Credit to individuals

I recently bought the book High Score: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games and it reminded me how much better computer gaming has given credit to individuals. I know the names and faces of so many contributors to computer gaming compared to console gaming. A few great console people get recognition like Miyamoto, Suzuki, and Naka but they are the exception for the most part.

It's not that console gaming has contributed any less to gaming history. It's mostly a problem of too many Japanese game makers not getting recognition. Even with classic arcade games, I'm sure Ed Logg(Asteroids) is far more recognized than Toru Iwatani(Pac-Man) simply because he's a Westerner and the history of Western game makers has been more well documented.

It just bugs me that Stevie Case makes the cover of PC magazines because of her tit size and I don't even know what Hiroshi Miyauchi looks like.

Thoughts?

Yeah, Lionhead's (Or was it Blue Box's? Well, one of Molyneux's teams) site practically gives you the life history of many of their members.

It bothers me as well that we know so little about who makes the videogames we enjoy. On the other hand, cinematograhpers and even costume designers can become famous in the film industry.

If videogames continue to become more popular with mainstream society, hopefully we will learn more about how games are made, and who makes them.

I think it's sad that so few in the console gaming industry get the respect they deserve. Thankfully, the internet has enabled console game makers to get some respect.

When Activision was formed, from former Atari programmers, they wanted to make a company, that recognised it's programmers. It was great to see names like Bob Whitehead, placed on the box credits.


I can say that today, most gamers just don't recognise the programmers, behind the games, or the developers, for that matter. When you beat a game, some like those from Sega, take the time to give credits, to those people behind the developement of the product. This is probably one of the reasons, that we've heard of Yu Zuzuki, or Yuji Naka, as Sega gave them their props, or allowed them to do so in the game credits. Something that Atari frowned upon and it took a game like Adventure, for the programmers to hide their credit in the game.


I think that to get a recognised name in this industry, you have to come up with a title, that is revolutionary, or better than anything currently available. Would we have heard of Ed Boon, or John Tobias, if Mortal Kombat had'nt been such a big deal in the 90's? Probably not and I doubt that NBA Jam would have given them a recognisable name within the gaming industry either. Gamers take notice to those few people, who help to revolutionised, or changed the gaming industry in a way, for the better, as there are a ton of me too programmers and developers out there. Much like Hollywood directors only get recognised, when they make or are a part of a movie, that everyone is talking about.

I agree about Miyauchi. Man, I can't even figure out for sure if BO is one person, because I've seen Noah Toku and Miyauchi credited as him. I think Noah Toku just did the SMS ports though.

But yeah, I feel bad for any director working under Miyamoto's shado- I mean supervision. They always play it all off on the celebrity. 'Tis a pity.

If you boil it all down, the main problem - and what I think is the biggest thing holding back video games from total acceptance as a respectable artform - is that the process of video games is too much of a group effort and the fact that the individual developers remain nameless and faceless. What video games need is an Ingmar Bergman to put almost absolute emphasis on the director/designer/main programmer/somebody! The designs of culture require an individual to lay all the praise or blame (books, movies, art, and even bands all have 'the one' person) and until that happens, video games won't seem like anything more than an assembly line industry created to suit the whims of corporate publishers.

Movies are just as much group efforts as video games so I don't see why the level of recognition should be any less than that art medium.

I remember reading somewhere that Japanese devs would go by nicknames or not even get recognition mainly because of a company's fear of competing companies 'head hunting' for good talent.

Not really what happens by today's standards. You can always find out who made what just by rolling through credits. The problem is whether or not enough people in the console world can create a 'buzz.' Like, Kojima did, but whoever did the rain effects for MGS2 won't get notice. Sorta like the movies - Spielburg will get attention no matter what movie he does, but even if the gaffer does a good job doing his part, there will be no interviews on his behalf. Same thing, I guess.

Video games are also too esoteric to be recognized as a true artform. Anyone can start writing and get it published, anyone can paint and hang it on a wall, anyone can start a band and get themselves recorded, and anyone can pick up a Super 8 camera, but video games are just lines of complex alien code so is it any wonder that the road to executing a vision seems worn and dilluted and that video games aren't considered a worthile art platform? The best thing to do is seems, the ultimate goal, is to join a development team and at that point, the company and publisher will bury your name and face. After all, what publisher wants the public to know that their star and driving programmer/director/guy whenever they leave their employment?

Video game recognition is such a mess that I'm glad I just write about them, rather than make them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Movies are just as much group efforts as video games so I don't see why the level of recognition should be any less than that art medium.

---

And that relates directly to my Ingmar Bergman reference. Directors weren't given sole credit (of course, though much like video games right now, there was some recognition here and there, like Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock) until the 50s and 60s when Bergman led a collective effort to make the director the 'author' of the film, so to speak.

I recognize the work that programmers put into the games (even more than the director most likely) but they need to accept the even shorter end of the stick if they want video games to grow. If it were up to me personally, I'd nominate 'Main Programmer' or 'Director' as the author of the game but video games have become so cinematic that 'programmer' doesn't hold the same amount of weight it did twenty years ago, so, in the end, I'd probably go with the director.