Met with inevitable silence and a dearth of raised hands, he said, "Absolutely none of us. But the truth that we've been experiencing these past years is that, as an industry, we've lost our internal compass for what 'good' even means any more. We are divided as creatives.
6 comments:
I think that this article could be used to talk about theatre and the way different companies do theatre and the drive behind their choices. Some theatres want to do new and up and coming shows while others like the classics and some even just base their season on what will fill the most seats. What would do the best in the long run? It’s hard to say because filling seats is important but I still think a company working towards to building their own image and being unique can bring something new to theatre and to their audiences. It may not pay in money but it can still pay in popularity and uniqueness. We as theatre makers need to decide what is important because working together can bring more people into our world and get them excited for what live theatre can bring to the table. It can’t all just be about the numbers but rather what our audience is thirsting for and taking those ideas and running with it.
In one of my classes we dissected the company EA Games. A company that has a habit of buying video game studios that release one successful game and then making that studio release sequels to that game until all the developers quit. Innovation has been blocked by the need for immediate success. The curse of a public company is that they are often subject to making bad decisions that are good in the short term and horrible in the long term. What amazes me is that small studios that aren't public are following suit in order to survive without realizing the potential to make great games. Every studio that has had a little success with a great game immediately begins making terrible free to play games instead of continuing what they were doing. In the short term it makes them more money but in the long term they end up losing that interest they established. I am glad this is an issue that developers are finally considering. I hope this leads to less games that revolve around money and more games that are actually fun to play.
South Korea and China are so ahead of the North American market when it comes to video gaming/online RPGs. Internet cafés are a commonplace sight and it goes as far as even having national teams for certain games! It's no wonder really why these two Asian countries have the rest of the world beat when it comes to gaming. In terms of free-to-play games, it's really a strange phenomenon how quickly people become addicted. I've never been one to stick to any free-to-play games; the only game I keep on my iPhone is Tetris. I think it's because once you realize how much time you waste on playing dinky little games that don't actually go anywhere, you lose interest pretty quickly. I've gotten so many requests to play Farmville or Candy Crush with so-and-so on Facebook and I've rejected every single one. This isn't to say that I've never been sucked into the realm of great video games (ie. Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Zelda, SuperSmash, Skyrim), but that's the defining factor-- greatness. Companies that are concerned about numbers from the get go are going to be less focused on producing a sophisticated and complex storyline for a game. One sentence in this article defines it pretty well--"Throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks has kinda been our answer. Like, Who knows? You're either lucky or not."
I know that this article is talking about mobile game development, but its principles can absolutely be displaced to theatre. The idea that 'good' means popular and revenue generating, and good also means of quality and transcendent substance, is an incredibly confusing way of looking at our work. In Tech management class this week we discussed not for profit versus profit structures, and our findings were that they were good for different reasons. The real issue is that we continue to look at 'good' as an umbrella term for something that we or somebody else likes. Massive broadway structures focused on money are good for the enjoyment of the masses, while tiny 50 seat theatres putting on experimental productions are good for the growth of art and pushing societal boundaries. Personally the latter seems greater to me, but I then also fall into the trap of judging them on 'good' and 'bad,' as does this article, when in reality we should start each conversation with the stated purpose of the thing first, before we discuss the quality to which the art measures up to that purpose.
I am not all that much into video games. I don’t own any consoles and I don’t play them on my computer. The only place I really play games is on my phone. In general, I don’t care about the quality of the game. Why? They’re free, so I don’t have high expectations. I also don’t care about the quality because I typically only play these games as a time suck when I’m bored or stuck on an airplane, etc. While other people may be willing to pay $10 for a game on their phone – I’m not. If I did pay for a game, I would want it to be everything I wanted and more. I paid for a product and expect results. Furthermore, if I’m going to play a video game – I’m going to play with the full experience on my TV, with sound and all the things a gamer could dream of.
Mobile games are probably the game medium currently on the rise, as smartphones with astonishing capabilities are now becoming more common than ever, meaning a rise in the downloading of various apps. The perspective mentioned in the article from American playwright Paula Vogel is very poignant here, for like any performance, whether it be a musical or videogame, has an audience. From a glance at the history of theater, one can see that the style and content of performances has altered over time, showing an evolution in audience's interests and cultures, which then informs the playwrights what should be the content of their work. In such a fast paced technologically-centered society, it is clear that app-developers have lagged behind in the naive phase and even the sophisticated phase, meaning that developers need to put themselves in the shoes of players, who now expect a higher caliber of material for little to no cost.
Post a Comment