Video game publishers shy away from risks. When a creative team presents a board of suits with an idea for a game, the men and women behind the desk want to hear words that equate to eventual dollar signs in their minds and wallets.
It’s an understandable apprehensiveness. If someone said to me “I want to build a video game with a dragon named Spyro as its main character, oh yeah, and I want two years and millions of dollars to make it,” I might have said get out of my office.
These publishers, namely the largest two, Activision and Electronic Arts, want guaranteed returns on their lofty investments and so often only fund ideas they strongly believe will make them at least their invested capital back.
Take a look at 2009 for a realization of this assertion.
Last year, the video game industry released sequels, prequels, and spinoffs galore. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Assassin’s Creed II, Guitar Hero 5, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, Killzone 2, Halo 3: ODST, Gears of War 2, and Resident Evil 5, are prime examples, just to name a very few.
Those games, amidst all the others, sold the very best, and were all based on an already established franchise. Sure they were “new” games and some of the worlds you traveled to in them were fresh and exciting, but were nothing like the shellshock experience of an entirely new gaming experience.
Think of it like this.
Imagine how the first man or woman to experience an orgasm felt. One can only envision the literal excitement he or she felt during this moment(s). It’s this kind of feeling brand new video games can instill upon their users, but so often, we are denied this climax.
It is said that large risks can yield great rewards, but these departures from normative theory can also lead to dismal creative and monetary defeat. That said, I strongly feel a few creative failures are far more beneficial than the year in, year out appropriation of capital for games like the next Guitar Hero or Call of Duty.
The idea these publishers need to have force-fed down their throats is that at the end of the day gamers just want a game that’s fun to play.
Sure, I get excited about the next Legend of Zelda title but what would really buff my gaming libido would be if Nintendo created something without Links. I know it’s a major risk and a lot to ask, but is a life without risks a fruitful one? I don’t think so.
Thankfully, this groundbreaking change isn’t merely confined to the waves of my brain. It’s actually happening, that is, if you believe rumors which surfaced in early January.
Believe it or not, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2-developer Infinity Ward may not develop Modern Warfare 3. The California-based development studio, under the banner of publisher Activision, is believed to be building an entirely new intellectual property (possibly a first-person-shooter MMO), while Activision continues the Modern Warfare series with yet another studio handling the development efforts.
Activision clearly believes in the creative minds at Infinity Ward and is subsequently allowing the team to build something outside their area of expertise. It looks and feels like quite a risk on the publisher’s part, until you remember the company owns Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, and numerous other cash-cows, thus allowing them to continue to thrive, even if this effort doesn’t reveal itself to be as monetarily-effective as planned.
Maybe I just want what I can’t have, but I’d love to see a publisher take a risk on a game. Not only would such a move be great PR, but who knows, it could make some money as well!
