Have a look at some of the awards that have been given during E3 the last couple of years.
2002
Best of show: Doom3
Best PC game: Doom3
Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights
Best Online Multiplayer: Star Wars Galaxies
2001
Best of show: Nintendo Gamecube
Best PC game: Star Wars Galaxies
Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights
Best Online Multiplayer: Star Wars Galaxies
2000
Best of show: Black and White
Best PC game: Black and White
Best RPG: Neverwinter Nights
Best Online Multiplayer: Neverwinter Nights
See anything?
After having won the "Best RPG" award for the third
year in a row Neverwinter Nights
finally goes gold and can be considered an actual game.
Star Wars Galaxies might get a shot
at winning the "Best Online Multiplayer" award three
years in a row before going gold, as their release date is starting
to push May next year (I'm assuming Lucas will put his
foot down, never mind that Sony wants it out by Christmas this
year - ready or not).
Doom3 is scheduled for a release sometime
next year.
Black and White was released almost
exactly a year after they won the 2000 awards.
I just want to add that Team Fortress 2 won the "Best Online Multiplayer" award in 1999. It still has no eta. But, of course, the game that won the award in 1999 was built on the Half-Life technology. Now they've started all over with a completely new engine and all. So, technically, the game that won the award in 1999 is a game that no one will ever be able to play. But it still was the best goddamn online game in 1999...
To me this is the equivalent of "The Return of the King" winning an Oscar this year. I mean, people have read the book, they know who the director and the actors are, and they know the size of the budget - it has to be good, right? Admittedly, the Oscars are just as much politics, marketing, and ass kissing as E3 - but at least they're rewarding finished products. Is there any industry that pats it self as heavily on the back 2-3 years before delivering a finished product as the gaming industry? There probably is, but I can't think of any right now.
And, it doesn't really take all that much to win either. This year Star Wars Galaxies had a demo that actually showed some interaction, like talking to npc's and a bit of combat. Last year, however, they had none of that. They had a video that showed a small piece of land, a few npc's and some nice effects. No interaction, nothing that resembled gameplay. If the person showing it to you hadn't told you that it was in fact a game, you really couldn't have been sure.
This would mean that if Dawn had a booth and some talented graphic artists, it could win an award. Forget GAMEPLAY, it is not needed. No one has the time to test or watch it anyway. The judges have a zillion games to rate. It's all about the marketing and the shinies, because everyone's a freaking graphics whore.
Now, this in itself isn't so bad. However, as a result of this, a large part of the gaming industry is currently heading toward the not-so-very-interactive part of entertainment, showing an amount of joy previously only seen when a group of kids ride a roller coaster for the first time.
You see - a positive impression at E3 is worth a lot of marketing money. So much in fact that it is worth ruining the development process. Therefore you have to focus on the things that can catch the attention of someone walking past your booth, and that would be graphics (well, that and booth babes, but they're hardly involved in the development process). Often leaving gameplay to be patched in later.
The graphics, and the graphics engine has become the most important
part of the game.
Gameplay and interactivity is in the back seat, and heading
for the trunk.
Marketing is starting when the game is barely in the concept
phase.
All of this is annoying me.
The game engine is to a game what ink and paper is to a newspaper. When was the last time a paper got an award because of the ink they use? It is the foundation for the finished product, but it is in no way the finished product in itself. Of course, the fact that quite a few execs in the industry have no idea there's a difference between a game and a game engine doesn't make things any better. Come on, how many games have you played lately that are basically a plain engine with some shallow gameplay thrown on top of it? Or in some cases no gameplay at all. There are great games being released using inferior engines as well, but not enough to compensate.
The developers have to take their share of the blame though, many devs are perfectionists and/or technology addicts - and with technology advancing so quickly, between the design and the start of the implementation there's likely to be a new way to do things - or at least enhancements. And there might be other enhancements emerging during implementation. It is so incredibly tempting to try to include these, either by redoing the entire thing, as additional features, or as hacks. Resulting in a delay at best, in an unstable and buggy product at worst.
The most common excuse for the lack of interactivity and gameplay is because "we want to attract new gamers". You know, people whose previous peak of interactivity is the TV remote control. People who apparently don't mind watching the game play itself. This is where the entire industry is heading.
Well, with a few exceptions - like Blizzard.
In 2000 they released Diablo2. It had 2d graphics that were
a couple of years dated (meaning they had resisted the urge
to update their engine as they went). The core gameplay was
for the most part the same as in Diablo, but with many good
enhancements. Diablo2 has sold more than 3 million copies. And
when compared to current industry marketing standards, they
did almost everything wrong.
And if that's not enough, a year later they released an
expansion. More than 2 million people enjoyed the game enough
to go and buy the expansion.
In addition it has more people playing online,
at any time, than EQ. This from a game that, from a marketing
perspective, should have been dead
and buried before it was released...
And this is all being disregarded by the entire industry. I don't see anyone trying to learn from what has been done (admittedly, more or less every Diablo1 clone failed, but that was because they sucked - not because they were Diablo clones). All they see is that Everquest has 500k subscribers. They don't stop to think how a game like UO can have 250k subscribers (also with dated 2d graphics), or how a game like Diablo2 can have more people online than EQ. Shouldn't this be somewhat important information?
Well, it could be partly because of hardware requirements, I believe there was a survey a year or so back that showed that 75% of the subscribers of UO don't have the hardware to run EQ. But it's also because fame and funding is at the bleeding edge. That's not necessarily where the profit margin or the good games are though.