sangam
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
SITTING AMONGST A LINEUP of heavily reworked in-house EA Sports titles for 2004, HB Studios' Cricket and Rugby titles can seem like the poor cousins of the EA Sports franchise.
But while EA has increasingly been soul searching in recent years, HB Studios has had the balls to reinvent its own games despite significant resource deficiencies and a markedly last-generation look to its output. Development Manager Andrew Wilson was in the country recently and so we had the chance to catch up for a chat.
GIA: First of all, what's your background? How did you become Development Manager at HB Studios?
AW: I was at law school, and ended up sorting contracts for EA. I ended up as development manager because of that and because I have a strong sporting background.
GIA: How are your studio's responsibilities arranged between Cricket and Rugby?
AW: We have two teams, one for each game, with a lead staffer on each. They do get together to cross ideas and the like. It is actually more like one-and-a-half teams. Me, I just work more hours. [laughs]
I try to get to the studio as regularly as possible. We have 28 people in the two teams. To put that into context, FIFA I think has about 150 people working in the team.
GIA: How involved are you in the games' development?
AW: Very involved. I like being involved. I think it's cool working on sports that mean something to the population. In that way, titles such as Cricket and Rugby are very different to something like Madden over here.
I often walk into shops and ask how the product is going. The staff will ask what do I do, and when I tell them I worked on the game, they're like "Wow, that's great that you're coming in here to see what's happening!" and it gives them a real buzz about the level of interest from the developers in how the game is going.
GIA: People often ask why you aren't sharing code with EA from their existing sports franchises. The animation and game engines seem so well advanced, they would obviously advance Rugby and Cricket significantly.
AW: Technically, there are no issues with doing that. The issues are political. Actually, I don't know if that is the right word. It's just that with us, EA is using an external development team. However, there is a great deal of code sharing between internal studios, and that's something we'd like to become involved with in the future.
We are working on systems to allow us to implement that now. The DICE team with Battlefield [1942] used shared code - besides the Renderware elements - and EA took an equity share in the studio. That allowed them to share elements of code. Cricket and Rugby are our games, our brand. We own the IP, so there's a difference there.
GIA: Are there any plans for EA to take a financial stake in HB Studios that would allow for such sharing of IP?
AW: We have thought about financial stakes. The thing about small independent developers is that that's what they want to be - small, independent developers. That's why there was only a small share taken in DICE: the indies want to retain their creativity and independence. However I do still spend a lot of time in other EA studios. Also, between the internal studios we're starting to see a sharing of information between the different games EA is working on. That's why you see such a big jump in the EA Sports games for 2004. On the other hand, HB Studios is still very much the baby of the flock. One thing that has come up is the need for a bigger, stronger relationship, and that's something that is being worked on.
GIA: What are the expectations from a publisher like EA from Cricket and Rugby?
AW: With EA there are extremely high expectations. Sales are everything to EA. I mean, they're not everything, but at the end of the day that's what determines the future of each brand.
GIA: What's important to you?
AW: All I personally want to do is build a really cool game. But if the games don't sell, we'll never see another one. In order to convince the head of HB Studios to allow me to implement a change in the games, I actually have to put down on paper how many more units we will sell if the changes are made. I have to come up with a model to show how a change will increase sales.
GIA: What is different about Cricket 2004?
AW: There will be lots of seasons, lots of foreign tours. When we looked at the last one there was a few things we wanted to address. For example, Cricket 2002 was based on just a few matches each season. Cricket is all about a season. Teams tour for a full season, and in Cricket 2004 you can now play all the games you would normally go through in such a tour.
The real focus is on a full foreign tour. You don't just play a couple of one-dayers and a few tests; you get to play the local developing teams and have warm-up matches as well as playing the internationals, and during this time you can upgrade your team and make changes like you would in reality.
GIA: What is different in gameplay?
AW: There are lots more stats in Cricket 2004, and gameplay is a lot more affected by the stats in-game. One of the complaints about 2002 was that tail-enders could bat just as well as anyone, whereas now the tail-enders are no longer so good. We also have an emotion/courage meter. So, for example, if you have someone like Glenn McGrath coming at you it will have an effect on your batting ability, based on who you are and the situation you are in.
We've also refined things like the manual fielding, and it's now much harder to bowl yorkers whereas in 2002 you could do that consistently.
GIA: Is the game much different cosmetically?
AW: We now have new motion capture technology for Cricket 2004. We sold enough copies of 2002 to put in new motion capture, so overall, it looks smoother and the player models have a lot more detail. We've also added more stadiums and people were bagging the look of the umpires, so we've also addressed that.
Bat and ball contact is also much better this time. We've really worked to improve the feel of that. One thing coming out of focus groups that were looking at what cricket is all about was the sound of the bat on ball, that crack of leather on willow when you hit a good shot. That was a really big thing, and we hadn't really captured that in 2002.
GIA: Do you spend time looking online at feedback and conversations about your games?
AW: I spend heaps of time looking at forum conversations. It's a double-edged sword, though. You can get bummed as well as stoked. Often it's the same people complaining, and they do nothing but complain and yet they still play the game, so it's not always really that valid, but we do take on-board the feedback we get.
GIA: How do you feel about the feedback on Rugby 2004 so far?
AW: I am disappointed with some of the Rugby feedback. We changed the whole game around, and we did it based on feedback from the last game. That was dangerous - it's dangerous any time you make drastic changes to gameplay, and I think much of the initial complaints [to 2004] were because people weren't accustomed to the changes. Often the first reaction is, "I don't like it," but once they play for a while they start to like it. The depth in Rugby 2004 is amazing, and I think that many of the reviews haven't accounted for that.
GIA: Are you happy with the sales results so far?
AW: The games have sold unbelievably well. Rugby 2004 has been number one in NZ, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. I believe it even beat Colin McRae Rally to number two in Ireland.
GIA: It has been been two years since the last version of Rugby. How often can we expect to see this series and the Cricket series updated in the future?
AW: I think the development for Rugby is 1-2 years. Cricket is possibly a 2-yearly release. We've tried to put enough into 2004 to last that long, but we will monitor the market and if there is the demand, we would look at an earlier update.
GIA: Is the future assured for these games?
AW: There is a ten-year plan for FIFA. Rugby and Cricket are still evaluation phase, so while going on current results the future is very positive, it's also a little uncertain.
END
Courtesy - Gary Wright
But while EA has increasingly been soul searching in recent years, HB Studios has had the balls to reinvent its own games despite significant resource deficiencies and a markedly last-generation look to its output. Development Manager Andrew Wilson was in the country recently and so we had the chance to catch up for a chat.
GIA: First of all, what's your background? How did you become Development Manager at HB Studios?
AW: I was at law school, and ended up sorting contracts for EA. I ended up as development manager because of that and because I have a strong sporting background.
GIA: How are your studio's responsibilities arranged between Cricket and Rugby?
AW: We have two teams, one for each game, with a lead staffer on each. They do get together to cross ideas and the like. It is actually more like one-and-a-half teams. Me, I just work more hours. [laughs]
I try to get to the studio as regularly as possible. We have 28 people in the two teams. To put that into context, FIFA I think has about 150 people working in the team.
GIA: How involved are you in the games' development?
AW: Very involved. I like being involved. I think it's cool working on sports that mean something to the population. In that way, titles such as Cricket and Rugby are very different to something like Madden over here.
I often walk into shops and ask how the product is going. The staff will ask what do I do, and when I tell them I worked on the game, they're like "Wow, that's great that you're coming in here to see what's happening!" and it gives them a real buzz about the level of interest from the developers in how the game is going.
GIA: People often ask why you aren't sharing code with EA from their existing sports franchises. The animation and game engines seem so well advanced, they would obviously advance Rugby and Cricket significantly.
AW: Technically, there are no issues with doing that. The issues are political. Actually, I don't know if that is the right word. It's just that with us, EA is using an external development team. However, there is a great deal of code sharing between internal studios, and that's something we'd like to become involved with in the future.
We are working on systems to allow us to implement that now. The DICE team with Battlefield [1942] used shared code - besides the Renderware elements - and EA took an equity share in the studio. That allowed them to share elements of code. Cricket and Rugby are our games, our brand. We own the IP, so there's a difference there.
GIA: Are there any plans for EA to take a financial stake in HB Studios that would allow for such sharing of IP?
AW: We have thought about financial stakes. The thing about small independent developers is that that's what they want to be - small, independent developers. That's why there was only a small share taken in DICE: the indies want to retain their creativity and independence. However I do still spend a lot of time in other EA studios. Also, between the internal studios we're starting to see a sharing of information between the different games EA is working on. That's why you see such a big jump in the EA Sports games for 2004. On the other hand, HB Studios is still very much the baby of the flock. One thing that has come up is the need for a bigger, stronger relationship, and that's something that is being worked on.
GIA: What are the expectations from a publisher like EA from Cricket and Rugby?
AW: With EA there are extremely high expectations. Sales are everything to EA. I mean, they're not everything, but at the end of the day that's what determines the future of each brand.
GIA: What's important to you?
AW: All I personally want to do is build a really cool game. But if the games don't sell, we'll never see another one. In order to convince the head of HB Studios to allow me to implement a change in the games, I actually have to put down on paper how many more units we will sell if the changes are made. I have to come up with a model to show how a change will increase sales.
GIA: What is different about Cricket 2004?
AW: There will be lots of seasons, lots of foreign tours. When we looked at the last one there was a few things we wanted to address. For example, Cricket 2002 was based on just a few matches each season. Cricket is all about a season. Teams tour for a full season, and in Cricket 2004 you can now play all the games you would normally go through in such a tour.
The real focus is on a full foreign tour. You don't just play a couple of one-dayers and a few tests; you get to play the local developing teams and have warm-up matches as well as playing the internationals, and during this time you can upgrade your team and make changes like you would in reality.
GIA: What is different in gameplay?
AW: There are lots more stats in Cricket 2004, and gameplay is a lot more affected by the stats in-game. One of the complaints about 2002 was that tail-enders could bat just as well as anyone, whereas now the tail-enders are no longer so good. We also have an emotion/courage meter. So, for example, if you have someone like Glenn McGrath coming at you it will have an effect on your batting ability, based on who you are and the situation you are in.
We've also refined things like the manual fielding, and it's now much harder to bowl yorkers whereas in 2002 you could do that consistently.
GIA: Is the game much different cosmetically?
AW: We now have new motion capture technology for Cricket 2004. We sold enough copies of 2002 to put in new motion capture, so overall, it looks smoother and the player models have a lot more detail. We've also added more stadiums and people were bagging the look of the umpires, so we've also addressed that.
Bat and ball contact is also much better this time. We've really worked to improve the feel of that. One thing coming out of focus groups that were looking at what cricket is all about was the sound of the bat on ball, that crack of leather on willow when you hit a good shot. That was a really big thing, and we hadn't really captured that in 2002.
GIA: Do you spend time looking online at feedback and conversations about your games?
AW: I spend heaps of time looking at forum conversations. It's a double-edged sword, though. You can get bummed as well as stoked. Often it's the same people complaining, and they do nothing but complain and yet they still play the game, so it's not always really that valid, but we do take on-board the feedback we get.
GIA: How do you feel about the feedback on Rugby 2004 so far?
AW: I am disappointed with some of the Rugby feedback. We changed the whole game around, and we did it based on feedback from the last game. That was dangerous - it's dangerous any time you make drastic changes to gameplay, and I think much of the initial complaints [to 2004] were because people weren't accustomed to the changes. Often the first reaction is, "I don't like it," but once they play for a while they start to like it. The depth in Rugby 2004 is amazing, and I think that many of the reviews haven't accounted for that.
GIA: Are you happy with the sales results so far?
AW: The games have sold unbelievably well. Rugby 2004 has been number one in NZ, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. I believe it even beat Colin McRae Rally to number two in Ireland.
GIA: It has been been two years since the last version of Rugby. How often can we expect to see this series and the Cricket series updated in the future?
AW: I think the development for Rugby is 1-2 years. Cricket is possibly a 2-yearly release. We've tried to put enough into 2004 to last that long, but we will monitor the market and if there is the demand, we would look at an earlier update.
GIA: Is the future assured for these games?
AW: There is a ten-year plan for FIFA. Rugby and Cricket are still evaluation phase, so while going on current results the future is very positive, it's also a little uncertain.
END
Courtesy - Gary Wright
