To Game or Not To Game
Playing through Mass Effect has been an amazing experience. But not just in the obvious way. Oh sure, it’s an absolutely amazing game, it does just about everything right in my book; there’s a bar-shaped hole in the ceiling of my house.
I’ve realized something else, too. First, a little backstory; I beg your pardon, those of you who’ve heard this before. When Male Restroom Etiquette exploded on the scene, surprising all of us, some really amazing opportunities emerged. Three different North American cable television networks wanted to broadcast the film; MTV wanted to feature a clip (and somehow did); a movie theater management company wanted to include the film in their before-the-feature preview roll; and the crown jewel… The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, for decades a much-craved outlet for launching comedy careers, wanted to feature part of the film and have Jay comment on it.
Other than the MTV clip, which I still don’t know how it materialized, Electronic Arts - publisher of The Sims 2 game used to make the film - refused permission to air the film in these venues. They refused even NBC Television, the host network of The Tonight Show. And I, having chosen to make my film with their game’s intellectual property, was absolutely powerless to do anything about it. After all, if frickin’ NBC couldn’t get a Yes, what would make me think that they’d ever listen to little ol’ me?
Video games broke my heart when that happened. And I reacted like the jilted lover, resolved to never trust them again, released several “protest films” like [COMPANY] Rulez! and the Ad Absurdum series, and began to extol the virtues of IP freedom to everyone I knew.
I regret none of this reaction, and still feel wholly justified. But Mass Effect has made me realize something… I’ve steadfastly refused to fall in love with another video game since that heartbreak, so the decision to avoid them was relatively easy, in spite of the hardships of starting from scratch.
Mass Effect has seduced me. I’m in love with a video game again. And rebound relationship or no, it changes things.
I remember when Hugh Hancock had said using video games - in spite of the IP issues - was a good idea for building audience. The jilted lover in me desperately wanted to hate that idea, even though part of me couldn’t help but admit that it was an inspired notion that made a lot of sense. Now I find myself coming back to it.
That’s because Mass Effect is inspiring me with ideas. You’ll see one of the simpler ones this Friday when “So I Ran Over a Monkey” premieres (trailer here)… but I’ve also hit upon a savory idea for a little comedy series, not mixed media but wholly machinima, which is essentially and unashamedly a “user remix” of Mass Effect. And I find myself grappling with a bit of a “Why not?”
I could create the series idea using IP-free tools; it would take a lot longer to get done, would force me to delay other plans for this year, but it’s achievable. But this is one of those ideas that part of its very magic is in the repurposing of settings and characters that will have familiarity for players of the game, and I think it will be much more effective and entertaining as such, even though the idea is solid enough to stand on its own and do pretty well.
Now naturally, some of my fellow purists are going to remind me of the heartbreak lessons. If I were to use a video game world to tell my story, my options down the road are inherently limited, and that situation does not look like it’s going to change any time soon. So why invest the time and energy into something when I won’t have a chance of reaping any of the perks of ownership?
Here’s my thinking, and you tell me if this is rational or not. I fully buy into the Lessig-borne model where Creative Commons can be a strategic component of a “business” approach. Charles Stross does it; Trent Reznor’s doing it; Rooster Teeth does it too. You give away some product for free, and offer “premium” products and benefits to the fanbase that grows out of that free exposure.
Well I’m not offering ANY premium product (i.e. for a price) at this point, but I’m trying to lay the groundwork for that eventual possibility. That groundwork is the free content, giving as many people as possible the opportunity to freely sample my wares, hoping that some fraction of those samplers will be enthusiastic enough about what I create to one day support me with a purchase of some kind. A purchase that will fund more movies, moving toward this beast being able to feed itself a bit. I feel very good about the slow and steady progress with which that subscriber base is growing.
So to reiterate, central to the model is a base of free (non-commercial) content, available to everyone who is interested in taking a look or listen.
The question I’m wrestling with right now is, if that base of free content is an essential part of my strategy - and I think it IS - and that content is, by definition, non-commericial in nature, not intended to generate revenue in any way other than to get more eyes on what I make… then Why Not Game-Based Machinima for that content?
Certainly, a movie made with a game stands just as great a chance of abject failure as one made with indie tools… but if an idea comes along that I’m comfortable making part of the body of my freely available content, and that idea could potentially benefit greatly in some way from being made in a game world… well, why not?
Some might call this a cop out, I don’t know. I don’t see it that way. I think I’m just coming to an understanding of what Hugh might have been talking about, an understanding of how - in a specific context - original gangsta machinima might actually work very well in a larger strategy of audience-building. In this context, where expectations are realistic and limits are pre-understood, game-based machinima can work. And as long as you stay within those limits that elusive game company explicit seal of approval is no longer a big issue.
In a way, it’s using game-based machinima to the same kind of benefit that we’ve always argued it provides to the game companies: free advertising for a product they hope you’ll be motivated to buy. I don’t mean actual direct advertising, of course. If I make a G-Mod film advertising the sale of my Moviestorm film, that’s commercial use. I’m talking about indirect advertising, the same that virtually all machinima provides for the game without ever hawking the game.
Yes, there’s always the possibility that a game company could step in and stamp out even a wholly non-commercial piece of user machinima… but I think increased restrictions are as unlikely to occur right now as are decreased restrictions. And even if that did happen, it’s not quite the rug-pulled-out-from-under-you kind of event that it would be if you were building your magnum opus in a game and hoping against hope that the game company will be so charmed by your work as to come around. You’re saving your magnum opus work for the liberated tools, so the worst case scenario is that they could step in and squash a minor work you invested a bit of time in. Irritating and inconvenient? Yes. Devastating and heartbreaking? No.
So what do you think? Is this a sound way of looking at it, or not?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment... or, take it to the forum (click here)
I might have some things to say on this later… but what I will say now is that I HEAR YA and I’m wrestling with some of the same issues myself this very second. You are not alone –if that does anything for ya, my friend.
Comment by Zuckerman — June 30, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Yep, that was pretty much what I was talking about.
Game-based Machinima work has a very specific set of restrictions. If you’re aware of them in advance, you can make an informed decision about whether to use it.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — June 30, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
On a related note, and since the above sounded a bit brusque (it’s a bit late over here) - my god, I can’t imagine how much EA’s treatment of you must have sucked. That must have felt absolutely horrible.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — June 30, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Do it.
Comment by bllius — June 30, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
It is a battle that many of us have almost every day, or at least when new good looking game comes out. Things is, I think that battle have only one possible outcome, only one winner: the one who decide to not use games.
We talk a lot about this here - you wrote a lot about this here - so there is no point to go further then that first, simple step: do you want to own your movies or not.
Do you want to be master of your own universe or not, even if this universe is shrinking without game audience?
We can talk all day about strategies, arts, history or numbers of both, but are you OK that somebody somewhere have a power over all your passion, feelings, brain, craft, Blood, Sweat & Tears?
Yes? Then everything is fine. In some convenient moment you can even say “don’t blame me, blame the engine”.
No? Then build everything on one of the most brilliant brain I ever saw, this one between your crafted ears of Master and make your own universe.
Me the Poet
Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 1:35 am
I’m not convinced that the audience you could create with game machinima will transfer to your other work. ‘I want to do this because it is fun’ is a different argument.
Comment by Kate — July 1, 2008 @ 3:06 am
Kate’s got a point there regarding audience. I know I don’t care too much about Roosterteeth’s endeavors in other games. I’m personally a Halo nut so for me it’s Red vs. Blue all the way. I’m honestly not that interested in what else they may be working on, as horrible as that sounds (and that does sound bad to me). An audience that is adamant about Mass Effect machinima would likely find a Mass Effect parody / satire awesome but may not find the same sort of humor funny outside of that game. Switching gears to a different (profitable) filming environment could lose people, which makes it kind of a catch-22 I think.
If I’m not mistaken, Mass Effect is published by Microsoft Game Studios. I used to have it for 360 so I can confirm that it is, but wikipedia says it’s published by EA for PC. If it is published by MGS you’ll have to navigate those rules we became so familiar with. The third clause half-way through the rules page says: “That means you can’t… post it on a site that requires subscription or other fees…” So if the PC version IS published by EA then I think you’re in the clear… as ironic as that is. Hugh was dead on about that - that must have sucked. I remember that EA burned you but god I had no idea that it was to THAT extent.
I think that kind of model you have in mind is a generous one. Nine Inch Nails has made it work for me with its “here’s the music for free, come see us in concert” approach. Roosterteeth has made it work with their subscribers model too. Whatever you do, we’re behind you man. Kick ass.
Comment by kradproductions — July 1, 2008 @ 4:55 am
Interesting debate. I’m all in favour of pragmatism, so if the easiest or most suitable engine to create your “free” content with (as opposed to your eventual premium content) is a rights-limited game engine, then maybe that’s the thing to go with.
Tom’s right to sound a note of caution though. If you choose a rights-limited engine, then the rights owners can theoretically pull your free content whenever they choose, whether you’re making direct commercial exploitation or not. As you saw yourself with MRE, you can’t always predict which bits of your artistic output are going to take off like wildfire and which are going to have only a lukewarm reaction. If the quickly-knocked together trailer for your big ambitious project hits the front page of YouTube, you might just find yourself in the same situation again.
That’s a pretty pessimistic view, in fairness. Hugh’s comment
“Game-based Machinima work has a very specific set of restrictions. If you’re aware of them in advance, you can make an informed decision about whether to use it.”
is a fair one, and I do believe that there are circumstances under which game-based tools can be exactly what you need.
I’ll think long and hard before I choose a right-limited platform for a project. That doesn’t mean I’ll never do it, but it does mean that I’d be very reluctant to do so.
Comment by Johnnie Ingram — July 1, 2008 @ 6:39 am
Tom’s viewpoint is indeed poetic. The plight of the true artist.
But if we make a movie ‘just for fun’ then what’s the harm in using a game engine?
Comment by Russell — July 1, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Yes, my tendency to go melodramatic never left me down. Things is, I am in battle with urge of using game every now and then (GTA4 will be tough and with Mafia2 I’m loosing for sure) and to become anti game fundamentalist is a way I MUST go.
Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 8:16 am
All good points; Russell’s is an interesting and thought provoking one, indeed.
I tend to think skills are skills (either you have them or you don’t), and you should use the engine/platform that allows you to BEST display them. To me, this is especially true if, in the long run, you’re primarily interested in “selling” your ability to make a film. You probably don’t want to use a program/game - with or without end-ownership - that’s going to be really limiting and/or require a ton of extra time modifying.
I’m with you, Phil - why not build your machinima “resume” with as much GREAT content as you can with the engines that MOST EASILY facilitate the end look/feel you’re going for? When you finally DO get paid for your work (and I have no doubt it’ll happen), maybe then you can pay to use the tool(s) that will allow you to own the end result. What’s more, you can always build up your body of work and skill-set with ‘fun’ projects and save your most potentially commercial ideas for the time when the machinima tool of your dreams (MovieStorm??!!) is ready for major productions.
Comment by febe films — July 1, 2008 @ 8:31 am
febe films wrote -
“maybe then you can pay to use the tool(s) that will allow you to own the end result.”
@11 - I don’t think it’s really a question of price, or an unwillingness to pay for commercial tools. It’s simply about which engine is easiest and most suited to the current project. Many rights-enabled tools are free to use, at least for the basic version (Second Life, Moviestorm, Blender, etc), which technically makes them cheaper than rights-limited games engines (for which one will have to buy at least one copy of the game).
Comment by Johnnie Ingram — July 1, 2008 @ 9:28 am
My philosophy is just do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. If you want to make a good movie, then the Quality of the film should override it’s marketability. If you can get better results with commercial game engines, then use em. It shouldn’t be like , “well I can use moviestorm and make money” it should be like “well I can use X engine and make a Better looking film”. Quality first.
Comment by Zach — July 1, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
“Quality first”.
I agree absolutely. Just… it is easy to forget that Quality and Good Looks are not the same. Better results are not better looking results and so on.
I know we all know that, just something to have in mind.
Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
well. arguably Visuals are Half the film. Film is visual storytelling. If you’re not Busting ass on the visuals, then you may as well make a radio drama.
Comment by Zach — July 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
I hear ya, Overman. I finished ME last night and had similar ideas on mashing up scenes for a short film. Reading your comments about a re-kindled love of game-based machinima, it made me think that perhaps part of the impulse to make machinima in the first place was a way to re-experience the game world that you love so much. Like a great TV series or a novel that you don’t want to be over, you continue the world by making up your own stories or re-working existing ones. Artists all over the world are influenced by other art which in turn finds it’s way into their creations. Think of a painter standing in front of a Goya painting and copying it section by section. When she paints her own works, what style do you think they will be in? (Thank God, EA doesn’t own the copyright on Goya)
What I’m trying to say is that I agree with Zach that it’s all about the quality of your work. But…..know from the start that you won’t really own what you create. Your heartbreak over MRE was enough to turn you off game-based machinima. Do you want to go through that again?
None of us knows if our film will go viral or become a hot commercial product. That’s why focusing on making the kind of film you want to make is probably the best approach for non-commercial (most of us) filmmakers. Your idea of free base and paid premium content I think is possible, but problematic. Marketing and promotion are essential in making this kind of model work, I think. But who has the time to devote to this kind of work? I can barely get my machinima work done by itself, let alone send out 100 emails and follow up on contacts for a film.
However, if anyone could make it work, it would be you, Overman. I’ll certainly be paying attention to what you decide to do. And I applaud your creative thinking.
Comment by Ricky Grove — July 1, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
What a diverse array of perspectives is represented in this comment thread! So many different “top priorities” are evident; it’s a wonder we get along at all.
I’m gonna hold off on responding to anyone directly and see who else shares an opinion. I’m also curious to see if Friday’s film release will have any effect on your opinions, even though it’s a far cry from the story / approach I’m considering above.
I’m weighing a possibility that came to mind since I wrote this post: that is, to take a 1-2 minute segment of the story in question, and produce it in BOTH game and indie media, then put those samples up side by side and see what I think and what you and other viewers think. I realize seeing that comparison doesn’t really have any impact on the “ownership first” viewpoint, but it might be an interesting exercise nonetheless.
Oh my god, I just realized that I’m basically proposing a focus group activity. LOL Hell called, it’s getting chilly.
Comment by Overman — July 1, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
“produce it in BOTH game and indie media, then put those samples up side by side”
Come on Phil, it is completely wrong way to put things. You know that. What will this show? Game media will look better, more pro, more eye candy. No Machinima tool can yet match big game engines.
If you make something in non game tool, all approach is different, visualization of idea and idea itself will suffer (what can be, and often is, good thing) changes and then it is not comparable.
Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
@Tom, that’s oversimplifying it quite a bit. Indie tools will give me many more animation options than this tool-less game, I’ll have much more control over the look of the characters (limited control over one character in the game), complete control over the look of the sets (zero in the game), and I’ll be able to get precise lipsync there where it will be fudged in the game.
Give me some credit, bro. I wouldn’t be dumb enough to set up a comparison if I thought it was a one-sided bout. But if I had as little faith as you in the ability of the indie tools to create beautiful films in the right hands, I’d be doing Blender tutorials right now.
Comment by Overman — July 1, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
OK, as usual I am jumping all over a theme missing the point with every jump. Maybe I just don’t want to see one of very few authors I admire making movies that can’t go on Jay Leno, broadcast or any non Machinima festival.
I am feeling very strongly about this so my missing jumps are high and often. Sorry for that.
Will see what happens.
Looking closely.
Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
@Tom, you know like I do that sometimes there are situations we encounter where we are comfortable with surrendering some of our rights/ownership for the sake of another goal. Your entry into the Radiohead contest, for example, a film you do not own as long as it’s paired with their music. But there was a reason which you weighed and ultimately decided it was worth it to you (and I know that reason wasn’t just the $10K potential).
While I’m not comparing this situation directly to the chance to work with Radiohead, I AM comparing the notion that the ownership issue is not an absolute uncompromising priority, even for most fundamentalists. I don’t think ownership (and its perks) are any less important to you just because you chose the Radiohead contest over ownership; you saw something that you personally found worth pursuing and you went after it. So please don’t feel like I’m forsaking ownership as an important factor just because I’m weighing something I find possibly worth pursuing even at that cost. It very well may be that what I’m evaluating is not something you’d think twice about, but that doesn’t mean it cannot have some meaning for me.
I haven’t come close to deciding what to do yet. To me, what was remarkable was the discovery that it was even up for debate in my mind, and that’s what this post was trying to make sense of and consider.
Comment by Overman — July 1, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
*sticks out lighting rod, captures invaluable brain energy flying around, stores it for later*
Some really thought-provoking ideas here. I’m enjoying reading all of them!
Comment by kradproductions — July 1, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
I like your idea, Phil. I’d certainly like to see the comparison.
PS quote from LA Times lead article on Pixar success, John Lassiter, one of Pixar’s founders said, “Quality is the best business plan of all”.
Comment by ricky grove — July 1, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
It is my belief that any machinima maker will not see a dime on what they have made, but rather on what they will be paid to make.
In most of your work, ideas rule, not the visual candy. The more ideas you can put in front of the most eyes seems to be the most fruitful path for you. Plus if you can go viral again, you’ll be in a very very small club.
Comment by todnyc — July 2, 2008 @ 3:40 am
“It is my belief that any machinima maker will not see a dime on what they have made, but rather on what they will be paid to make.”
I really hope that means more than “get hired by someone because you’re one of those guys who can make Machinima stuff, and we have a script”.
It’s one of my great frustrations with the Machinima scene at the moment that we’re mostly valued purely for our technical skills, not our abilities as artists and/or storytellers. We’re hired by games companies to, certainly in my experience, technically execute creative designs that other people have come up with. We’re hired independently (with the exception of Rooster Teeth) to do much the same thing.
I want to see a Paul Marino-written-and-directed series, dammit! I want to watch something with “Executive Producer: Phil Rice” and a few million dollars an episode!
(Note for future reference: if I follow your work as a Machinima creator, it’s because I like your work. Not the techniques that went into it, but the work itself. I go on about “The Return”, for example, because I love the story, and I’m heartily bummed that we’ll quite possibly never see anything else from that team.)
I’d really like it if more Machinima creators would start focussing on the fact that there’s value in their work beyond their ability to move characters around a screen according to a script. That’s certainly my medium-term plan - aiming to make money off stories told through Machinima, rather than Machinima skills directly.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 2, 2008 @ 6:28 am
I don’t believe anyone is downplaying story, here, If anything, we’re all actively trying to improve the ideas and concepts involved. Writing is where Machinima NEEDS to grow. That being said, It’s already established that good visuals can be achieved with machinima, and as such, would be a wise endeavor to use them. I don’t just mean by using the newest and bestest game engines, but I mean by Focusing hard on your shots, Making Deliberate visual choices, Composing and compositing, And improving through post processing where possible. film is a visual medium after all.
Comment by Zach — July 2, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Zach - sorry, I should clarify. I’m not saying anyone in this discussion is wrong - just railing against the fact that currently, Machinima artists seem only to be hired as technicians or at best cinematographers.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 2, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
That is a true statement, and I’ll agree with you there. but respectfully, and I am talking about myself when I say this, we’re not necessarily at the same level as the people getting paid the big bucks to direct and write and such. It’s not JUST machinima, other amateur internet filmakers, animators, screenwriters, aren’t getting those jobs either, and I use the term amateur loosely here. respectfully I must say.
In this world, there are a Lot of cameramen, but only a handful of directors.
Comment by Zach — July 2, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
add to that, that I am not calling machinima creators cameramen, we do much more than just point the camera, in our own right we’re casting, filming, editing, audio production, acting, and voice acting sometimes, publicizing and marketing.
Comment by Zach — July 2, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
First time commenter, here.
For me, really, story is the prime factor in decision-making about a particular engine. Granted, it makes sense for those machinimakers that want to own what they’ve produced 100% to pick the appropriate engines that allow them to do that. However, as a writer, I’m interested in what is the best way to tell the story on the page.
For instance, I wouldn’t try to make a mob story in Halo, or a story about space marines in the Sims. I think for me it’s all about having an idea, watching it take shape on the page, and then choosing your medium to best see it come to life. And that is a factor of several things, not the least of which are rights, visuals, tools, control, etc. I think all of those things help make that decision.
Right now, my friends and I make a silly series in Counter-Strike: Source. But we like our story, and we know that it wouldn’t really work in something like MovieStorm. We also knew going into it that we wouldn’t own it, and we were mostly ok with that. Do we lament that ultimately pieces of the work belong to someone else? Absolutely. But we never would have had a chance to tell our story otherwise.
Comment by Eddy — July 2, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Whew, quite a discussion!
But hold on, while this particular topic is about Overman’s work, I’d hate to see all the amateurs here getting sucked into somebody else’s brain fart (Overman, no dis, you have hit it big and you have also been hurt badly, hence the dichotomy).
What about the rest of us? Ricky, I agree ‘None of us knows if our film will go viral or become a hot commercial product’, and I add to that, only a tiny minority will go viral - guaranteed.
So while I hope Overman will find his answer, the question is different for the rest of us.
Tom, you are also in a privileged position of knowing your question and being convicted of your answer.
Spare a thought though for all the ‘little people’.
Comment by Russell — July 2, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Great discussion here everyone. I wish I could pass beers and sandwiches around. If I was rich, I’d transport y’all to both Machinima festivals this fall (a third if you count he one in Great Britain). And thanks for posting, Eddy. Glad you put your two cents in. Your point is well-taken.
So, what do you think, Overman? Still up in the air? Or, is it as Russell says, “the question is different for the rest of us”?
Comment by Ricky Grove — July 3, 2008 @ 1:54 am
On a side note, what’s this about two festivals? There’s the NY festival… what’s the other one?
Comment by kradproductions — July 3, 2008 @ 3:26 am
Zach - and I’m going to respectfully disagree with you in turn. From 10 years working in the film industry, I’d say there are quite a few Machinima artists, yourself included, who are professional-level storytellers and I’d prefer to see getting paid to make your own work (which, incidentally, I’d be more than happy to pay for).
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 3, 2008 @ 6:27 am
well hugh, I gotta admit I was half playing devils advocate there.
Comment by Zach — July 3, 2008 @ 8:27 am
@Ricky - I agree, this discussion is wonderful! Thank you, everyone!
I’m going to think hard about it over the holiday and then follow-up with a new post, to address some of the issues raised here and also to announce what my decision is (if I’m able to make one yet).
Comment by Overman — July 3, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Hugh -”just railing against the fact that currently, Machinima artists seem only to be hired as technicians or at best cinematographers.”
I’m not familiar with this being a fact? My work at EA certainly started because of having my technical chops down, but I’ve been involved if not wholly responsible for scripting and concepting low and high profile trailers, music videos, and multi-million ad buy commercials… It didn’t start that way, for sure, but I’m happy to build a reel of what I can consider my work, even if it is all in simlish.
It seems like the entire BioWare cinematic team has been cast from the ranks of our peers, who are busy shaping and putting meat on the bones of some of the most involved narratives produced today… in film or gaming.
Having a monopoly on the technical process of machinima richly empowers the man behind the text files… I’m sure Rooster Teeth could testify to that, but I doubt they’re getting paid without scanning a marketing brief first. And if you can’t satisfy a client, then you’re not going to get a second gig.
Perhaps I’m being sensitive.
Comment by todnyc — July 3, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Todd - OK, that’s very cool. My understanding (and experience from doing games contracts) was that you guys didn’t have much if any input into the scripts you were working on - some cinematography yes, but script and overall story no. The stuff that you’re making doesn’t sound like things I’d particularly want to do, but I’m glad that you’ve got creative control.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 4, 2008 @ 10:15 am
I’ve got to admit, quite a bit of my annoyance here is purely selfish. I’d like to see more films written and directed by the guy who made “The Fixer”. I’d like to see a feature written and directed by that guy. And currently, it doesn’t seem like there’s much chance of that happening.
(Ditto Paul Marino, Jason Choi, Michelle Petit-Mee, etc, etc…)
I actually feel kinda shit about saying that. I know you guys love your work and what you’re doing, and you’re my friends, so I feel happy for you.
But I’m also a fan of your work, and as a fan, it saddens me that I’m not likely to see any more of it, except filtered through another story or as an ad.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 4, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Firsty Overman I’m glad you enjoyed the game.
This is an interesting discussion indeed. I’m one of the Lead Cinematic Designers up at BioWare and I would love to clear up a few things i read in the comments.
IN response to Hugh’s comments we do get hired for our technical skills! yes we get hired to handle a camera! And yes we do not ‘write’ the story. We have a massive team of professional writers that craft words and specific actions that provides the narrative framework, the rest is up to us…
that leaves drama, camera, and interactivity the domain of the machinima artists. These elements vastly outweigh writing in terms of the emotion communication and impact on the story. We direct interactive films and design the narrative experience by applying visual and narrative design principles to the story. We manage the big picture. Writing is a small part of that equation.
I hope this clarifies what cinematic designers do at bioware. If anything the Machinima community should be proud of these guys. Machinima artists built a department within a AAA game developer, changed a genre, and are now regarded as industy leaders in real-time filmmaking deisgn and technology. All the while supporting the community by employing it’s best and brightest.
BTW, if you want to see Paul and Nate’s newest piece it’s available for download on Xbox live (Bringing Down the Sky: ME expansion). I think it’s quite eceptional.
Your gonna have to wait a little longer to see Michelle’s stuff, But I can say with confidence it is some of the best work she has ever produced.
-Arm
Comment by Armando Troisi — July 6, 2008 @ 2:06 am
I’m glad Michelle is doing so well, she certainly deserves to. How will we know ‘which bits’ she is responsible for in whatever mystery game is coming out? Are you planning to have Movie type long credits Armando?
Comment by Kate — July 6, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Sorry to hijack the thread oMAN. Hugh thanks for diffusing a tense response, one I regretted posting immediately.
Comment by todnyc — July 6, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
The game is no mystery it’s an announced project called “Dragon Age” due out in the nearish future
This project should have a special place in the community because it will ship with cinematic tools built by and for machinima artists. We are all very excited to see what the community will do with these powerful storytelling tools.
But to answer your question, The truth is we all work on the game ‘together’ with each machinimator bringing something of themselves into each scene. We really don’t see things as individuals, but rather as one complete Cinematic design effort. One complete story to tell. Unfortunately no their won’t be credits that spell out exactly which plots she was responsible for. The only way to tell will be to look for that Michelle flair!
I hope i don’t come off as a jerk, but sometimes it’s frustrating to hear about the ‘brain drain’ issue over and over again. These professional designers at Bioware and elsewhere are having an impact on the art of machinima well beyond what is possible from within the community. Mass Effect was a prototype of what is possible when machinima partners with game development. DA will take it one step further by releasing tools. More will follow. Everyone wins.
-Arm
Comment by Armando Troisi — July 6, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Thanks for the quick reply Armando. I looked up Dragon Age and the screen shots look wonderful, good luck with that project. Will these cinematic tools will ship with restrictions..ie it won’t be possible to own the work created?
Comment by Kate — July 7, 2008 @ 3:19 am
Ownership is a legal question so I can’t make comment. But the tools should ship without technical restriction. But in my expereience, if your doing it for the art there should be no problem. If your trying to make a commercial product, that’s where things become complicated.
Comment by Armando Troisi — July 7, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Armando - as you know, I’ve got a lot of respect for what you guys do over there (and I’m really looking forward to playing some of the things that I saw whilst I was in Edmonton!). I can quite imagine that it’s annoying hearing people complaining about the fantastic talent you’ve managed to attract over there.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 9, 2008 @ 7:20 am
Thanks Hugh - we all have respect for you as well.
I know a lot of the crew still strongly identify with the community. You’d be surprised how much we all talk about starting new projects on the side. But it’s hard both creatively and time wise when your wrapped up in a large project.
From my perspective our contribution the community is still present, it’s just shifted from finished works to building tools for others to create stories with.
Isn’t that the dream of all machinima artists at one time or another?
Thank you all for listening!
Comment by Armando Troisi — July 10, 2008 @ 1:29 am
[…] and by the way, about that other thing… yeah, I’m still hopelessly undecided. Stay tuned. addthis_url = […]
Pingback by Overman’s Blog » Conferences: Try Something New? — July 12, 2008 @ 8:18 am
“Machinima artists seem only to be hired as technicians or at best cinematographers.”
What……the…….fuck. Is anybody even listening to this garbage? Because if anyone is, looks like the ol’ soap box is going to have to come out of retirement.
Comment by Mu — July 20, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
[…] Overman’s Blog: “To Game or Not To Game” […]
Pingback by the overcast » overcast #034 — July 25, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Mu - I’d be *very* interested to hear a counter-argument. Very, very. I’d love to hear that you guys are producing stuff that’s as near to creator-controlled as possible.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — July 25, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Here’s the counter-argument: We know our jobs. We know ourselves.
We are not Technicians, though our jobs certainly require a great deal of technical know-how and slight-of-hand, the same as working on any machinima product. We are not Cinematographers, though a knowledge of cinematography certainly helps a great deal, the same as working on any machinima product.
What we are is Cinematic Designers, or whatever the title may be at other companies, that are doing work to expand what is possible in game development as a creative medium, just as any machinima creator works to expand what is possible with game assets as a creative medium. This is the continued expansion of the work those of us that have joined game companies began the first time we picked up a camera, crayon, or pencil. It did not start with machinima, and it is not ending with machinima, nor has machinima ended for us.
If you wish to differentiate what we do from machinima, fine. Go ahead. Classifying and touting others’ work seems to have brought Hugh a great deal of attention and clout. For me, a razor sharp definition has never been useful. I consider machinima as much a part of the creator I am now as I did when I was making the kind of movies that fit Hugh’s defintion. When I was making those, the school video projects I made in high school were as much a part of me as a creator as they were at the age of sixteen. In some ways I still am that sixteen year old amateur filmmaker. God knows I’m still a horrid procrastinator.
And God knows I’m still a part of machinima. I never left, I never stopped being proud to say so. I’ll never stop being in the neighborhood should anyone I’ve come to know in this community need to contact me. I believe it’s not a stretch to say those like me that have “gone pro” feel the same.
Where I differ from my fellow “exit strategists” is the ability to ignore the garbage. I could write for paragraphs, I’m sure, on the mistakes Hugh is making attacking us while we work to open the very doors Hugh is waiting to burst through and declare the result of his vision when he named Machinima (oh and have you seen machinima’s first true full-length feature, Bloodspell?), but I’ll leave it to the former sentence.
What I will say is this, and it is to the rest of the community: We’re all still here. We’re still part of machinima. A lot of us even think we’re still doing machinima or some very close hybrid of it. We still get the same fire burning in our hearts because we’re still being just as creative, innovative, and stubbornly-optimistic that we can “make it work,” as we had to be to work on our little computers back home to make our little films. We like to think we’re doing machinima proud, and we have no reason to think you don’t feel the same way, really, other than Hugh’s constant nips and snaps. (But really, what medium has ever existed that didn’t have similar issues?)
Anyways, there’s work to be done and I think what I needed to say has been said. You don’t have to take it as the truth. Certainly anyone that knows me shouldn’t be too surprised by anything I’ve said. If you dismiss all I’ve said as garbage, my only request is that you don’t keep your mind of machinima within the small box Hugh wishes to keep it in. Machinima is so much larger than that now. This box’s growth threatens Hugh’s importance within that box, which is why he wishes to keep it a small size. I understand that. Just don’t let it split apart the rest of us. We do not want to be banished for following our hearts’ desire to create.
Thx (and sorry for typos. ‘Twas very free-flow)
Mu
Comment by Mu — July 25, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
[…] - bookmarked by 2 members originally found by PitylessEnvy on 2008-07-21 To Game or Not To Game http://z-studios.com/blog/2008/06/30/to-game-or-not-to-game/ - bookmarked by 1 members originally […]
Pingback by Bookmarks about Samplers — August 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm