"Rockstar’s Table Tennis Eye-Opener"

[Marek]

The RAM Raider is a lovely cynical blog that everyone should read.

Their last post was a little less cynical than usual. I thought it was interesting. I'm going to be a dick and copy it in its entirety:

Everyone’s raving about Rockstar’s Table Tennis for the Xbox 360. Not literally jumping around in a field with a whistle, that would be silly, but you know what we mean. It would be predictable for us to just jump on the bandwagon (although you really should buy it, as it’s the first decent format-exclusive game to turn up for Microsoft’s dire console, AND it’s cheap), but it’s made us realise something.

The gaming press communally banged on about how “shocking” and “surprising” it was when Rockstar first announced Table Tennis, and has continued to drone on about how surprisingly good it is (with the exception of the collective stupidity of Teletext’s GameCentral reviewers who slagged it off and remarked that they didn’t “get the joke” – fucking idiots). The reason given for the majority of the journos’ surprise is that Rockstar released the GTA games and Manhunt which, shock horror, aren’t sports games.

There are two reasons why this is sad. Firstly, it shows bad research and ignorance on the part of anyone who's shown surprise. Table Tennis was developed by Rockstar San Diego, who developed the Midnight Club Racing and terrible Smuggler’s Run games. It was Rockstar North that delivered GTA and Manhunt, so not only are “Rockstar” as a whole not only known for violent games, but they’ve got more than one development arm.

Secondly, even if the ignorant journos were right and Rockstar’s back catalogue was only GTA and Manhunt, why does that mean they should be expected to be one trick ponies? Fifteen years ago, developers churned out different styles of game as a norm rather than an exception.

Take development gods The Bitmap Brothers as an example. Over a few years, they pushed out future sports sims (Speedball), platformers (Magic Pockets, Gods), shoot-em-ups (Xenon), an isometric adventure (Cadaver), and top-down shooters (The Chaos Engine), to name a few. They weren’t alone in their diversity. In their developer/publisher days, Psygnosis were known for Lemmings, Shadow of the Beast, and Agony, amongst a huge list of others. Core Design released Chuck Rock and Thunderhawk before inventing a genre with Tomb Raider.

Those were the days of innovation, when developers could still view variety as the spice of life rather than a sour threat to convention. That a mainstream house like Rockstar announcing a game that’s slightly different to what they’re most famous for is seen as such a huge surprise not only shows ignorance, but it reveals a sad side to the industry. Developers rarely take chances. They stick to what they know like shit to a blanket, and would mostly rather play with their mothers’ tits than take a gamble and branch out into something new.

Some developers still like taking chances – Introversion spring to mind – but the release of original output being so rare amongst today’s developers that a minor furore is caused about something as stupidly innocuous as Rockstar announcing a Table Tennis game is, like so many facets of the games industry today, a very great shame.

It's kind of true isn't it? Then again, I guess nobody expected Table Tennis to be actually good.

[SpiderMonkey]

No, I think he's wrong.

1) On the specifics of Rockstar: He's actually the guy guilty of not doing enough research. http://www.designmuseum.org/design/index.php?id=67 (this is an excellent interview btw) and http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/2006/03/killing_a_brand.html

Rockstar is a Take2 sub-label. The guys who set it up have been very specific about building a very targeted brand and development style. They are about games as cultural objects, a blend of music, film and gaming.

GTA and Manhunt represent Rockstar not because some journo hasn't figured out that Rockstar has more than one dev studio, but because these are the games that best capture this approach. The other studios' stuff comes across, regrettably, as "tried but failed", so ends up left by the wayside.

Take2 already has a sports label. So yes this is a surprise, not because "it's not GTA" but because of the argument that "this doesn't fit in with our pre-existing perceptions of the Rockstar brand".

If the blog-dude had said that it wasn't a surprise because this Table Tennis game fitted naturally into Rockstar's brand, and had presented a convincing argument to that effect, he'd have a valid point. But he didn't.

2) I was going to rage about the lazy cliché of "weren't things so much more innovative in the 90s", but I think I'll come back later when I have my thoughts in clearer order on that point.

[Erkki]

...Psygnosis were known for Lemmings...

Lemmings was actually made by DMA Design (aka Rockstar North)

[elmuerte]

Core Design released ... before inventing a genre with Tomb Raider.

What genre would that be? The female-avatar-with-large-boobs genre?

Developers rarely take chances. They stick to what they know like shit to a blanket, and would mostly rather play with their mothers’ tits than take a gamble and branch out into something new.

Really? I thought publishers rarely take chances. And that developers are often depended on what the publisher wants because they hand out the money to pay bills and buy food.

[Jake]

No, I think he's wrong.

1) On the specifics of Rockstar: He's actually the guy guilty of not doing enough research. http://www.designmuseum.org/design/index.php?id=67 (this is an excellent interview btw) and http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/2006/03/killing_a_brand.html

Rockstar is a Take2 sub-label. The guys who set it up have been very specific about building a very targeted brand and development style. They are about games as cultural objects, a blend of music, film and gaming.

GTA and Manhunt represent Rockstar not because some journo hasn't figured out that Rockstar has more than one dev studio, but because these are the games that best capture this approach. The other studios' stuff comes across, regrettably, as "tried but failed", so ends up left by the wayside.

Take2 already has a sports label. So yes this is a surprise, not because "it's not GTA" but because of the argument that "this doesn't fit in with our pre-existing perceptions of the Rockstar brand".

If the blog-dude had said that it wasn't a surprise because this Table Tennis game fitted naturally into Rockstar's brand, and had presented a convincing argument to that effect, he'd have a valid point. But he didn't.

2) I was going to rage about the lazy cliché of "weren't things so much more innovative in the 90s", but I think I'll come back later when I have my thoughts in clearer order on that point.

While the Ram Raider has some good points, I'm finding myself agreeing with SpiderMonkey. Rockstar is a brand of Take2. The likely reason that Take2 released this as a Rockstar game (coupling the R* logo with some hip looking 80s/60s branding) was to get their casual audience of fratties/Urban Outfitters and A&F shoppers to take note of the game, which wouldn't have happened otherwise. If they'd positioned it as a 2K Sports title, people would have written it off as a budget game. By slapping the R* logo on it its now innovative/edgy/different/"a big deal". That's not innovative or creative, its just good marketing.

That said, the fact that Rockstar San Diego went from Midnight Club and Smuggler's Run to table tennis is still cool.

[Jake]

What genre would that be? The female-avatar-with-large-boobs genre?

You play a lot of 3D action based exploration games before Tomb Raider?

[elmuerte]

You play a lot of 3D action based exploration games before Tomb Raider?

You mean like Fade to Black?

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think if any major developer (besides EA) made Table Tennis it still would have been somewhat "shocking". The reason for this is that game developers don't tend to make small little "fun" games anymore. It's got very little to do with diversity, really.

not only are “Rockstar” as a whole not only known for violent games

I'm sorry, did I miss something? They're ARE known for violent games, wasn't this the initial reason for this bloggers post?! That people generally associate them with their 'violent'/criminal based (ie. generally more sucessful) games??

Gee, let's examine the evidence: They have seven (count 'em!) GTA games, Manhunt, The Warriors, State of Emergency, Max Payne (I and II) and er, Midnight Club. The rest of their stuff isn't as well known... so YES, they ARE known for their violent/criminal games. Heck, even in their other racing games (The Italian Job and Smuggler's Run) you play criminals!

[ThunderPeel2001]

You mean like Fade to Black?

Tomb Raider was definitely the first truly successful 3D action based exploration game.

[brkl]

What does Rockstar have to do with Max Payne?

[n0wak]

No, I think he's wrong.

1) On the specifics of Rockstar: He's actually the guy guilty of not doing enough research. http://www.designmuseum.org/design/index.php?id=67 (this is an excellent interview btw) and http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/2006/03/killing_a_brand.html

Rockstar is a Take2 sub-label. The guys who set it up have been very specific about building a very targeted brand and development style. They are about games as cultural objects, a blend of music, film and gaming.

GTA and Manhunt represent Rockstar not because some journo hasn't figured out that Rockstar has more than one dev studio, but because these are the games that best capture this approach. The other studios' stuff comes across, regrettably, as "tried but failed", so ends up left by the wayside.

Take2 already has a sports label. So yes this is a surprise, not because "it's not GTA" but because of the argument that "this doesn't fit in with our pre-existing perceptions of the Rockstar brand".

If the blog-dude had said that it wasn't a surprise because this Table Tennis game fitted naturally into Rockstar's brand, and had presented a convincing argument to that effect, he'd have a valid point. But he didn't.

2) I was going to rage about the lazy cliché of "weren't things so much more innovative in the 90s", but I think I'll come back later when I have my thoughts in clearer order on that point.

You've been reading Scott Miller too much.

Yes, Table Tennis isn't like the prototypical Rockstar game. It isn't violent. It isn't criminal-based. Yes, Rockstar works on that image. However, in this industry, your brand means jack shit if your games suck. Quality games is as much a part of a game developers/publishers brand as much as content and presentation.

Table Tennis is, *gasp*, a GOOD game. Is quality not something that you'd want to associate with your brand?

And as far as the overall T2 picture is concerned, for name recognition Rockstar goes a lot further than 2K Games. Especially since it is still somewhat linked with SEGA. Why not release it under "Rockstar" since it was a Rockstar boutique title? Besides, after this whole Hot Coffee thing, that brand name could use a bit of positive (RATED E) enforcement.

(I said "brand" way too often. Been working in advertising for too long )

[Kolzig]

What does Rockstar have to do with Max Payne?

Take2 used the Rockstar brand as publisher name for Max Payne 2.

They did not have anything else to do with the Max Payne franchise.

[elmuerte]

Tomb Raider was definitely the first truly successful 3D action based exploration game.

If Fade to Black featured a woman with large boobs it would have been very successful too.

[Marek]

Tomb Raider it was a succesful game first, and a sales success second (boobies!). Fade to Black was neither.

[elmuerte]

that may be all true... but

Core Design released ... before inventing a genre with Tomb Raider.

[Marek]

It says "invented a genre" not "invented a new form of gameplay". For something to become a genre it needs lots of people to play it and lots of games to copy or expand on its template.

E.g. Xybots invented the use of 2D graphics to simulate 3D in a shooting game in 1987, but Wolfenstein 3D and Doom can be credited with inventing the 3D shooter genre.

(Yeah yeah I know. It's a slightly silly point to be debating.)

[vimes]

You mean like Fade to Black?

this game is a shame for its creator.

[elmuerte]

I think there's a difference between "inventing a genre (\new form of gameplay)" and "establishing a genre"

invented the genre => established the genre

Fade to Black => Tomb Raider

Xybots => Wolfenstein3D

Alone in the Dark => Resident Evil

[SpiderMonkey]

I think there's a difference between "inventing a genre (\new form of gameplay)" and "establishing a genre"

No offense intended, but I think you have pushed this discussion into pedantry now.

[elmuerte]

How is that not offending?

Anyway, miscommunication is a big problem in the world, larger than people want to acknowledge. And often they are even the cause of it without knowing (by trying to be fancy with words or figures of speech). A bit of clarity in communication can never hurt, well it can, but let's assume it's better to have more clarity.

Because of this discussion I now know the views of others concerning the meaning of invention/creation/establishment/etc. of a (game) genre. And I hope that I gace back my view on it.

That being said. Pong was fun, but I doubt I'll play Rockstar's Table Tennis.

[Oath]

How is that not offending?

It really isn't. I think you're right though.