestones at this point in the process would be much longer — probably spanning two-and-a-half or three months, and be somewhat more nebulous in nature I would say. I think in a word it’s a more disciplined approach that we’re taking, but we’ve always valued planning and production discipline at Supergiant. I think its been key to our success.

You’ve heard it from many developers, I’m sure, that finishing a project is really hard. It’s really hard to decide that it’s time to wrap it up and make those really tough choices about finishing your game. We’ve learned a lot about that over nearly 10 years that we’ve been working together as a team, and so this project puts that forward. Of course, it’s a little scary to commit to major updates on a regular basis, but we’ve been practicing at it and we think we can do, obviously.

Posted on Leave a comment

The BIG Royalty Free Music Bundle

Humble are running another bundle of interest to game developers, this one is the BIG Royalty-Free Music Bundle, a collection of “albums” containing game ready music in WAV and MP3 formats. The music is licensed in a way that enables you to distribute the music in your games, commercially or otherwise. As with all Humbles, this one is organized into tiers:

1$

  • Dark skies and other disasters
  • Haunted
  • The vanishing of Elisabeth Rose
  • Chronicles of the illusion world
  • Archives vol 1: the dark side

15$

  • Chuck kick ass
  • Shadows guild
  • The monster that lies within
  • Cult
  • Mindhunter
  • Forever and a day
  • Imagine
  • Archives vol 2: the love

25$

  • Chaos logic chaos the butterfly effect
  • The 29th planet
  • Black sails
  • Darkventures
  • Jotun
  • Pandemonium
  • Once upon a nightmare
  • Witchcraft
  • Slasher
  • The Lab
  • Dreamagination
  • Pixel: faster stronger harder
  • Superheroes

As with all Humble Bundles, you decide how the money is allocated, between Humble, Charity, the publisher and if you so choose (and thanks if you do!) to support GFS by purchasing with this link. You can learn more about the bundle in the video below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrN3zg8rQyA?feature=oembed&w=1500&h=844]
Posted on Leave a comment

The Last of Us Part II and Hades lead The Game Awards 2020 nominations

Nearly 100 games have been nominated for honors in this year’s The Game Awards showcase, an all-digital awards show scheduled to take place on December 10, 2020.

As with past years, The Game Awards sets out to highlight stand out games released over the last year, with a press release saying this year’s nominees represent games “that truly transformed entertainment, created camaraderie and community, and pushed the envelope on innovation.”

Animal Crossing: New Horizons, DOOM Eternal, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Ghost of Tsushima, Hades, and The Last of Us Part II are all in the running for Game of the Year, with all of those games snagging nominations across several other categories as well.

Two of those games lead nominations across all categories with 8 each, including GOTY nominations: The Last of Us Part II for Best Game Direction, Art Direction, Score and Music, Audio Design, Performance, and Innovation in Accessibility and Hades for Best Game Direction, Narrative, Art Direction, Score and Music, Performance, Indie, and Action.

Sony Interactive Entertainment snagged the most nominations for any one publisher this year as well, with 22 nominations in all. A press release notes that this is only one nomination behind Nintendo’s record 23 nominations from back in 2017.

A selection of other nominees can be found below, with a full list available at The Game Awards website

Game of the Year

  • Animal Crossing: New Horizons (Nintendo)
  • DOOM Eternal (id Software/Bethesda)
  • Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix)
  • Ghost of Tsushima (Sucker Punch/SIE)
  • Hades (Supergiant Games)
  • The Last of Us Part II (Naughty Dog/SIE)

Games for Impact

  • If Found… (DREAMFEEL/Annapurna Interactive)
  • Kentucky Route Zero: TV Edition (Cardboard Computer/Annapurna Interactive)
  • Spiritfarer (Thunder Lotus Games)
  • Tell Me Why (Dontnod Entertainment/Xbox Game Studios)
  • Through the Darkest of Times (Paintbucket Games)

Innovation in Accessibility

  • Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (Ubisoft Montreal/Ubisoft)
  • Grounded (Obsidian/Xbox Game Studios)
  • HyperDot (Tribe Games)
  • The Last of Us Part II (Naughty Dog/SIE)
  • Watch Dogs Legion (Ubisoft Toronto/Ubisoft)

Best VR/AR

  • Dreams (Media Molecule/SIE)
  • Half-Life: Alyx (Valve)
  • MARVEL’s Iron Man VR (Camoflaj/SIE)
  • STAR WARS: Squadrons (Motive Studios/EA)
  • The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners (Skydance Interactive)

Best Debut Game

  • Carrion (Phobia Game Studio/Devolver)
  • Mortal Shell (Cold Symmetry/Playstack)
  • Raji: An Ancient Epic (Nodding Heads Games)
  • Röki (Polygon Treehouse/CI Games)
  • Phasmophobia (Kinetic Games)

Best Game Direction

  • Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix)
  • Ghost of Tsushima (Sucker Punch/SIE)
  • Hades (Supergiant Games)
  • Half-Life: Alyx (Valve)
  • The Last of Us Part II (Naughty Dog/SIE)

Best Narrative

  • 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim (George Kamitani)
  • Final Fantasy VII Remake (Kazushige Nojima, Motomu Toriyama, Hiroki Iwaki, Sachie Hirano)
  • Ghost of Tsushima (Ian Ryan, Liz Albl, Patrick Downs, Jordan Lemos)
  • Hades (Greg Kasavin)
  • The Last of Us Part II (Neil Druckmann, Halley Gross)

Best Audio Design

  • DOOM Eternal (id Software/Bethesda)
  • Half-Life: Alyx (Valve)
  • Ghost of Tsushima (Sucker Punch/SIE)
  • Resident Evil 3 (Capcom)
  • The Last of Us Part 2 (Naughty Dog/SIE)

Best Score and Music

  • DOOM Eternal (Mick Gordon)
  • Final Fantasy VII Remake (Nobuo Uematsu, Masahi Hamauzu, Mitsuto Suzuki)
  • Hades (Darren Korb)
  • Ori and the Will of the Wisps (Gareth Coker)
  • The Last of Us Part II (Gustavo Santaolala, Mac Quale)

Best Ongoing

  • Apex Legends (Respawn/EA)
  • Destiny 2 (Bungie)
  • Call of Duty Warzone (Infinity Ward/Activision)
  • Fortnite (Epic Games)
  • No Man’s Sky (Hello Games)
Posted on Leave a comment

GDC Masterclass instructor Jason Della Rocca has some pitching advice for you

The art of the pitch is one of the most essential skills for folks who put the “business” in games business. One of the industry’s startup experts, Jason Della Rocca, will be teaching a class on the art of the pitch as part of GDC’s Masterclass program this December.

Della Rocca’s a giving kind of guy, and wants developers everywhere to arm themselves as best they can when going into the pitch room. That’s why he worked with us this week to prepare a short lesson for you on how you can improve your pitching prowess.

For your benefit here is a brief Q&A with Della Rocca about improving your pitch, asked from the perspective of a developer who may be in the same position you find yourself in: being confident in the game you’re making, but trying to make sure you can sell it to prospective business partners.

Hey Jason! I’m the studio head at a small developer prepping our pitch for publishers for our next game. We had some success with a small indie title, and now we’re excited to be partnering with a veteran animator to create a unique look for our next game.

We think we’ve done a good job arranging our pitch materials and figuring out the sellable aspects of our game (your GDC talks have been super helpful), but we’re still trying to anticipate what other goals our prospective publishers would be looking out for.

What do you think we can do to better understand the folks we’re going out to pitches with in the next few months?

Fundamentally, publishers are trying to assess three major things from your pitch:
1) Is this game “awesome” and what is its commercial potential?
2) Is this the right team to create this game roughly on time and on budget?
3) Does this game align with our “style” as a publisher and our ability to be a good partner (ie, will our existing fans enjoy it, does it match our budget range, etc)?

When most developers build their pitch, they seem to only ever focus on the “is my game awesome” part. While you most definitely need to accomplish that, you need to cover the marketability and the competitive landscape in the pitch. For the pragmatics around execution, your pitch deck needs to include timeline, high level budget info, and info around the team. This gives confidence to publishers that you know what you are doing and can deliver.

For the last part around style and partnership suitability, that’s where research will pay off. Don’t pitch a kid’s game to Devolver. Only pitch strategy games to Paradox. Don’t bother mobile publishers with your Steam game pitch. And so on. You should start a spreadsheet to track all your publisher targets. Look at the portfolio of games on their website and imagine if your game belongs on the list (or not). Dig around on Steam and look up games with a similar theme/genre as you, and see who is publishing those games.. then check the “more games like this” section and look up those games.

The more targeted you are with your pitch, the more it will resonate.

Thanks Jason, that helps us out a lot. I wanted to ask, when we’re looking at some publisher’s portfolio’s (like Annapurna, for instance), we see some games that don’t quite fit the mold of the rest of their titles.

At what point do you think it’s worth it for a developer to “break the rules” in pitching, and take a chance on what may seem like an unconventional relationship?

Ok, ok, sure, there are always exceptions. Does Fall Guys look like a typical Devolver game? Still not sure I’d bother pitching anything other than a strategy game to Paradox, or a racing game to Codemasters. Of course, not all publishers have such a narrow curation on their portfolio.

But, part of targeting a specific publisher with a distinct style/genre/category is to leverage audience alignment. And, a big part of the justification for working with a publisher is that they can bring eyeballs to your game. This is much more of an obvious win if Paradox is bringing your cool new strategy game to their fans, who are ravenous for strategy games.

So, fine, maybe you convince a publisher to take a gamble on your game even though it is way outside their wheelhouse. I’d view the risk you take in working with a publisher that doesn’t have the “right” fans for your game as the much bigger gamble!

In the end, it doesn’t hurt to add everyone to your tracking sheet and prioritize them based on “perceived fit potential”.

Thanks Jason! Looking forward to your class!

If these are the kinds of questions you’re looking for answers to, register now for Della Rocca’s GDC Masterclass before seats are all gone!

Gamasutra and GDC are sibling organizations under Informa Tech.

Posted on Leave a comment

Win a free copy of dungeon-crawling shop-management game, Moonlighter!

We love a good dungeon-crawler, hacking and slashing our way through room after room packed with horrifying monsters. But it’s nice to have a break, too, and sit back with something a little more homely. We’re talking games like Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley that have a warm, comforting simplicity. Well, what if we told you there’s a game that has the best of both worlds? And what if we told you we were running a giveaway for that game this week…

Moonlighter is a dungeon-crawler/shop-keeping game where you play as Will, a merchant-turned-hero trying to keep his grandfather’s shop alive. In the game, you delve the dungeon, killing monsters and bosses, and then sell the loot you find in your shop, using the money to revitalise your hometown of Rynoka. It’s a really fantastic formula – read our Moonlighter review for more details!

The game originally launched on PC to much critical acclaim, and is coming to iOS on November 19. Lucky for you, we’ve got some copies for this week’s giveaway, so sign up down below if this sounds like you.

In order to enter, simply fill out the box below, though please have a look at our terms and conditions first.

ios

Moonlighter iOS giveaway

If you can’t wait to play Moonlighter for yourself, you can purchase the game on the App Store from tomorrow. We’ll send the codes out to the lucky winners next Thursday, so keep an eye on your inbox!

Posted on Leave a comment

Video: Lessons in developing functional artificial intelligence using VR

In this 2019 XRDC session, NVIDIA’s Omer Shapira discusses lessons learned in three years of developing human-robot collaboration using virtual reality.

In addition to this presentation, the GDC Vault and its accompanying YouTube channel offers numerous other free videos, audio recordings, and slides from many of the recent Game Developers Conference events, and the service offers even more members-only content for GDC Vault subscribers.

Those who purchased All Access passes to recent events like GDC already have full access to GDC Vault, and interested parties can apply for the individual subscription via a GDC Vault subscription page. Group subscriptions are also available: game-related schools and development studios who sign up for GDC Vault Studio Subscriptions can receive access for their entire office or company by contacting staff via the GDC Vault group subscription page. Finally, current subscribers with access issues can contact GDC Vault technical support.

Posted on Leave a comment

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla debuts with record launch week sales for the franchise

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla‘s launch has made the biggest splash sales-wise of any Assassin’s Creed game in the series’ 13 year history.

Ubisoft confirmed today that the latest game, which launched for PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X|S, PC, Stadia, and Luna on November 10, has sold through more copies in its first seven days than any previous Assassin’s Creed title at launch.

Building on that, Ubisoft also says that Assassin’s Creed Valhalla now holds the title of its biggest-ever PC launch across all of Ubisoft’s games on the platform. Notably, that PC launch saw Valhalla go up for sale on both Ubisoft’s own Ubisoft Store as well as the Epic Games Store.

“We are truly delighted by the enthusiastic response from players and want to thank the fans for their incredible support,” reads a statement from Julien Laferrière, a producer on Assassin’s Creed Valhalla.

“Delivering this game amid a global pandemic was a true tour de force by our teams and it’s fantastic to see players enjoying the game so much. Launch is only the beginning and we have robust content plans for Assassin’s Creed Valhalla that will keep players immersed in their epic Viking saga for a long time to come.” 

Posted on Leave a comment

Submissions are now open for GDC 2021 Core Concepts talks

Informa Tech, the organizers of the Game Developers Conference (GDC) 2021, are now accepting submissions to present lectures, roundtables, and panels for the Core Concepts section of the event, spanning Wednesday through Friday of GDC week.

The organizers of GDC 2021 would like prospective speakers to know that it is their goal to hold a safe and productive conference, and are taking comprehensive steps to ensure that is the case. As the first in-person/virtual hybrid GDC, speakers now have the opportunity to pitch remote presentations in addition to the traditional in-person format.

Proposals will be open from now until December 16 at 11:59PM PT. GDC 2021 will be the 35th edition of the conference, and is set to take place as a hybrid event, both physically at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, July 19 – 23, 2021 and alongside a robust virtual offering.

For the 35th edition of GDC, organizers are looking for Core Concepts topics for Wednesday through Friday of the show across these disciplines:

  • Advocacy
  • Audio
  • Business & Marketing
  • Design
  • Production & Team Management
  • Programming
  • Visual Arts

For developers looking to discuss other topics, Summit submissions will open at the beginning of the new year. Summits cover content on Monday and Tuesday, and include the Indie Games Summit, the Narrative Design Summit, the AI Summit, and more. Submissions for GDC Summits, VRDC, and Game Career Seminar will open on January 12.

Those looking to submit Core content should first review the submission guidelines and track topics prior to submitting. They should also know that the submission process is divided into a three-phase system:

  • Phase I – open call for submissions and initial advisory board review
  • Phase II – submission declines, acceptances or conditional Phase 2 acceptances sent, pending the submission of additional requested materials for advisory board review
  • Phase III – review of Phase 2 resubmissions and final acceptances and declines sent

The GDC Advisory Board will review and determine submissions based on the criteria of concept, depth, organization, credentials and takeaway. GDC organizers aim to achieve diversity of voice, experience and perspective. When considering who would be best to speak on behalf of your company or department, it is strongly encouraged to take this goal into consideration.

For more details on the submission process or GDC 2021 in general visit the show’s official website, or subscribe to regular updates via Facebook or Twitter. The GDC Vault website – www.gdcvault.com – offers access to a wide variety of free past GDC  slides & session videos, and GDC All Access Pass holders and individual Vault subscribers get access to hundreds of video content from this and previous GDC event.

GDC and Gamasutra are sibling organizations under Informa Tech.

Posted on Leave a comment

Unity Super Sale On Now Until Dec 4th

Unity are running their annual Super Sale just in time for Black Friday, with 700+ assets 50% off as well as daily specials that are 70%+ off. Additionally if you purchase Unity pro or Unity Enterprise, you currently get an additional license, such as Unity Build, MARS, ArtEngine, Reflect or Pixyz, a heck of a deal if you were going to get a pro subscription anyways!

The daily deals are as follows:

The above items are only for sale on the date listed, so if you click a link on any other day you will see regular pricing. All of the above links contain an affiliate code that pays GFS a small commission if used (and thanks if you do!). You can learn more about the sale in the video below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLcCN9IpRH4?feature=oembed&w=1500&h=844]
Posted on Leave a comment

Don’t Miss: Bad crediting hurts the game industry and muddles history

You’d think that game credits would be simple.

It’s just a list of names and roles, after all. How hard can that be to get right?

But credits are rarely simple, because neither is game development. And yet credits are an invaluable, underappreciated aspect of game making.

They’re our best — and often only — record of the human labor that goes into game development, serving not only as a reminder that games are made by people — sometimes lots of them — but also as a tool for developers to advance their careers.

For studios, crediting can be a tool for leverage; amid the recent furor over Rockstar’s bad labor practices, for example, we were reminded that the studio has long maintained a policy of not crediting people who worked on a game unless they were present when it shipped, to encourage the team “to get to the finish line.” 

For historians and journalists, meanwhile, they’re a way to begin to peel back the layers. To uncover the stories of the people and companies behind the games.

Despite their importance, however, it’s not unusual for the credits published with games to be inaccurate, incomplete, overly vague, or even (on rare occasions) downright misleading. This is a problem with many causes, but one of the big reasons, Fun Bits CEO Chris Millar told me in an interview earlier this year, is simply that credits in games aren’t standardized.

“While they’re much better than they used to be we’re still not anywhere near the movie industry,” he said, “in terms of giving people credit for all of their work on creative endeavors.” 

Indeed, the IGDA published the last version of its crediting guidelines back in 2014 — after multiple high-profile instances of bad crediting in the decade before, including an entire team of 55 people being wiped off the credits for Manhunt 2, and a years-long discussion about the importance of credit standards. But those guidelines are hard to find and with no union agreements in place they’re for publishers to follow (or not) at their own discretion — provided they’re even aware that the guidelines exist.

 

“[Atari not crediting game makers] was an attempt to dis-empower designers by removing the bargaining power associated with explicit authorship.”

In order to get a proper understanding of how credits can help, hinder, contort, and otherwise affect games history and archiving, and to start to puzzle out how much of a difference credits standardization would actually make, I asked four historians and a few developers about the issue. Their stories reveal a complex relationship between labor, authorship, ownership, and recognition in game development throughout the history of the medium — and no doubt long into the future.

A (flawed) record of authorship

“The fact that credits exist in games reflects human concerns about authorship and ownership with regard to creative production,” notes Laine Nooney, an assistant professor of media industries at NYU Steinhardt who has spent years researching and writing about the history of Sierra On-Line. The role of credits is to provide a factual record of this creative production but, as Nooney argues, they are also political.

“When Atari management made it policy to not list designers’ names on their games, this was an attempt to dis-empower designers by removing the bargaining power associated with explicit authorship,” she explains. It backfired. Warren Robinett hid his name in a secret room in 1978 Atari VCS game Adventure, and five other star programmers soon left in protest of the policy to start Activision — ironically taking power away from Atari as a result.

Warren Robinett’s famous hidden credit room, tucked away in Adventure

Games historian Jimmy Maher, who runs the Digital Antiquarian blog, points to other examples: “Radio Shack was also notorious for refusing to credit the people who made the TRS-80 games they carried in their stores,” he says. “Even at a progressive publisher like Infocom, there was a lot of debate over whether and to what extent the authors of the games should be highlighted, as opposed to the Infocom brand and the so-called ‘matrix’ of genres and difficulty levels.” 

Some, Maher explains, thought their names should be on the box. Others “really couldn’t care less, and just wanted to make the Infocom brand successful.”

The historical relationship between credits and branding gets more intriguing as you dig deeper. MicroProse head Wild Bill Stealey — acting on a comment by the late comedian/actor Robin Williams about the games industry lacking recognizable stars — was responsible for Sid Meier’s name becoming a branding tool. The Sid Meier’s prefix soon came to decorate not only the titles of games that the Civilization designer led creatively but also the ones that he barely more than consulted on. 

Maher adds that Origin’s Worlds of Ultima: The Savage Empire similarly included Richard Garriott’s name in the credits as an executive producer “despite having absolutely nothing to do with the game that I could discern.” (And meanwhile Warren Spector was left off the credits despite reportedly creating the concept, setting, and plot outline for the game.)

Politics gets in the way

Credits can be as much a reflection of internal politics as they are of actual project and company roles. While this gives historians interesting threads to explore, they must first become aware of which names are omitted or included because of politics.

This can result in history vanishing, as in the case of Arthur Abraham, who developed the prototype scripting language and game logic for Sierra’s King’s Quest and what would become the Adventure Game Interpreter (AGI) engine. “Abraham was fired part way through the development of King’s Quest,” explains Nooney, “and his name was left out of the credits of every King’s Quest port (with the exception of the Apple IIe version), as well as every future Sierra release that used AGI.”

Because of this, it took several interviews and extensive archival research, spread across several years, for Nooney to discern that Abraham was a key figure in AGI’s development. “He died in prison before I could make an attempt to contact him,” she continues. “Had I known at the start that he was foundational to AGI, I might have been able to correspond with him earlier and shed some light on the development of King’s Quest — a game which is shrouded in misinformation about its development.”

Many publishers have (or had) set policies of not crediting developers for their role on a project if they leave before it ships. I learned while conducting interviews for an Assassin’s Creed oral history at Polygon, for instance, that several people who appeared in the credits under the title “additional” were in fact core team members who left before the game’s four-year development concluded. Starcraft‘s original designer Ron Millar was similarly relegated to “special thanks” in the game’s credits when he left to join Activision (which ironically now owns the entire company) while it was in testing.

Sometimes entire studios go uncredited for their work on a game. Games journalist and author of the Untold History of Japanese Game Developers book series John Szczepaniak notes that Namco does not allow anybody in Japan to disclose the names of staff who worked on any of its games. (Szczepaniak, however, has nothing preventing him from sharing those names outside Japan, and as such he has obtained a spreadsheet listing credits for the Pac-Land arcade game.) The original Castlevania was likewise published without credits, he adds. After extensive investigation, the best Szczepaniak and his colleagues can gather is that the main creator was Hitoshi Akamatsu — who they’ve been unable to contact.

Meanwhile, the practice of “white label” outsourcing — whereby companies are contractually-bound to keep quiet about their work on a game — has been around for decades. One Japanese studio, TOSE, reportedly works on 30 to 50 games per year and only receives credit for a handful of those (curiously, this only happens at the request of their clients — they have business reasons to want to stay anonymous).

[embedded content]

A clip of the Castlevania credits

Szczepaniak, who wrote about this world of “ghost developers” like TOSE for The Escapist back in 2006, believes there should be some sort of international regulatory body preventing this from happening. “Every staff member should be credited for their work,” he argues.

Even tiny indie and amateur games can wind up with names omitted entirely. “For small independent games, like fangames or freeware, one of the most difficult things is a total lack of credits,” says Phil Salvador, a librarian and digital archivist who runs a blog about little-known and forgotten games called The Obscuritory.

“Sometimes developers will only go by a pseudonym or a company name, or they’ll intentionally leave their name off. That’s an understandable problem without much of a fix. Not everyone wants to use their real name on all their work or to be associated with a weird game they threw together when they were 14.”

But when they do this — whether we’re talking commercial efforts made by professionals or non-commercial games by amateurs and hobbyists — they also cause a huge headache for historians, who might want to learn more about how/when/why a game was made or to build up a more complete catalog of games released. “Even minimal credits can be helpful for asking around and starting the research process,” notes Salvador. “With the companies often gone and their records presumably lost, anyone listed in a game’s credits is a potentially helpful source.”

Lost in translation

If it seems like a tough challenge to use credits as a jumping-off point to uncovering more of the history behind Western-developed games, spare a thought for the people digging into the Japanese industry. “You cannot even begin to imagine the Herculean task of disentangling Japanese credit listings,” says Szczepaniak. “And once you find a thread and follow it down the rabbit hole, you just bring up more questions than answers.”

 

“Naoto Ohshima said Sega wouldn’t allow staff to attribute their real name since it meant Sega had a stronger hold over the rights to any work created in-house.”

Like the other historians interviewed for this article (and in my anecdotal experience, nearly everyone else), Szczepaniak uses MobyGames as a key reference guide for checking game and individual developer credits. He says its quick cross-referencing capabilities are invaluable for research, and it’s been making great strides with both listing kanji for Japanese names and disentangling different people with the same name.

But it’s an incredibly complex problem. Any fully-accurate staff crediting system for Japanese games, Szczepaniak argues, needs to have support for native kanji, phonetic hiragana and furigana (phonetic symbols that appear above kanji), and correct romanizations of these symbols, plus a means of differentiating between first and family names (in his book, Szczepaniak chose to put surnames in ALL CAPS) — as Japanese convention puts the surname first whereas Western convention is to put it last, but neither culture is always consistent.​

Szczepaniak points to Naoto Ohshima as an example of problems with naming conventions. “There’s actually three people with the same phonetically pronounced name, all in the games industry, who all worked on different series at different companies,” he explains. “The Sega guy [who designed Sonic], another at ASCII who worked on the Wizardry series, and a graphics guy at Konami who worked on Silent Hill. And for a very long time a lot of websites mixed up the Sega and Konami, thinking they were the same person.”

Even Sega-16, one of the leading sources on all things Sega. This then had knock-on consequences. The misattribution spread to Wikipedia and then across the Internet.

“This misattribution is due to lack of consistency with regards to listing kanji for non-English names,” says Szczepaniak. “All three men have the same phonetic name, ‘Naoto Ohshima,’ but the OHSHIMA part uses different kanji for each of them — that is, different Japanese symbols, which have different pictographic meanings, but all sound exactly the same.”

It gets more confusing. “This problem can also be inverted, with different people having exactly the same kanji symbols, but in each case using a different phonetic pronunciation,” says Szczepaniak. Shigeru Miyamoto, for instance, was miscredited as Shigeru Miyahon in early NES games. And Szczepaniak adds that even Japanese people find this pronunciation issue confusing — to the point where many business cards use hiragana to explicitly state the pronunciation of someone’s name, and at least one developer, Masatoshi Mitori of Human Entertainment, asks that the kanji for his surname not be listed because his family name uses archaic symbols that nobody recognizes.

Then you have the lack of gendered pronouns in Japanese conversation, which means interviews that mention a colleague named “Suzuki-san” could be referring to a man or a woman with the surname Suzuki — and if it’s an archived interview then you can’t necessarily just ask for clarification. As if that wasn’t enough complexity, Japanese credits also have sometimes had nicknames in lieu of real names in them.

Szczepaniak explains that this was not always a case of programmers trying to be cool. Sometimes the publisher ordered it. “Sega was especially notorious for this, and Tecmo as well,” he says. “The reason was to ‘prevent headhunting,’ since companies were terrified that skilled programmers would be snatched up by rivals, and also to prevent later copyright claims for work they had done. Naoto Ohshima said Sega wouldn’t allow staff to attribute their real name since it meant Sega had a stronger hold over the rights to any work created in-house.”

The failure of credits

The reality is that credits, even as a snapshot, could never properly encapsulate the messiness of games history — the complicated power dynamics that form within companies and teams and between individuals, as well as the collaborative nature of the medium and the vast formal and informal support structures that lie beneath each company and project. 

Roles are often fluid or informal. One person might start out on programming but finish as a writer or composer, or something else. When I was researching my book, The Secret History of Mac Gaming, I learned that the final design of the very first Mac game, Alice aka Through the Looking Glass, owed as much to the informal requests and complaints of Macintosh marketing rep Joanna Hoffman (who was the best player in the office) as to the work of its creator Steve Capps.

Similarly, Salvador gives an example where the de facto director of 1994 game Millennium Auction “was actually the company’s vice president of business development, and they only received special thanks in the credits.” 

Millennium Auction in action

Nooney says that informal cross-pollination of roles was common at Sierra, too, whereby people with specific titles pitched in with work on other aspects of a game but weren’t credited for that additional labor due to interpersonal politics.

This can go both ways. People might get a “thanks” credit for non-development labor, or perhaps benefit from a role title that oversells their actual contribution, then try to leverage that to get ahead in their career. Veteran developer Noah Falstein has come across the full spectrum of crediting issues during his 30-plus years in games, and he says he even once received a resumé from someone who said they’d worked on Sinistar — an arcade game project led and co-designed by Falstein.

“I didn’t recognize his name,” says Falstein. “I asked others I knew who had been at the company at the time, and it turned out he had helped load the games onto trucks, so technically it was correct, but had nothing to do with the role he was applying for.”

The truth of the matter is as Maher says, sadly, that because of their inconsistencies and lack of standardization across the breadth of games history, credits must be looked at skeptically. They are a wonderful resource, no matter what, but their failures to properly document the history of labor perhaps reveal a need for something more than just credits as a high-level document record.

“It would certainly be interesting, and helpful for future historians, for companies to credit the entirety of their staff,” says Nooney. “But I think a more provocative way to think about this issue is to recognize the limitations of the ‘authorship model’ as a basis for historical research on games. What else is worth knowing about the game industry beside who worked on a game?”

For Nooney — and indeed for anyone else doing macro-level histories of the different parts of the industry — internal organizational charts are often more valuable than credits because they provide insight into company-wide power relations. More valuable still, she says, is documentation of large corporate or economic events such as mergers, buyouts, layoffs, key hiring decisions that trigger internal re-organization, stock market crashes, and IPOs.

“We tend to miss this critical historical phenomena when we look at the game as our primary source of knowledge about the industry,” she concludes.

In short: Credits matter, and we need to get them right, but if we want to have a good understanding of the history of this medium, and the industries built around it, they’re actually just the tip of the iceberg. We need to do better, across the board, at documenting how we make and sell games.