Thursday, June 28, 2018

Studios We've Lost: Neversoft

Way back in 1994, all it took was three capable people to start a game development company and start creating games.  That's exactly what Joel Jewett, Mick West, and Chris Ward decided to do.  They left their jobs at Malibu Interactive, formed Neversoft, and never looked back.  From almost the smallest beginnings possible, Neversoft went on to impact the gaming landscape in major ways over the 20 years they were active.  Their most influential title, as well as what I expect most people to recognize them for, was the trend setting, popular, and incredibly successful Tony Hawk skateboarding games.  With that kind of pedigree, what exactly happened to Neversoft that ended in the studio closing down?  Well, let's take a look at the history of Neversoft from begging to end in this installment of Studios We've Lost: Neversoft.



Beginnings are Never Soft.

1994, their first year as a studio, Neversoft was hired by Playmate Interactive Entertainment to develop a game to be sold alongside the upcoming line of toys for the Skeleton Warriors cartoon.  Originally meant to be released on the Sega Genesis, the game was scrapped and restarted at Playmate's orders so that it could be released on the newer Sega Saturn.  By the end of 1995, when their first game was released, Neversoft had already more than doubled their staff and was looking to further expand.  They took it upon themselves to create a PlayStation port of Skeleton Warriors while seeking out more opportunities.  The only reviews I could find for this game were from IGN, who gave it a 5/10, and GameSpot's player reviews averaging it at a 6.3/10.  In terms of sales, the best source I could find put it at about 80,000 units sold.  Even for 1995, that's not very impressive, but for a studio that small basically having to make the game twice in less that two years, it was more than enough.

After six months work on a Ghost Rider game for Crystal Dynamics was cancelled, Neversoft decided to try and create their own original game tentatively titled Big Guns.  While this project would never see release, being sold to Sony, reworked, and eventually cancelled in 1997, the technology they created for the game still went to use in making a PlayStation port of the PC game MDK.  This port didn't go as smoothly as the studio intended, coupled with all the time spent on cancelled games, forced the studio to shrink back down to just 12 employees by the end of 1997.  They continued to look for more work, showing off their technology, until the beginning of 1998, essentially out of time and money, Neversoft met with Activision.

Activision was looking for someone to take over development on a game called Apocalypse that would star Bruce Willis as the main character, and the work Neversoft had done on Big Guns was a perfect match.  Development apparently went so well that only 4 months into the project Activision approached Neversoft with the opportunity to develop a skateboarding game in addition to Apocalypse.  Neversoft, probably glad to be offered continued work under Activision, accepted but was unable to spare many resources to the project until work on Apocalypse was complete.  Released at the end of 1998, Apocalypse was met with middling scores of 71 from both GameRankings and GameSpot, the latter of which specifically criticized the voice acting.



Going Vertical.

By the end of 1998, Neversoft was putting their full force behind their new skateboarding project.  Initially, the team started by modifying the engine used in Apocalypse, even using the Bruce Willis character model as a skater through the prototyping stages.  Near the end of 1998, realizing that a big name in skating would be needed to really push their game's wider appeal, Neversoft had Activision arrange a meeting with the studio with arguably the most prominent and well known skater at the time, if not ever, Tony Hawk.  Hawk was impressed with the early build of the game and agreed to let them use his name and likeness in a royalty deal that would see him earning a percentage of every game sold rather than a one-time buyout.  This decision would earn him 10 times the one-time payment he was offered within two years.  Hawk also gave input to the game through development, including what other skaters should be included.  Neversoft did attempt to use motion capture for animation, however the technology was still so new at the time it was deemed worse than the quality of animation they could create by hand.  Late in 1999, the first Tony Hawk's Pro Skater was released to outstanding reviews and sales.  The PlayStation version sits at a 92 score on Metacritic, receiving perfect scores from some outlets.  In terms of sales, THPS was the best selling game of the month it was released in, was awarded a "Platinum Sales" award meaning excess of 300,000 copies were sold in the UK alone, and would go on to be the second best selling PlayStation game of 2000.  Knowing they had a hit on their hands, Neversoft shifted to working on a sequel immediately after completion of the first game and letting Activision assign other studios to develop the ports.

Not content with working on just one game with a major name attached, Neversoft used their THPS engine to develop a Spider-Man game concurrently with THPS2.  This game, titled without frills as Spider-Man, would also go on to be a platinum seller and reach an 87 score on Metacritic.  Later that same year, the second THPS game would be released to the public.  This sequel, while further building on the existing engine, boasted a ton of new gameplay improvements such as level and character creators, along with plenty of new tricks and techniques to perform in game.  All these improvements and hard work didn't go unnoticed as THPS2 would get an even greater critical reception than its predecessor, sitting at a staggering 98 on Metacritic for the PlayStation version.  Reviewers praised everything about the game, from controls, to graphics, and solid performance.  THPS2 brought Neversoft their third consecutive game to be a platinum seller, being the best selling game on the PlayStation for two weeks straight, and would go on sell over 4.48 million on the PlayStation alone, or 5.3 million including all versions.  That's not to mention all the awards and accolades the title received.

Success like the one Neversoft saw with THPS2 painted a clear picture for where the studio should focus, and with new console hardware on the horizon, the team continued on with their tradition of releasing a new THPS game every year.  Being the first game in the series on a new generation of consoles, as well as Neversoft's first ever game on the new hardware, there was a lot of opportunities for this third installment to stumble given the development time.  Instead, Neversoft proved their mastery of the skating genre they pioneered, and THPS3 yet again amazed critics and fans alike.  Just barely below 2, THPS3 ended up at a 97 Metacritic rank, tied for the best ever PS2 title, with many outlets giving it perfect scores.  IGN even commented that the game "Should go down in history as one of the best twitch-fests on PS2. Yes, TH3 is that good. The perfect skating game remains just a tiny hair's breadth out of reach, but if you are not satisfied with your purchase of this game, head examinations are recommended."  

Somehow, while developing THPS3 and moving on to it's inevitable sequel, Neversoft also released THPS2X, an updated version of the second game for the modern consoles with a couple improvements and content from the original included.  I assume this was a minor project for a smaller team at Neversoft, requiring much less time and talent than a fully new installment, but even the improvements added couldn't keep the game from failing to impress a second time around.  Reviewers were somewhat split, acknowledging that it was the best version of THPS2 available, but not much more than that.  It would end up with just a 78 Metacritic score, an all time low for the series up to that point, and the worst the studio had gotten since 1998's Apocalypse.  

Back on the yearly release schedule, THPS4 came out on all major consoles with, if you'll excuse the pun, plenty of new tricks up its sleeve.  The most major addition was the inclusion of online play, a first for the series, where up to 8 players can join to together to play the multiplayer games previously limited to split-screen.  Despite continuing to add new features, content, tricks, and ways to play, THPS4 showed the first hints at series fatigue.  Even so, the game still reached an incredible 94 Metacritic on PS2.  



Through the Underground.

Perhaps sensing that more than graphical, mechanical, and gameplay related changes were needed to keep their yearly skateboarding series fresh and at the top of the market, Neversoft chose to take the series in a new direction.  In Tony Hawk's Underground, or THUG, players would create a new character and progress through a narrative story rather than complete missions as existing pro-skaters in disconnected stages.  A possible reason for choosing to focus on a completely original character for the story was that it would allow for that character to commit criminal acts, which might've cast a bad light on any real life pro skaters featured in the game, now showing up as NPCs in the story.  It seemed as though this work to push a more narrative angle in the series didn't help the series from its slow decent in scores, only just reaching a 90 on Metacritic on the PS2, but was still a strong enough seller to bring Neversoft another platinum seller.

THUG2 was, thanks to the previous game's introduction of a narrative campaign, the first sequel in the series to be a direct continuation of its predecessor in more than mechanics.  Neversoft pushed narrative yet again, although to many reviewers it fell short, literally.  Aside from being critical of the length, the writing and overall plot were not up to par compared to THUG or other contemporary narrative games.  Additionally, not much new in terms of gameplay was added compared to previous sequels, which I believe was only an inevitability with so many games coming out year after year.  In the end, THUG2 brought the series down to a an 83 on Metacritic for PS2 and Xbox.  



And into the Wasteland.

With 6 Tony Hawk games already under their belt, and the signs of diminishing returns starting to show its face, Neversoft looked to further push their series wherever they could.  With American Wasteland, that push came in the form of removing all loading screens.  The game would not be individual levels or stages that they player had to load into, but one giant map they could skate, combo, and ride through from end to end without interruption.  They also incorporated BMX for the first time, and while not as robust as the skating portion, still offered variety and new possibilities to the player.  Once again, the series took another downturn in review scores, ranging from a 69 to a 77 on Metacritic across PC, Xbox 360, and PS2.  The general consensus was that the technology used to hide the loading through corridors to create a seamless skating experience was great, and the more grounded story was refreshing, but the game itself was beginning to feel too familiar.  

For the first time since 1998, Neversoft released a game not beholden to any license in the form of the western TPS Gun.  Gun was about as far from skateboarding as a game could get, set in an open world old west with side quests, hunting, with a morality meter that rises and falls based on the player's actions.  Essentially, it was what many thought Grand Theft Auto would look like if it was set in the wild west, well before Rockstar would make Red Dead Redemption.  All things considered, the new game did fairly well for itself, earning a 79 on Metacritic and selling over a quarter of a million copies in its first month across 4 systems.  



Back to basics.

This brief reprieve from Tony Hawk games didn't even last a year, which I assume to be due to Activision's insistence on keeping the franchise going, with 2006's Tony Hawk's Project 8 followed up by 2007's Tony Hawk's Proving Ground.  The former was received mostly positively, earning an 81 on Metacritic, but the follow up saw record low scores for the series ranging from a 57 for the Wii version and the highest scoring being the DS at a 79.  At that point it must've become clear to both Neversoft and Activision that the craze surrounding the Tony Hawk games had all but vanished.



A new gig.

Activision had plenty of other franchises it was looking after, and as Tony Hawk was charting on a downward trajectory, another trend was spiking upward.  Guitar Hero, and the music/rhythm genre, was skyrocketing in popularity, plus required a specialized guitar controller to play which further increased profitability.  Neversoft was tasked with developing the third game in the series, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock after Harmonix, the series' original developer, was bought by MTV.  Having been fans of the games, Neversoft agreed and was able to fully develop and release the game in late 2007.  According to Activision, Guitar Hero III was their "largest product launch ever" and generated over $100 and selling 1.4 million copies in it's first week on sale in North America alone, with almost 2 million more units sold in the following month.  The title would sell so well that it became the first videogame to earn over 1 billion dollars in sales.  In terms of reviews, the title did well.  Most scores across its 5 versions lay in the low to mid 80's, topping out at an 86 for the Wii version.  

Just as with Tony Hawk before it, Neversoft became the Guitar Hero studio, only this time Activision pushed them to produce more than just one title per year.  2008 saw Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and Guitar Hero World Tour, with Guitar Hero: Metallica, Guitar Hero 5, and Band Hero all releasing in 2009.  After Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, the only notable change in the series, aside from song selection and minor gameplay changes, was the inclusion more instruments to further capitalize on the public's obsession with playing as a band, as well as sell more peripherals.  Reviews across these games remained fairly consistent around the mid 80's on Metacritic, and looked to be an even more powerful brand than Tony Hawk had been for profits, even while in competition with the Rock Band games, although sales were starting to dip after Metallica, most likely due to consumer burnout with so many games of the genre being released so frequently.

With 2010's Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, Activision saw the need to refocus their development away from the sinking franchise by closing down Neversoft's Guitar Hero division upon completion of the title.  Perhaps knowing it was their last shot with the franchise, the team set their sights on recapturing what fans liked about Guitar Hero III, focusing on a strong track list based on rock, a solid focus on the guitar, which was the most popular instrument, and a good challenge for the large portion of the audience who played at higher difficulty levels.  In the end, the game was given scores in the low to mid 70's and sales of only 86,000 across all platforms in the first 5 days, far below expectations compared to 1.5 million of Guitar Hero III, and 500,000 of Guitar Hero: World Tour in the same time period.  After this commercial failure, 50 employees were let go from Neversoft.



Going Extinct.

With the Guitar Hero division closed down and a dwindling staff, Neversoft was left without a franchise to work on.  Having done some work on additional modes for the Call of Duty franchise in the past, Activision decided to merge the studio to work with Infinity Ward on an "extinction" game mode for Call of Duty: Ghosts where they would remain.  On July 10th, 2014, exactly 20 years after being founded, Neversoft as a studio was officially no more.  As a final tribute, the remaining employees set fire to their iconic eyeball logo by shooting it with a flaming arrow.

The Postmortem.

Neversoft was a studio that seemed unstoppable.  Their origins as just a handful of developers into the developers of two of some of the most popular and profitable games of their time should've spelled nothing but success for the studio.  The issue was that the games were only just that, popular and profitable for their time.  The skating culture died down, and the plastic instrument music/ party scene was so over-saturated that it took a nosedive from arguably an arguably higher peak than Tony Hawk in a fraction of the time.  But who was to blame?  From where I view things, Neversoft was resigned to a fate far worse than a team of their skill deserved.  They proved they could make amazing games, even ones that still stand as peaks in their genres, while working on strict time constraints.  Not only that, but they were versatile.  Sure, Activision was quick to tie them down almost exclusively to one license at a time, but little breakout games like Spider-Man and Gun proved they could tackle so much more than skating or rhythm games given the chance.  So is it Activision's fault?  Well, yes.  They were the ones who made the decision to merge the team into Infinity Ward after the poor sales of Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, which was a commercial failure to be sure, but certainly not one that should've overshadowed the dozens of record breaking games they developed beforehand.  In my eyes, Activision's narrow focus on exploiting whatever franchise is big at that moment, Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty, blinds them to pursuing any other project.  As many more intelligent journalists and the like have pointed out, Activision is only interested in making the most amount of money, and just making a profit is no longer good enough.



Under a better publisher, I believe Neversoft could have continued developing very strong titles.  Would they ever manage to catch lighting in a bottle for a third time and break all kinds of sales records?  Maybe, probably not, but I don't think they should've been expected to.  The gaming landscape has changed a lot since the types of games Neversoft made a name for themselves on were flying off the shelves, but as a part licensed and part original IP studio, I think they could easily make games of a high enough quality to turn a profit every time.  It just so happened that they were bought by a publisher with a short sighted business plan that jumped from trend to trend as soon as it started to see sales dip.  Neversoft managed to survive under that toxic rule for a very long time, but eventually even a team as talented as they were fell victim to their greedy overlords.


Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Not Quite A Review: The Shape of Water

It took me far too long to get around to seeing this film.  Despite being a fan of everything I've seen directed by Del Toro, which admittedly isn't his entire body of work, I still put off seeing this one for a while, even after he won best director for it.  I guess I felt like I had to be in the right mood or frame of mind to see this particular movie.  It wasn't a big action anime love letter like Pacific Rim, or completely fantastical action-comedy like Hellboy.  Just by the name, The Shape of Water, I knew it was something...softer.

The film is set entirely in our world, but the sets, costumes, lighting, and overall color and tone contribute a feeling of that fairy-tail style Del Toro is so amazing at.  With a few exceptions, I was completely absorbed in just the visuals of this movie, but not because anything was specifically striking or unique exactly, but just because of the feeling I got from looking at it all.  It has a strange surreal, or dream-like quality I have trouble putting into words.  Coupled with the small cast of incredibly strong and distinct characters, I was sucked into the world of this film full force.  That's important, to be so invested, because of what the plot revolves around.  If none of what I mentioned resonated with you, or you purposefully resisted it, then I doubt you would be able to empathize and believe in the plot.  That's kind of why I'm avoiding stating the plot, although I will say it's a love story, because just reading it as a sentence wouldn't do it justice.  In fact, I bet it would make a lot of people dismiss the film when they might otherwise have enjoyed it.

That's a problem I'm glad The Shape of Water was able to avoid and get the recognition it deserved.  Just because a plot may sound childish or immature doesn't mean it should be rejected based on a single element.  Taking something and presenting it as honestly and sincerely as possible, no matter what it is or what medium the creator chooses to use, should not be discredited because of one relatively minor aspect.  Del Toro had something to say, and manages to get it across in a beautiful work of film.  That's something special in a world where a film is influenced by so many people coming at it from different angles.  If you enjoy unconventional romance stories, with beautifully flawed and believable characters, then see this film.

Friday, June 8, 2018

Are Reward/ Comeback Systems Fair?

As multiplayer games, and single player games to an extent as well, are being designed to keep players engaged for as long as possible, a strange side effect has been cropping up across essentially every genre.  It was a slow process, but we've gotten to a point where every major multiplayer game is inherently unbalanced.  There are a lot of ways this happens, and are different across genres, but a few have managed to spread across most.  One that is basically expected in all multiplayer games as this point is some kind of progression system.



Progression systems started out as an attempt to create balance in multiplayer games, and have slowly been corrupted into something that's almost the exact opposite.  Take the early Halo games, 2 and 3 specifically.  They gave you a rank based on how well you played in specific playlists so that as you got better, you played against people of a similar skill level.  This kept competition, in theory at least, fair.  No one who was on their 500th game would show up to crush someone on their first ever game.  Halo 3 added an overall rank in addition that added another little goal to work towards outside of game type specific ranks.  That was all well and good.  It may not have been perfect, but it was way better than nothing.  Then some people realized that, hey, people really like this system of ranking up by playing.  I bet if we offered more things to achieve besides a rank and number they would keep playing our game even longer.  This line of thinking was mostly a response to the supposed trade-in culture developers and publishers were so vocal about.  Anyway, this led to things like Call of Duty putting guns and perks behind XP barriers.  You haven't played 200 matches yet?  Well, you can't use this gun you like then, or get this perk that gives you more health.  This was certainly a step in the wrong direction, but was still somewhat mitigated by the ranking system keeping the playing field somewhat even.  It only got worse from there, though.  I know it's basically the poster child for the worst multiplayer progression system, among other things, at this point, but I've got to point to Battlefront II as the ultimate corruption of this idea.  Not only do people who play more than others get more powerful weapons and upgrades, but they don't even have to play to get that advantage if they just want to throw money at the game.



Okay, so balance was definitely thrown off by this progression system even at it's best.  However, that wasn't even the worst reward system in terms of creating an uneven playing field.  Something that became quite popular among the FPS genre is the idea of 'kill streaks' where the more people you kill without dying, essentially the better you do, powerful abilities unlock for you to use.  I can see the logic in implementing this system.  People like to be rewarded for doing well, obviously, but rewarding that one person for doing well is also punishing everyone else for doing poorly.  I think it goes without saying that people aren't to fond of losing, only to then be put at a disadvantage because they're already losing.  It would be like a hockey team getting an extra player once they were three goals up on the opponent, or their net was made smaller.  Games like COD did try and alleviate this problem a little, but not by reducing or removing the advantage the better players got, but by adding "death streaks" where you get some different bonus, usually not as good, after dying so many times in a row.  Now I'm no hard core COD player, in fact I haven't really played one much at all since 4, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard that system never really got fixed.



Jumping to another genre, let's look at fighting games.  This is perhaps the most directly competitive form of gaming there is, with one on one fights that follow very specific rules.  Granted there's a lot to be said about balance regarding characters, but that's for people way more knowledgeable about those things than me.  I do think I can comment a little on some of the systems in use, however.  Specifically the 'revenge' and 'meter' systems.  The revenge system works as the name implies: the more damage you take, the more the meter fills.  Once it reaches a certain threshold, you can unleash a special attack that can't be performed without that meter.  This is meant to give players who are losing a chance to make a comeback since there's no retreat or way to recover health (usually) in fighting games.  The normal meter fills by dealing damage and landing attacks, which can generally be used to power up other attacks or be saved for a separate special attack when fully stocked.  This, naturally, rewards the player doing better, but not exclusively since the losing player is also building these meter, albeit at a slower rate.  It is also worth noting that the "revenge" meter does not carry over between rounds, while any normal meter does.  The most direct comparison found in some fighting games to things like kill streaks is the dizzy/ stun system, where after getting hit in rapid succession in a short time, a player becomes dizzy or stunned and unable to do anything.  This allows the opponent, who was already demonstrating dominance by landing so many uncontested hits, a free shot to do whatever attack, combo, super move, or whatever else they want to the defenseless opponent; another perfect example of rewarding the winning player.

The question these systems bring up is whether or not they're fair or necessary.  Personally, I think there's a few lines that could be drawn.  First, and least controversial, is that no one should be able to flat out buy an advantage in a game.  Obvious, right?  As far as progression systems unlocking new items, abilities, weapons, ect. goes, I think they should go as well.  To me, that carrot on a stick of constantly chasing a new thing to unlock is unhealthy and unbalances the game.  However, I have seen people flat out say they would not buy/ play a game without any unlock system to keep them engaged.  As if, you know, the fun of playing a game no longer came from just playing it?  At some point the reward for playing a game switched from an intrinsic feeling of just being good, having a good time with the mechanics, to the extrinsic reward of a new thing the game will give me once I fill this meter up.  For some things I don't mind this, like costumes or other flavor content that doesn't impact the actual competition (bear in mind I'm speaking exclusively about unlock-able content not anything loot box related, either free or paid in this case).



I guess the big question, or one of them, behind this entire aimless ramble is how we should reward people for doing well, encourage those doing poorly, but without either system affecting game balance.  To be honest, I don't think there's any system needed during the course of play.  A person on the losing end of a game can make a comeback without an crutch, and a person winning shouldn't be given even more tools to ensure success.  In fact, it can feel pandering to be given an advantage when down, and be an aggravating way to lose a game an opponent would've otherwise won.  Comebacks are great, and the desire to make as many matches close, nail-biting affairs is commendable on the surface, but these systems are not the way to go about it.  Let skill and determination be the deciding factors.  If the playing field is balanced, then someone who is down should have just as much opportunity to make a comeback using the same tools their opponent gained their lead with.  There is one possibility I haven't mentioned yet, but mainly because I doubt it is often relevant or even worth much acknowledgement since it all boils down to maintaining imbalance, and that is how "kill streak" type systems could be beneficial as a comeback mechanic when a losing player begins mounting a comeback and is given an edge to further close the gap.  Again, I don't think this should be necessary, but that's just me.  How do you feel when you're on the losing end of a multiplayer game only to see the opponent(s) get more powerful?  What about when the roles are reversed?  Is winning by skill alone more satisfying, or should it be a race to see who can roll their snowball downhill first?  And then there's the same questions about advantages for losing players.  Speak your minds, I'm very curious to hear opinions on this one.