Amy Hennig On Why People Aren’t Buying Linear Story Based Games

[karmakid]

https://wccftech.com/hennig-people-ask-story-based-games/


Amy Hennig (former creative director of Naughty Dog) talks about the current state of the video game industry.


I think we’re in an inflection point right now. Obviously what happened with our Star Wars project didn’t come out of the blue. A lot of too-dramatic articles were written about it — the death of linear story games and all that kind of stuff — but look, there is a real problem: this line we’ve been running up to for a lot of years, which is the rising cost of development, and the desires, or the demands even, of players in terms of hours of gameplay, fidelity, production values, additional modes, all these things. Those pressures end up very real internally. If it costs you, say, $100 million or more to make a game, how are you making that money back, and making a profit?

And the $60 price point can’t change, right? There’s a lot of negative press around monetization, loot boxes, games as a service, etc., but these things are trending now in the industry, especially for larger publishers, as an answer to the problem of rising development costs. Budgets keep going up, the bar keeps getting raised, and it starts making less and less sense to make these games.

There is also this trend now that, as much as people protest and say, “Why are you canceling a linear, story-based game? This is the kind of game we want,” people aren’t necessarily buying them. They’re watching somebody else play them online.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

Growth can be painful. Single player developers need to figure this out and I suspect they will eventually.

 

[Registered User 1]

The priorities and budgets of the games should be reflective of what they set out to achieve.

If you're producing a single player, one play through, linear experience that lasts 5 hours, is it even fair to expect people to pay $60, because you blew a cool $100mil on your game?

Smaller studios are pumping out some stellar stuff without relying on $50million budgets.

Hellblade: Setsuna's sacrifice was meant to have recouped it's development costs with 300,000 sales.

The quality of that game was awesome sauce, and while it's great to have a $100mil budget for a game that you can fill with cutscenes and effects that people are likely to only see for 3 seconds on their single play through, realistic priorities need to be made.

In saying that, if anyone was stupid enough to give me $100mil to make a game, most of that would be spent on hush money, leather, and paying off the sexual harrassment charges.

 

[yankeessuck]

Are people really asking specifically for linear story based games though?

 

[Andy]

No surprises there. Rising development costs meet rising gamer expectations and a $60 price ceiling. Something has to give. The days of relatively brief, linear, story-based, AAA-budget, SP-only games are quickly drawing to a close. As she points out, there were a lot of histrionics around "the death of SP games" that were a complete misread. But there is no doubt that, especially in the AAA space, linear, 8-15 hour, story-driven, SP-only games are a dying breed.

Lot of qualifiers there, though. It's clear that, in general, SP games aren't going anywhere. However, they do have to adapt -- for example, by adding an MP component, being open-world or at least less linear, extending their length, adding MTs/loot boxes/GaaS components, adding replay value (e.g., through choice/consequence), or developing with a AA budget.

 

[Videodrome]

Could an alternative be more player character or created content?

One of the funnest games I played was City of Heroes and I've yet to find another game quite like it.

It had a very extensive character designer as well as the Mission Architect where players designed levels. Some of the coolest or funniest ideas I saw came from the players using game tools to create content.

It did have the base open world areas to and existence characters with story missions to, but also PVP zones.


A more extreme version of this would be Garry's Mod where the players are given the tools to be game Devs or just fool around.

I also wonder if more people should tap into the creativity we see from Modders.

 

[hrudey]

Could an alternative be more player character or created content?

One of the funnest games I played was City of Heroes and I've yet to find another game quite like it.

It had a very extensive character designer as well as the Mission Architect where players designed levels. Some of the coolest or funniest ideas I saw came from the players using game tools to create content.

It did have the base open world areas to and existence characters with story missions to, but also PVP zones.


A more extreme version of this would be Garry's Mod where the players are given the tools to be game Devs or just fool around.

I also wonder if more people should tap into the creativity we see from Modders.

More to the point, let's just consider a hypothetical game, which exemplifies the type of single player content that gamers may have been used to expecting in decades past. Because this is a hypothetical, let's just say this game is "Last Fantasy VII."

Let's say further that the game is mostly linear, with some intriguing side quest type things, some challenge bosses and a very in depth but a little complicated story, and a fairly unique combat system. Now, since such a game never existed #sarcasmfont, we don't know if it could have been created. But let's say, just for giggles, that the game would give anywhere from 40 to hundreds of hours of gameplay.

The question is, would it be better to develop the game in roughly 3-4 years using a fairly basic 3D engine, counting on the quality of the gameplay and story to carry it, or does it *really* need to be made so shiny graphically that it'll take ten years to ever release the first "episode" because it's way too ambitious to do as a full package? If this game did exist, and there was, say, an iconic moment halfway or so through the game(*) that people would literally remember their entire life, would it matter any more if they spent extra hundreds of millions of dollars to have it be the shiniest graphics ever?

(*) -

Spoiler

You get to ride a chocobo. No, not like that Bellybama .

 

[Kerosene31]

I just rarely spend $60 for a single player game. I buy them and play them, but I wait until they hit $20-30. Raising the price is just going to keep me waiting for the price drop.

While I enjoy SP games, I think most of them fall into the "good but not great" category. There's very few I feel compelled to buy on day 1. Especially now when you know games go on sale pretty quickly after.

 

[Videodrome]

Makes me think of The Stanley Parable that breaks a lot of the rules or tropes of gaming. It provides you a path with narration, yet allows you to wander off the path and the game some responds to this forcefully in bizarre ways.

Also, the game is memorable for being so crazy and surreal while certainly not needing state of the art graphics.


I also think it's interesting to contrast games like Marvel Vs. Capcom with Dragon Ball FighterZ which seems to have gone back to 2D (with some 3D FX) but manages to be much more engaging visually IMO. I wonder how much this different approach to graphics can effect development and if it could be applied to linear stories. It might be much harder I suppose to build open worlds that way

 

[Videodrome]

As for myself, I talk about fighters because that's what I play. I just dont' feel I have the time to invest in a campaign or games that involve leveling and crafting because of the weird shifts I work. Sadly, this is why I'm dropping Injustice 2. I want games with the complete character with abilities and not having to grind to unlock s***.

I may play MKX again for a while or try Dragon Ball FighterZ.

 

[wshowers]

The priorities and budgets of the games should be reflective of what they set out to achieve.

If you're producing a single player, one play through, linear experience that lasts 5 hours, is it even fair to expect people to pay $60, because you blew a cool $100mil on your game?

Smaller studios are pumping out some stellar stuff without relying on $50million budgets.

Hellblade: Setsuna's sacrifice was meant to have recouped it's development costs with 300,000 sales.

The quality of that game was awesome sauce, and while it's great to have a $100mil budget for a game that you can fill with cutscenes and effects that people are likely to only see for 3 seconds on their single play through, realistic priorities need to be made.

In saying that, if anyone was stupid enough to give me $100mil to make a game, most of that would be spent on hush money, leather, and paying off the sexual harrassment charges.

I think Hellblade was an exception not the rule.

Gamers have grown to expect games with voice acting, top notch graphics and quality writing in narrative driven games. All of which doesn't come cheap. Something will have to give. And I don't think its as easy as saying lets get the budget down. Either the cost of the game will have to go up, take up the GaaS model or add multiplayer with loot boxes. But as Andy said the days of linear, 8-15 hour, story-driven, SP-only AAA games are coming to an end. Which is a shame, cause that's my favorite type of game, but hopefully the industry adapts.

 

[Kerosene31]

I think Hellblade was an exception not the rule.

Gamers have grown to expect games with voice acting, top notch graphics and quality writing in narrative driven games. All of which doesn't come cheap. Something will have to give. And I don't think its as easy as saying lets get the budget down. Either the cost of the game will have to go up, take up the GaaS model or add multiplayer with loot boxes. But as Andy said the days of linear, 8-15 hour, story-driven, SP-only AAA games are coming to an end. Which is a shame, cause that's my favorite type of game, but hopefully the industry adapts.

For me, SP games typically lack that "wow" factor. I play PUBG and the random things that can happen keep me coming back time and time again.

I don't mind if I don't recognize the voice actors or even if the story is great, but the gameplay really has to pull me in. Gameplay just typically fails to do that. Not that games are bad, they just lack the "wow" factor that pulls me in.

AI hasn't improved in decades. Going from room to room and shooting mindless bots that just take more and more shots to kill gets old.

Maybe it isn't our fault for not playing it but instead their fault for not innovating?

 

[Intellivision]

She's got a point. It's seems key Sony SP games get tons of sales. But how many other SP linear focused games get millions and millions of copies sold?

I don't see too many. I'm sure they are out there. I don't think every other game aside from some Sony first party games are MP focused.

The thing about SP games is that once you're done, you're done. And it's not like SP sequels come out a year later..... well, except maybe Assassin's Creed games where there's probably 10 of them in the past 10 years.

With MP games, not only can publishers monetize it more, but a good MP game keeps them playing well into the next year..... so that when that game's sequel is ready (especially CoD and sports games which are annualized), gamers are ready to dump the old game and get the new game and keep going.

So it's a cycle of people playing CoD, FIFA, Destiny etc.....

For games on a two year cycle like BF or Destiny and such, all they do is launch some DLC to keep it humming and then the sequel 24 months later.

For SP linear games, unless they jam in some extra acts or episodes, the game is done and there will be dead space between it and the sequel 3 years later. And in this day and age of monetization, most game makers probably prefer selling a game with add-ons during dead time which games like shooters, sports, adventure RPGs and such make more sense.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

There is a very dangerous line of thought that can stem from this observation.

While I agree that SP only games are becoming increasingly difficult to sell and turn a profit we must advocate caution. Adding a multiplayer portion to a SP game would in theory add 'value' but it must not be at the expense of the single player portion. Love and ingenuity must be given to both portions. Otherwise one will suffer at the expense of the other.

A good compromise to this is what I like to dub the 'Witcher' factor. Create a game so beautiful and full of content that a multiplayer aspect is not needed at all. Obviously not all devs can do this but if multiplayer is needed a balance must be maintained.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

A good compromise to this is what I like to dub the 'Witcher' factor. Create a game so beautiful and full of content that a multiplayer aspect is not needed at all.

Oh thaaats all developers need to do? Single player industry saved. Someone tell Amy Henig.

The only person that can save single player is Ken Levine. He is humanities last hope.

 

[Andy]

[....]A good compromise to this is what I like to dub the 'Witcher' factor. Create a game so beautiful and full of content that a multiplayer aspect is not needed at all.

Yes, although the way I see it, you're not talking about a Witcher factor so much as an open-world factor. Everything nowadays is an open-world game, or at least semi-open world. To add to your comment, most open-world SP games (e.g., Skyrim, Witcher, Horizon, Zelda, Mario, etc.) have substantial DLC content that extends their life further.

But then, we're no longer talking about what she is talking about, which is linear, story-driven, AAA budget, SP-only games. That is the type of game that is a dying breed. That is true at Sony and Nintendo, too, btw -- very few of their games fit that description:

- linear
- story-driven
- AAA budget
- SP-only

How many games can you name that fit that description, this generation? I can only think of a few. The Order 1886. Quantum Break. Wolfenstein 2. I'm probably overlooking a few, but I don't think there are more than about half a dozen, the whole generation.

So it's a pretty rare occurrence, to get a game like that. As I said, this isn't a surprise. That style of game has been dead (or on its deathbed) for several years.

 

[Registered User 1]

There is a very dangerous line of thought that can stem from this observation.

While I agree that SP only games are becoming increasingly difficult to sell and turn a profit we must advocate caution. Adding a multiplayer portion to a SP game would in theory add 'value' but it must not be at the expense of the single player portion. Love and ingenuity must be given to both portions. Otherwise one will suffer at the expense of the other.

A good compromise to this is what I like to dub the 'Witcher' factor. Create a game so beautiful and full of content that a multiplayer aspect is not needed at all. Obviously not all devs can do this but if multiplayer is needed a balance must be maintained.

Yeah, but she's talking about linear games.

I don't think people aren't buying the single player games though. They're just not buying them as much as the big multiplayer games.

The indie scene is pumping out heaps of single player games, and they're managing to find an audience.

The game that's made should be reflective of the audience. It's all well and good to have a Field of Dreams moment though... (I still haven't seen it. Kevin Koerner gives me the squirts, and I've never been partial to baseball. I did see that movie with Matt LeBlanc where he plays baseball with a chimp though.)

Look at Dream Daddy! Or the Cat Dating Sim! (Hmm... I'm noting a theme here...)

 

[Intellivision]

Yes, although the way I see it, you're not talking about a Witcher factor so much as an open-world factor. Everything nowadays is an open-world game, or at least semi-open world. To add to your comment, most open-world SP games (e.g., Skyrim, Witcher, Horizon, Zelda, Mario, etc.) have substantial DLC content that extends their life further.

But then, we're no longer talking about what she is talking about, which is linear, story-driven, AAA budget, SP-only games. That is the type of game that is a dying breed. That is true at Sony and Nintendo, too, btw -- very few of their games fit that description:

- linear
- story-driven
- AAA budget
- SP-only

How many games can you name that fit that description, this generation? I can only think of a few. The Order 1886. Quantum Break. TLG, maybe. I'm probably overlooking a few, but I don't think there are more than half a dozen, the whole generation.

So it's a pretty rare occurrence, to get a game like that. As I said, this isn't a surprise. That style of game has been dead (or on its deathbed) for several years.

Lots of genres have petered out. Fighting games, puzzle games, RTS, turn based RPGs, turn based war sims, the whole Rock Band/Guitar Hero thing lasted maybe 4 years. Even racers have died down.

But the general trend now is competitive gaming which is something shooters, sports, and PC MOBA gaming thrives in. For people wanting SP action, it's all about open world games since they give much more freedom, content and unpredictable gameplay.

There can be reasons why some genres last better than others, and some unknowns like...... if fighters and RTS are competitive too, how come they aren't popular like shooters and sports? They were all the rage in the 90s and early 2000s, but withered away aside from some key longstanding franchises people stick with.

 

[yankeessuck]

Lots of genres have petered out. Fighting games, puzzle games, RTS, turn based RPGs, turn based war sims, the whole Rock Band/Guitar Hero thing lasted maybe 4 years. Even racers have died down.

But the general trend now is competitive gaming which is something shooters, sports, and PC MOBA gaming thrives in. For people wanting SP action, it's all about open world games since they give much more freedom, content and unpredictable gameplay.

There can be reasons why some genres last better than others, and some unknowns like...... if fighters and RTS are competitive too, how come they aren't popular like shooters and sports? They were all the rage in the 90s and early 2000s, but withered away aside from some key longstanding franchises people stick with.

Fighting games are too hard for most. You can continue to get better at shooters just by playing but fighting games really require you to put in work.

 

[Intellivision]

Fighting games are too hard for most. You can continue to get better at shooters just by playing but fighting games really require you to put in work.

I can't speak for RTS games, since I barely played any RTS games in history..... aside from Herzog Zwei.

But I think the reason why fighting games petered out is because they are so short and repetitive. Now someone can say, shooters and sports and Guitar Hero are just as repetitive. But it's different. With other types of games, there's more replayability and because there's so many people playing online and on the same team, you never know the outcome.

With fighters, you are basically playing by yourself one on one..... unless a fighting game has 4 player modes. but the traditional gameplay is one on one vs. the CPU or another player. So it limits the social aspect of the game. But playing a shooter or sport with 12 players (even if they are randoms) feels different.

Fighting games are also extremely similar. yes, more characters, moves and background art, but I'd bet any money you give gamers 3 Street Fighter games, 3 CoD games, and 3 FIFA games, and I'd say more people will say the fighting games feel more similar and samey than CoD and FIFA.... even if the CoD games have half the weapons the same and FIFA's most notable change is roster updates.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

...but I'd bet any money you give gamers 3 Street Fighter games, 3 CoD games, and 3 FIFA games, and I'd say more people will say the fighting games feel more similar and samey than CoD and FIFA.... even if the CoD games have half the weapons the same and FIFA's most notable change is roster updates.

As someone who doesn't care one iota about CoD, fighting games, or Fifa I think this is wrong.

When I see someone playing FIFA in real life, I have no idea what year version it is. CoD changes its settings and some of its mechanics enough to provide for some differentiation and Street Fighter V looks a bit better than IV and 3 is 2D. FIFA is by far the worst.

 

[Zero-O]

Intelli is wrong about Street Fighter they all play/feel radically different.

Yes, although the way I see it, you're not talking about a Witcher factor so much as an open-world factor. Everything nowadays is an open-world game, or at least semi-open world. To add to your comment, most open-world SP games (e.g., Skyrim, Witcher, Horizon, Zelda, Mario, etc.) have substantial DLC content that extends their life further.

But then, we're no longer talking about what she is talking about, which is linear, story-driven, AAA budget, SP-only games. That is the type of game that is a dying breed. That is true at Sony and Nintendo, too, btw -- very few of their games fit that description:

- linear
- story-driven
- AAA budget
- SP-only

How many games can you name that fit that description, this generation? I can only think of a few. The Order 1886. Quantum Break. Wolfenstein 2. I'm probably overlooking a few, but I don't think there are more than about half a dozen, the whole generation.

So it's a pretty rare occurrence, to get a game like that. As I said, this isn't a surprise. That style of game has been dead (or on its deathbed) for several years.

Now that I think about it you may be right. Only ones I can think of is Until Dawn, Gow of War and Detroit. Considering we are 4 years in that not many. Man

I miss secret levels, outfits, weapons, codes and characters in video games. They gave you a reason to come back. For many people that was the heart of gaming.

 

[karmakid]

What about games that comprises single player open world freedom with a set time limit like Majora’s Mask and Dead Rising? I don’t know where I’m going with this, I’ve never played them >,<‘

 

[menace-uk-]

LOLz.

 

[menace-uk-]

Yes, although the way I see it, you're not talking about a Witcher factor so much as an open-world factor. Everything nowadays is an open-world game, or at least semi-open world. To add to your comment, most open-world SP games (e.g., Skyrim, Witcher, Horizon, Zelda, Mario, etc.) have substantial DLC content that extends their life further.

But then, we're no longer talking about what she is talking about, which is linear, story-driven, AAA budget, SP-only games. That is the type of game that is a dying breed. That is true at Sony and Nintendo, too, btw -- very few of their games fit that description:

- linear
- story-driven
- AAA budget
- SP-only

How many games can you name that fit that description, this generation? I can only think of a few. The Order 1886. Quantum Break. Wolfenstein 2. I'm probably overlooking a few, but I don't think there are more than about half a dozen, the whole generation.

So it's a pretty rare occurrence, to get a game like that. As I said, this isn't a surprise. That style of game has been dead (or on its deathbed) for several years.

But are they dying cause gamers don't want them or because studios are so poorly managed they are unable to make a profit? It is the latter IMO.

Monetization is aa crutch for laziness.

 

[Andy]

Now that I think about it you may be right. Only ones I can think of is Until Dawn, Gow of War and Detroit. Considering we are 4 years in that not many. Man

I don't consider Until Dawn or Detroit linear, because each of them have lots of branching storylines, depending on the choices you make. Also, I don't think Until Dawn had a AAA budget.

God of War will be fairly linear, although less so than previous versions, from what I've heard. What is noteworthy there is that they've said it runs 25 to 35 hours -- more than twice the length of the typical 8 to 15 hour SP campaigns that were so prevalent a generation ago. So GoW, too, is adapting.

 

[Andy]

But are they dying cause gamers don't want them or because studios are so poorly managed they are unable to make a profit? It is the latter IMO.

Monetization is aa crutch for laziness.

No, because it's an industry-wide trend. If it were just "lazy devs," then you'd only see a few companies moving away from it -- the lazy ones. Instead, you the whole (AAA) industry is moving away from them. Unless you assume every dev who is working on a AAA budget game is lazy, that explanation seems pretty thin to me.

Although in this case (Hennig's game), they did pick an extremely expensive place to develop the game, which drove costs up. So some devs do need to focus more on cost containment. Move the studio to a double-wide trailer in Ottawa or something.

 

[hrudey]

The only person that can save single player is Ken Levine. He is humanities last hope.

He's given us System Shock 2 and Bioshock Infinite (among others). If he even comes close to that again, he stops becoming humanity's last hope and ascends into sainthood.

 

[hrudey]

God of War will be fairly linear, although less so than previous versions, from what I've heard. What is noteworthy there is that they've said it runs 25 to 35 hours -- more than twice the length of the typical 8 to 15 hour SP campaigns that were so prevalent a generation ago. So GoW, too, is adapting.

I think that's a good step. If a game is only 8-15 hours long, linear and single-player only, and it's asking full price, it has literally zero margin for error in my book. That's just way too short for me to be interested in paying full price for. If you don't have branching or at least adapting storylines like the Bioware boilerplate dark/light playthrough, you'd better have something like the Deus Ex/Shock series where you can play through with radically different playstyles to at least experience it differently.

 

[menace-uk-]

No, because it's an industry-wide trend. If it were just "lazy devs," then you'd only see a few companies moving away from it -- the lazy ones. Instead, you the whole (AAA) industry is moving away from them. Unless you assume every dev who is working on a AAA budget game is lazy, that explanation seems pretty thin to me.

Although in this case (Hennig's game), they did pick an extremely expensive place to develop the game, which drove costs up. So some devs do need to focus more on cost containment. Move the studio to a double-wide trailer in Ottawa or something.

That wasn't what I said.