The industry must get out of its 'smelly teen years', says the Ubisoft Toronto boss
Games should provoke discussions about subjects affecting the real world, says Jade Raymond.
Speaking in a recent interview with Develop, the Ubisoft Toronto boss said studios should be more willing to tackle controversial subjects such as the Arab Spring and class divide, and get out of their “smelly teen years”.
“The Arab Spring, class divide, internet freedoms… why aren’t there triple-A games about these topics?" said Raymond.
"We can actually use the interactive power of our medium to talk about these subjects in a way that can provoke discussion about them.”
She added however that it was understandable that big-budget blockbuster games could not focus on tackling these issues alone, given the need to appeal to a wider audience, but that ethical issues could be interwoven with the core experience.
Advertisement
“I am a realist – at $60m per triple-A game it’s not likely we can make a subject like this the core of a brand new IP," she said.
"Games may be stuck in this narrow genre of action shooters – but that shouldn’t mean we are stuck.
“So why not weave more meaning into existing blockbusters? Maybe GTA could make a statement about the penal system? Or maybe games like Call of Duty could make a statement about sexism?
“Maybe Splinter Cell could make a statement about the ethics of interrogation?”
Raymond said that customers could expect the Toronto studio's first game, Splinter Cell, to introduce new concepts to bring more meaning to the title.
“The first step is to add that into existing blockbusters, it’s easier to do it this way than introduce a new IP and be riskier with your content and your message," she explained.
"And in the new Splinter Cell, there is a concept at the core of the franchise that can be given more meaning.”
You can read our full interview with Jade Raymond here.
This is a title to irritate, why not More Games Should ......
Why? Why do games have to be about issues? Can't they just be, you know, games? Games that mix politics in aren't exactly aiming to expand their market. They're just aiming to piss somebody off.
That's not what she said. She's admitting and noting the industry is suffering from a lack of depth and breath. This can only continue on for so long. She's not the only person saying so.
This topic covers a lot of important bases: Diversification of product, Efficient utilization of format, Employee Satisfaction, Education and Skillset.
Just like a decent book, a game doesn't have to be about the injustice of a government or the terror of an abused child to touch on those emotions within the audience. The media offers those experiences subtly through action, either interactive or described, depending on the media. She knows as much because she explains that she means these things to be written into the course of action.
I noticed that the interviewer(?) remarked these topics might make "the next hip indie game" which, to me, seemed like a disregard. These topics already ARE blockbuster games, to some extent. She's remarking that the pot needs to be stirred, cliches left behind, and in some cases, intent refocused. It's about producing more satisfaction across the board.
Any game about a struggle ultimately asks philosophical questions. Depending on the role the player takes and the scenes they go through to reach their goals, those experiences could broach any topic what so ever. The biggest problems here aren't in asking for more breath and depth of product. The problems are in how the work force (and to some extent the industry) is currently viewed by employers/owners, and in how the industry uses communication across the board.
