Has Rare Lost Touch With The Gaming Industry?

In an interesting interview this week at 1up.com, Peter Moore, now at Electronic Arts, believes the skillset that Rare holds is a bit dated for our gaming industry. Moore, best known in his role of VP at Microsoft in their Interactive Entertainment Business division, understands how great Rare and their games once were but seems to believe the industry has passed them by.

Looking at their latest Microsoft titles, mainly Perfect Dark Zero, Viva Pinata and Kameo: Elements of Power, it’s not hard to believe his statements as fact. None of the titles have blown away a market full of Grand Theft Autos, Halo’s and other top selling titles. None of their games hit the epic review scores of Bioshock or Crysis. It’s not all first person shooters are taking the big sales numbers; Spore was given rave reviews by online review sites (sans Amazon) and that’s a completely different style of game.

Popcap’s Peggle has had more fame and glory than some of the bigger titles from Rare, probably made with less money. Is Rare a dying breed of developers with no good direction to react to the changing ways of the game industry?

No. Peter Moore is missing a big part of the changes in Rare since their 2002 purchase by Microsoft. The major difference is… Microsoft. Microsoft had plans to make Rare Ltd as successful on their own console as Rare had with the Nintendo 64. Moore says:

“I thought ultimately [Viva Pinata] would be very successful — and you know, Microsoft, we’d had a tough time getting Rare back — Perfect Dark Zero was a launch title and didn’t do as well as Perfect Dark… but we were trying all kinds of classic Rare stuff and unfortunately I think the industry had past Rare by — it’s a strong statement but what they were good at, new consumers didn’t care about anymore, and it was tough because they were trying very hard — [original Rare founders] Chris and Tim Stamper were still there — to try and recreate the glory years of Rare, which is the reason Microsoft paid a lot of money for them and I spent a lot of time getting on a train to Twycross to meet them. Great people. But their skillsets were from a different time and a different place and were not applicable in today’s market.” (1up)

Perhaps if Rare had the ability to pick and choose their own platform for their own desires and innovation they’d have a killer Wii game for the market. Nintendo and Rare had a great partnership in the making of Donkey Kong Country, a product they couldn’t do on their own due to the intellectual properties but managed to create a memorable franchise when combining forces. Imagine, taking Donkey Kong to such awesome levels with a ground breaking and well crafted title with high quality graphics on a low quality system.

What about GoldenEye 007? A game that changed the first person shooter landscape on the console and sold over 8-million copies on a Nintendo platform. Along with their hot back log of titles is that of BattleToads, a game which was well received by reviewers but insanely difficult for gamers to master. Of course, Banjo-Kazooie was another great title from the folks at Rare, most of which was made famous on a non-Microsoft console.

What’s the lesson? Don’t point fingers at the creative talents behind the projects and future decisions when you’re boxed into a single console under someone elses name. For a developer to thrive and grow they need space to do it, they need to be fully able to access all the gaming hardware in the industry. Microsoft tried to fit a round peg and a square hole and paid $375 million to figure it out.

0 thoughts on “Has Rare Lost Touch With The Gaming Industry?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Users Pwn MetaCritic Review SubmissionsUsers Pwn MetaCritic Review Submissions

Although we’ve found Metacritic a userful resource for game reviews, many folks have gone on a user submission rampage to discredit games that haven’t even launched yet. Their first attack was on LittleBigPlanet followed by Resistance 2, now their hitting Gears of War 2.

While Gears of War 2 has a Metacritic score of 94/100 the user’s have reviewed it to be a 3.5 out of 10, with a bright red box around the user review due to its low nature we’re sure. Although users are free to give their own honest representation of the game from their perspective, Gears of War 2, as of the review dates, hasn’t been released yet – these reviews are bogus.

This style of attack was popularized in Spore, when Amazon got nailed with poor reviews of the game because Spore’s “Draconic” DRM made people angry. However, it’s more reasonable for people to voice their opinion on a known issue with a game; Gears of War 2 review spamming is just mean.

We use Metacritic as guidance when we do our gaming podcast to understand what games are rated in the industry, but we don’t use user reviews as our main guide. There are plenty of folks out there that may utilize these reviews in more seriousness because they may feel journalists reviews are tainted by advertisers or “the man” and want the common gamers opinion.

The common gamer cannot possibility be reviewing Gears of War 2 before the title has arrived. This is bogus. Metacritic has this to say:

“My advice for our faithful users is to focus your attention on the Metascore for this game and not the thousands of user votes, most of which have been submitted before said users have played the game. This is a gaming community, and if people want to stuff the ballot box, there’s not much I can do at this point. When we upgrade the registration requirements for participation on the site in the near future, this type of thing won’t happen. We’ll post the full legitimate user reviews upon the game’s release. As always, thanks for using the site.” (1up)

So, to those looking for holiday gaming gifts, keep this in mind while you start hunting down games you’ll want to buy.

Diablo 3, Finite Health and Loving ItDiablo 3, Finite Health and Loving It

Diablo 3 Lead Designer Jay Wilson sat down with Multiplayer Blog to explain how the health system works in Diablo 3 and how it differs from Diablo 2. In short, you can’t add a new feature without removing an old one, in this case we’re talking about health potions.

The goal is to broaden the Diablo audience to more than just the hardcore fans. Lets be honest with ourselves, the health potion system was way too far out of control (broken?) By mid-game or earlier, half the character inventory was full of potions and you might have just purchased shares in the potion selling company with all the spending you’ve done there. The health potion system created the infinitely powerful character, in essence, by making them immortal.

Activision Blizzard has learned a bit about their success with broad audiences in games like World of Warcraft, which has surpassed game sales over Diablo 2, their most successful game title. What they’ve decided to do in this release of Diablo is to limit the characters ability to heal and make them “mortal” again, requiring the player to use strategy, tactics and skills to defeat enemies. Rather than charging forward pressing “1” then “2” then “3” and the other hot keys for potions, you’ll be forced to back away during strong stomp attacks, mind your enemies special attacks and defend yourself.

“One of the things that happened in ‘Diablo II’,” Wilson continued, “was the player was faster than most of the monsters and had pretty much infinite health because they would just pop as many potions as they wanted. So when you have a player who has more mobility, more health and endless power, essentially the only thing you can really do to challenge [the players] is to kill them… by just spiking the difficulty.” (multiplayer blog)

Gating the users ability to heal is a classic RPG/Adventure game mechanism for changing the playing field in terms of difficulty. You can make a game with weaker enemies in abundance and still cause you harm, take a look back at Gauntlet in the arcade for an example of this method. You can build challenging enemy styles and dungeon traps to cause the player to mind their step, look at the classic Zelda series and some of their crazy enemies. A great example is the Darknuts from The Legend of Zelda, it was a small knight that could only be attacked from behind but had a sharp little dagger if you bumped them from the front. You had to use tactics to wipe out a full room of Darknuts.

Activision Blizzard will now have the option to create some fancy enemies with challenging special abilities that do not involve insta-kill upon contact battle tactics. You control a super hero character, not an immortal; there should be some challenge besides hacking and slashing through mobs of enemies. Wilson went on to say, “We can make a monster that affects your mobility, we can make a monster that has different kinds of attacks that are dangerous to you and that you actually have to avoid. And so it makes the combat a lot more interesting.”

One of the criticisms to the Diablo franchise has always been the “click fest” of battle. You sit still and click on enemies until everyone is dead. Perhaps, without having infinite potions you’ll be challenged to use your brain on occasion, like a real RPG and have more creative use of your money rather than investing a half-billion into the potion vendors.

Where does that lead the hardcore Diablo fans? Activision Blizzard hopes they’ll see a title with a lot more depth, a new style of challenge and a long term appeal.

Wolfenstein for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3Wolfenstein for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3

When you hear the word Wolfenstein what game do you think of? Constantly, I recall Wolfenstein 3D and all the memorable times I had building my first person shooter fingers. From a new-generation FPS perspective, Return to Castle Wolfenstein for the PC back in 2001 was my last touch on a Wolfenstein game series. I enjoyed it a great deal and would love to see more out of the game series.

It seems Activision and Raven Software are working on a PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game, currently titled Wolfenstein set to be released “when it is done.” The game follows the same concepts as most of the Wolfenstein titles of the past, a bit of dark science fiction and undead matched with World War II settings with Nazi’s and the main character BJ Blazkowicz.

This series seems to be full of re-hash and repeat with plots, characters and overall feel. Developers seem to favor re-makes over sequels to the famous franchise, eventually putting out one or two sequels of their re-make hits well with customers.

Is this the correct direction for the Wolfenstein franchise? In my humble opinion, it doesn’t really matter to me because I’m such a fan of the series. Perhaps they will continue to re-make the game until the larger demographic screams “Not again!”

(Thanks, Eurogamer)