Game Matters

Radar Q & A

(I wrote this post a week after Radar's announcement, but it never made it on the site because we were trying to set up comments and other features.  And finally we decided to drop all of that and just bring the blog back to my original home.)

After our well covered announcement, there were numerous good questions posted in both gamer and developer-oriented discussion forums. I’ve borrowed several of these questions to post and answer here:

o How is Radar related to 3D Realms?

Quite simply, it’s not related. Both 3DR and Radar are entirely separate companies, with separate management. Well, except me. I’m a co-owner and manager at 3DR, but for all intents and purposes, Radar is my full-time job now.

o Where is Radar located?

We’re headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, but that's just where the CEO resides and two of his executive henchmen. The reality is that Radar is a distributed company. This means that we are located wherever we want to live—there’s no requirement to relocate. Currently we have several people in Canada, several people in California, several people in Arizona, and two people in Texas--11 people total, and growing.

There are two key advantages for us as a distributed company: The first is that we can hire better people, because often the best candidate loves where they live and doesn’t want to move. And second, since we remotely coordinate as a company, that transitions well into remotely coordinating with our development partners. We can reuse the tools and lessons learned from working internally and use those tested approaches with our distributed partners. In effect, Radar’s Creative Directors become an extension of the development team, and are always available to spend time on-site, so that they are fully involved with the process and can support the developer in any way required by the studio.

o Are we a think-tank that creates concepts, and then hires studios to make the game?

Not at all. In many cases talented development studios have a strong concept, but they cannot get publisher buy-in because the concept is too innovative, and therefore seen as too risky. We’re also interested in working with studios who may have strong development skills but are lacking their own strong IP to develop, because we have a catalog of Radar- and Depth-conceived IP ‘cores’ that can be chosen from. But even in these cases, we’re not handing down a completed design—we just have a core, which needs to be fleshed out with the team as part of a co-design process.

The bottom-line is that we want to work with studios to co-create and co-design concepts, so that everyone has buy-in and creative ownership.

o How are you different from agents?

Agents add no creative or production value to a project, nor do they provide funding or management resources to help monetize an IP in a cross-media fashion. In short, we are nothing like an agent.

Now that I’ve answered a few of the questions I’ve seen, here’s what a few game developers are saying about Radar after our announcement:

First, a well-known industry designer wrote: “My favorite thing about the concept of RADAR is that it splits out two major aspects of the business that the publishers currently hold, project incubation and retail distribution. In trying to do both, most publishers end up with a never-ending series of…assistant producers and execs (with sales/business backgrounds) trying to shape games. Further, the pubs have to be so large in order to do both that it just invites all the worst aspects of large organizations (in terms of speed, communications, efficiency, etc). I’m hopeful this will create specialization (splitting game/IP shaping and moving mass quantities of “product”) that ends up being healthy for games.”

And a successful studio owner based in the UK wrote: “It’s the perfect time for something like this, particularly with the people involved. Many publishers are seriously struggling to break new IP, and many devs are spending too much of a percentage of their time on, err, developing, rather than bringing their passion to the brand with input into the marketing and PR plan, which is hampering the possibilities of breaking through.”

Finally, two closing comments from two developers, reflecting the general attitude we’ve seen:

“I’m definitely excited to see where this goes. Breaking apart the monolithic funding + IP incubation + distribution lock that the publishers have seems like it would be a long term win-win for everyone.”

“The whole thing sounds brilliant to me but only because of the credibility you guys bring. In this case you already have an extremely strong IP track record.”

Does the game industry need a Radar?

(Well, posting blog entries on the Radar site was somewhat hassle-filled, so we've decided to bounce the blog back to my original home.  For completeness, here's my original entry from about six weeks ago, duplicated below.)

One way to answer this question is to look at what’s currently wrong with the game industry:

o Too many licensed games. Not enough original IP.
o Independent game studios are mostly work-for-hire operations with no ownership in their work.
o Too many financial execs and attorneys leading inherently creative businesses.
o Too many games being created without building in cross-media elements.
o Studios eventually lose their identity, name, culture and eventually their passion when purchased.

This is just a partial list, but a strong one nonetheless.

And while Radar can’t fix all of these issues, we bat the first four out of the park:

[1] Radar creates only original properties—no licenses. This is something of a revelation for the game industry, which has leaned heavily on the broken crutch of film and TV licenses. It doesn’t take a lot of research to show that other than sports licenses—which make total sense—most of the game industry’s mega-successful properties are born from within: The Sims, Mario, World of Warcraft, Bioshock, Halo, Max Payne, GTA, Tetris, CoD, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, Half-Life, Diablo, Elderscrolls, Duke Nukem, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Doom, Tomb Raider, and so on. The bottom-line is that Radar will only create original properties, much like Pixar has done. Original properties have the advantage if they’re purposely designed with the game industry in mind, with unique, memorable gameplay hooks, strong characters, and the potential to create what I call a compelling Storyverse^TM.

[2] Radar strongly believes in shared ownership of properties with game studios. With ownership comes passion and a dedication to do the best work possible. Shared ownership also allows studios to better share in the IPs success and to become financially stable and gain true independence. For Radar, sharing the pie is a no-brainer. It’s a win for everyone involved.

[3] Radar is founded and led by a team with extraordinary industry experience, especially on the creative side. Would you trust a film studio lead by Steven Spielberg or Alan Greenspan? ‘Nough said.

[4] Finally, Radar co-creates (with our studio partners) concepts that support both the game industry AND linear entertainment. In effect, Radar does more than develop a game concept, we also develop a deep Storyverse^TM (what I consider to be the "story universe"). This storyverse is rich and broad, full of characters and story possibilities—in effect, a storyverse is the possibility space for stories. Three of the best known examples of what I consider storyverses are Star Wars, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. And while it’s nearly impossible to create storyverses this rich time and time again, at least we attempt to think in terms of the big picture, so that our properties have a history, and more importantly, a long future in the game industry and hopefully other entertainment branches.

Radar is specifically set-up to take advantage of our storyverse design focus by running all of our properties through Depth Entertainment. Depth is Radar’s cross-media partner, based in Hollywood, and run by a capable, experienced, well-connected team. Max Payne is Depth’s first co-production project, a movie due out later this year.

Depth has another role, too. It will provide Radar with a deep talent pool for our projects, as well as be a good potential source for new concepts that can then be further developed into both game concepts and linear concepts. The Radar/Depth connection is likely the best yet conceived between the game industry and Hollywood, with both sides being equal partners and on equal footing. Everyone knows Hollywood and the game industry have been oil and water in the past. Depth will prove—and is already proving—that the proper collaboration can be highly beneficial. We promise that Uwe Boll will never direct one of our movies!

Does the industry need a Radar? Let’s examine the key players and what I think their answers will be…

o Developers—Yes! And why not, we offer them the opportunity to create original projects and co-own them, the Holy Grail in this industry.

o Publishers—Yes! As public companies publishers are always under the gun for the next quarter. There is a lot of pressure put on them to make safe bets on licensed IPs because developing new ideas is a messy creative business, and they must justify the large fixed costs of internal teams. Radar is thus a powerful connection for publishers looking to increase their hit percentage by acting as an incubator of ideas. Ideas that we will presenting to them only when the titles have made it through our selection filter/process.

o Gamers—Yes! While many won’t care, those who do likely realize that the long-term pay-off is an industry more populated by independent developers who can call their own creative shots, like Epic, Id, Remedy, Valve and Gearbox. That can only be a good thing.

So, that’s the short of it. There will be plenty of future blogs to fill in the many details.

Radar announced and new blog

Since my last post, things took a whole new direction and I co-started a new company along with Jim Perkins, Raphael van Lierop and others.  This new company is Radar Group, and I've started a new blog.

A few links:

[Update] Wired.

Announcement coverage of Radar.

My IGN Interview on RadRaph's.

Raph's Gamasutra Interview.

Short summary of Radar:  Radar's primary goal is to facilitate the creation of original IP (intellectual property) for the game industry, because original IP has proven itself to be the driving revenue force for the game industry, which I've discussed many times in this blog's past.  We facilitate the creation of original IP by teaming up with established independent development studios and funding the pre-production of original IP.  We co-design and help shape original IP along with our development partners so that it has all the hooks in place to make the IP viable for cross-media monetization.  This is part of our secret-sauce that makes Radar so unique in the industry, because the vast majority of IP being created in our industry doesn't have the big entertainment picture in mind, creating IP that easily crosses over to other media.

And, because Radar's original IP is built from the ground up with cross-media hooks, we have established a partnership with Depth Entertainment, a new Hollywood-based production studio, to handle the Hollywood end of the business for us.  Depth's first film production, Max Payne, is already deep into filming, and is due out late this year.

Unlike most publishers, Radar will share ownership with development studios on original IP.  Creators should be owners.  This is our firm belief, because owners have the greatest creative passion for their work, and also reap the greatest rewards from a successful product.  Fact: There are not many creatively independent Epic's, Valve's, Remedy's and Id's in our industry.  Radar will change this in the next few years.  I personally had a hand in both Remedy's and Id's rise to creative independence, as well that of 3D Realms.  So, it's not much of a stretch to believe that Radar will take this to a whole new level by working with 10-12 new studios over the next few years.

So, wish us luck and keep an eye on us.  If we succeed, I believe there will be numerous other attempts at our model, and for the industry and gamers as a whole, this will be a big win.

Can you hear me now?

Our phone service is hosed. Here's a message our COO just sent to all employees, which was kinda funny so what the hey:

"It appears a work order for installation of a new circuit has caused confusion with the brainless phone company who has apparently cut service on the old circuit thinking the new circuit was going to replace it. It's not. You might have noticed the orange markings in front of the building. Those indicate the line run for the new circuit to be installed. This isn't the first time Verizon has screwed the pooch, and I don't expect it to be the last. They own the lines in the area so we have no choice but to continue to deal with their occasional incompetence."

While I'm here, in other news, quite a few studios have contacted me about a potential co-venture. I'm not actually looking to ramp up to 4 or so studios all at once, but over the next year. It takes about three months to ramp up with just one studio, fleshing out the game concept, etc. And right now I have one rock solid new studio I'm working with, and I'm meeting with another super-star candidate in a few days. Things are cookin'! I will say that I'm a little blown away by how many studios have, in fact, contacted me (and many I've yet to respond to). It's very clear that there are a boatload of talented, experienced independents looking for a fair shot at making a triple-A original game.

Casting a wider net

A relatively slow weekend, and a chance for a rapid fire update.

Real quick, some good news: Prey is a success. We know that within the first two months it passed one million units sold worldwide.  And for a game on two platforms that's pretty darn good. There will be a sequel, and we think we have a interesting follow-up story to tell and some all-new innovations to bring new excitement to the table.

I recorded a Next Generation Podcast last Tuesday (Episode 6) and discussed a few topics.  Interestingly, this podcast was recorded using Skype, with everyone on a conference call.  This was my first experience with Skype and I have to say it was super easy to install and set-up, something I rarely experience even with games. The clarity was as good as a land line, and I've even used it to make international calls and it works BETTER than land lines.  Skype for life!

In the podcast I give a reason or two why episodic content may have problems catching on, at least with major releases like Sin: Episodes, and the confusingly named Half-Life 2: Episode 1. One reason I didn't mention is that with episodic games there's frustration because you hardly ever come to a satisfying end -- instead they end with a cliffhanger so that you feel compelled to get the next episode 10-12 months later.  Cliffhangers are fine with weekly TV shows, but it's really annoying with once per year releases.  I think these studios will soon realize that they'll make a much bigger splash going back to major full-game releases.  I bet we'll never see an episodic release win Game of the Year, for example.

I also talk about our new business strategy of working with multiple independent studios simultaneously.  This has been something I've considered for a few years, but I wanted to wait until after Prey's release to purposely pursue.  We did this during the first half of the 90's, as Apogee Software, when we pioneered the shareware distribution model of releasing games as episodic trilogies (a vastly different episodic model than the one I refer to above).  Back then we worked with numerous external studios, giving many of them their start with funding, design guidance and marketing guidance, including Id Software, Terminal Reality, Remedy and one few people know about, Parallax Software, makers of Descent.  This was a game we significantly funded ($200,000+), but the team's funding requirements continued to rise over the months to a point when we decided that we no longer could afford to be involved, in large part because at this same time we had decided to build up an internal development operation.  We made a deal with Parallax to shop their game around, and they eventually signed with Interplay, who released the game a year later, and was one of their most successful titles ever.

Anyway, we are often contacted by talented, experienced independent studios looking to partner with us as we've done with past studios.  It has become apparent to many studios that partnering with us allows them to create an original game, and reap far more of the rewards and benefits, by getting a better overall deal, and also sharing in the ownership of the IP -- the real Holy Grail in this industry.  Id went on to become an industry super star.  Remedy has achieved that status, and Human Head is right at that level, too, with publishers knocking down their doors to sign them after Prey's release.

So, going forward, 3D Realms will become a studio polygamist, teaming up with more than one studio, working on perhaps 4-6 external projects simultaneously, creating new IPs and hopefully helping more and more deserving, talented independent studios achieve financial independence, and the ability to call their their own creative shots in the future.  I am hiring one or two additional IP Creative Directors to assist me in the management of these games.  We've already been contacted by numerous highly qualified independent studios, and more are welcome to contact me.  In a way, we're going back to our roots.  Fun times ahead!

AOL is the devil and other true stories

o  Why does any sane person use AOL?  It's one of the greatest unsolved human mysteries, to be sure.  And there's nothing worse that buying a computer that has AOL pre-installed.  It's like a cancerous disease you cannot fully excise -- with tendrils so deeply rooted that all efforts to remove it will be unsatisfactory.  I truly feel sorry for anyone stuck with AOL on their system -- the only true cure is a new computer, but be careful, it is really, really hard to cancel your subscription, as this story indicates.  And more reason to hate the AOL devil.

o  E3's demise.  Well, the majority cry among game developers is, "Thank goodness!"  I'm in that camp, too.  E3 had become somewhat pointless to its main purpose...previewing upcoming games to major retailers and distributors, in order to generate bigger orders (especially for Christmas).  E3 had become too loud, too expensive, too crowded, too overrun with "press" from little fanboi websites that don't matter to anyone's bottom-line (boy will I take heat for this comment! *grin*), and too irrelevant to anyone's bottom-line success (or failure).  The fact is that in a broadband world, video killed the convention.

The only thing we lose with a mini-E3 is all the big-time prime-time news coverage.  E3 made our industry look a lot bigger than we really were.  The fact that this was a lie cannot be disputed, if only because E3 could not sustain itself.  The bubble popped.

o Saw The Descent. Maybe the best pure fright movie I've seen since Alien.  Also, one of the very, very, very few movies I've ever seen that is ripe to be made into a video game.  I won't go into details, but those who've seen it are probably shaking their heads in agreement.  BTW, be sure to go to YouTube to see the real ending, not the watered down American sell-out shortened ending.

o Elsewhere, I made a few comments about conceiving a new IP, which I'll repost here since this blog space has been sorely lacking material of late and so cannibalizing myself is the least I can do:

Silver bullet design -- searching for a single element that will lead to success -- is not often successful.  Even bullet-time, in the wrong setting, with the wrong character, etc, would have done far worse.  Bullet-time worked because it was within a John Woo-style story that made you care about the character, with modern day weapons.  Bullet-time would have been less appropriate in a WW2 game, or a western game (like Gun).

Duke and Prey are prime examples of synergy, rather than silver bullets.  Each of these games had many little innovations, and within contextually appropriate stories and settings.

Anyway, it's hard to think of what comes first.  With Prey, it was the character (chosen for uniqueness), then the abduction setting was chosen because it wasn't typical for the character type (and provided easy conflict), then the character type led to the character's special abilities based on his Cherokee mythology, and then the alien environment led to gravity and portal effects, both of which make sense within the alien setting.  So, it's like a tower that builds up into something solid.

The gameplay hook, more than anything, comes closest to the silver bullet.  But, the gameplay hook needs to tie into the character and/or story and/or setting in a natural way that stays credible.  If the gameplay hook comes first, these other things need to wrap around it seamlessly.  If the story/character comes first, then the gameplay hook should emerge from this foundation and not feel like an after thought.  For example, if your original character idea is that a teenager is bitten by a radioactive spider, then bullet-time isn't a natural gameplay hook.  But wall climbing and web spinning are.

When we selected a Native American as a lead character in Prey, we didn't know jack about this culture.  We just knew that it was a ripe-for-the-picking area to explore because no game had done it before, and positioning has taught us that it's best to do something first if at all possible (Prey was conceived prior to the first Turok game).  When Prey was rebooted in late 2001, the first thing I did was spend $400 on Amazon buying a dozen books on Cherokee culture and mythology.  This is where the companion hawk came from, for example, because Red Tail Hawks play a key role in Native American lore, as protectors and messengers -- exactly the role that the hawk plays in the game.  The hawk also helped convey the game's story and mythology.

IMO, it's almost impossible to formulate a compelling IP on demand.  Instead, it must come to you, piece-by-piece, over time, as your brain chews on it as a background process over many months or even years.  You will enjoy several a-ha moments along the way if the original concept had merit.  Just yesterday, for example, I had an a-ha moment for Prey 2 that might be a significant story feature for the game -- something never seen in an FPS before, but could be extremely cool if well executed.  Many movies have used this technique, but no game as of yet.  And it will be something that's an easy sell for the press, and totally fits Prey's theme.

The main point is that I never could have forced this idea to the surface.  It is only through exposure to other media and sources that it occurred to me.

The REAL secret to WoW's success?

I haven't played since hitting level 60, over a year ago.  But I'm certainly anticipating The Burning Crusade, simply because it raises the level cap to 70.  I'm expecting those new ten levels will take 80+ hours or longer of actual quest time.  I hope so at least.  Because once I slam into 70, I will deactivate my account, putting my character into cryogenic sleep again until the level cap is raised again.

There's one overriding reason I played WoW, while I never played previous MMOs:  I could solo all the way to the top.  Not once did I group to enter an instance.  Occasionally I grouped with players in the same area doing the same quest, and occasionally with a friend to share a quest, but 95 percent of my experience was as a solo player.  And that's how I prefer it.  I like to be able to jump into the game and play without waiting to form a group, getting right down to the business of fun.

People might ask, why not just stick with single-player games then, like Oblivion or Titan Quest?  Why bother with MMOs?  Simple answer:  I love being in a game world populated by other real people.  It makes the world seem that much more real and alive.

I've heard that WoW is the first major MMO that lets players solo from bottom to top.  I asked this question to peers before I bought the game, and I was assured I could do it.  Otherwise, I would have never played the game.  I strongly suspect that many people feel the same way I do about this.

So, if you're working on an MMO that does not allow soloing the whole way up the level ladder, IMO you've seriously crippled your chance to create a WoW-like success in this market.  MMOs are social games, yes, but not necessarily are they for people who like group play.

Activision's CEO needs a surfboard

"The idea of full downloadable games is so far in the future that it's almost incomprehensible as an opportunity," said Bobby Kotick, chief executive of Activision. -- The New York Times

Short discussion: Wrong!

Longer discussion:  Kotick apparently does not know of newer streaming technologies that allow for large games to be played well before fully transferred to the user's platform.  This is the single technology breakthrough that makes large game downloads a viable option for gamers.

And once players, press and CEOs like Kotick experience this technology, they will all wake up to the fact that digital delivery is on the verge of an explosive acceleration of acceptance, much as CD-ROMs exploded in popularity a dozen years ago.

Valve's Steam, as an example, is NOT representative of the next generation of digital distribution that will change the way software is sold and delivered.  A much better example is Triton, the digital deliver service that Prey will use.  When player's buy Prey from Triton, they need to only download around 20 percent of the game before they can begin playing the game.  This takes about 20-25 minutes or so, a very reasonable period to wait before playing a content heavy, triple-A title.

Digital delivery simply has too many advantages for publishers to ignore:

o Immediate revenue stream.  No more waiting to be paid by the retailers, who make money on the float, the period of time they have the publisher's money sitting in their accounts earning interest, at the publisher's expense.

o Higher wholesale.  This means that the publisher makes more money per game sold, because digital delivery is inherently less expensive because there are no cost-of-goods (no game box and manual).

o No chance of rentals (until the publisher decides it's okay, like after a three month window).

o No chance of resells, an after-market that is killing publishers and developers alike.

o Less chance of piracy.

There are other advantages, too, but I'll save those for discussion after Prey is released via Triton, that way I can point them out specifically using a real world example.

The bottom-line, though, is that publisher CEOs like Kotick, who are likely unaware of the advanced state of coming next-generation digital delivery services like Triton, are about to be blind-sided by a wave that will either sweep them aside--or more likely they will whip out their surfboards and join our industry's Next Big Thing.

Best E3 IP

Various online game sites are coming out with their Best of E3 round-ups, and I just finished reading IGN's, where Prey was nominated in two categories, Best FPS and Most Innovative Design (rightfully losing to the Wiimote).  Not bad, especially since we only showed the weakest facet of the game, multiplayer.  But, this is not to point of this little rant.

One thing I noticed -- it was hard not to! -- is that practically every category winner was an original IP.  Not including sports categories, there was just one licensed game that won a major category: Age of Conan won "Best Persistent World Game" (with the other nominations being original titles).  Real quick, a clarification on what I mean by "original game": A game representation an IP (or brand) that was first developed for the video game market.

Looking at the other major categories, we see that IGN gave "Best Action Game" to Assassin's Creed (both runner-ups were also originals).  In the "Best FPS" category, all nominations, and of course the winner therefore, were originals.  Same for these categories: "Best Adventure Game," "Best Platformer," and "Best Puzzle Game." "Best Multiplayer Game" went to Gears of War, an original IP (although indistinguishable from Unreal universe, but hey, we can ignore this as Unreal is also original).  "Best RPG" is owned by Bioshock (original) and the runner-up went to another original IP, Mass Effect.  "Technical Excellence" meet Spore.  "Best Music Game," hello Guitar Hero 2.  And whaddaya know, "Game of the Show," say hello, Bioshock.  Oh, with the three runner-ups all being original too, Mass Effect, Super Mario Galaxy, and Spore.

Gee, where's all the licensed games that are suppose to "rock our world" like an Infogrames promotional song?  Whomever signed the go ahead for Lord of the Rings Online surely thought they had signed pure gold, no?  I mean, those movies were bigger than big, and so just Like The Matrix Online, LOTR Online is a sure bet.  Right?

And then the most read book since the Bible, the Da Vinci Code, with its own movie timed perfectly with the game's release, and yet the game is no where to be seen.  What's up with that?

Star Trek Legacy anyone?  Anywhere?  Scotty, can you hear me?  Oh, and what about Scarface, with one of the most elaborate theater set-ups at E3.  Seriously.  They made you climb stairs to see the demo, just like the stairs in the film.  How cool is that!  Not cool enough to get anyone to care about this game, apparently.

Nope, at E3, the buzz was always about original games, like Supreme Commander, Stranglehold, Lost Planet, Crysis, Redsteel, Company of Heroes, Splinter Cell, Dead Rising, Zelda, the WoW expansion, Quake Wars, and all of those IGN award winners and nominees.

Is it any wonder that publishers are all making announcements that they're shifting focus a little more toward original IPs.  Sure, they're a little slow at catching on to trends that have been stunningly obvious for 10+ years, but I still give them a little credit...better later than never.  The problem now is that they won't shift enough in the direction of original IP -- their mix should never be more than 20% licenses (not including sports and kids licenses).  But, I get the impression they will still rely far too much on Hollywood to supply them with ideas because, let's face it, it's easier to license ideas than to spawn a creative thought on your own.

Brand new brands & E3 '06

Just back from E3.  While I was gone The Hollywood Reporter ran this interview with me, where I discuss why our industry would be better off making original brands, versus turning to licenses so darn often, as if we do not have a creative mind of our own.

In the interview I was asked:

THR: What about "King Kong?" That did well as both a movie and game.

Miller: If you release a licensed game when the movie comes out, you'll probably do okay because you have that synergy working for you. That's why the "Enter The Matrix" game worked even though it was rated really low by the game reviewers. But when you do that, you can run into other problems because you're trying to rush the game out which usually results in a lower-quality game. UbiSoft really pulled off a miracle with "King Kong" and made a decent game around it. But those are few and far between.

I didn't add that if it weren't for the synergistic release with the mega-anticipated movie, I wouldn't have bothered with the Kong license.  And I would not expect further Kong games to do well.  (And yeah, Kong is dead, but if the license had inherent value to the game industry, you could easily have Son of Kong or whatever.)

While here, E3 thoughts.  Here's what I wrote in another forum:

Supreme Commander looked sweet.  Might be the game that gets me RTS'n again.

Saw the trailer for Resistance: Fall of Man (typical dumb name, like Halo: Combat Evolved) and I love the idea, and the brief look of the game I saw.  Hard to believe this is coming from Insomniac.

Saw the Turok demo, and WTF?  It was a 3 minute slide show!  Doesn't even star a Native American -- they've gone the nameless soldier route.  Guaranteed failure.

Overall impressions.  There are a LOT of games that I would not have green-lit.  A lot of followers, rather that leaders out there.  A lot of clueless publishers thinking their little me-too game with a few changes here and there are going to carry the day.  Um... no.  Money down the drain.  And way too many fantasy MMOs with interfaces that pretty much clone WoW's!

Eidos is one big failure of a publisher.  Saw several of their lackluster games at the Nvidia booth, and they all looked last generation.  The generically named Rouge Trooper is a big loser.  Tomb Raider looked like a big pile of meh (yeah, I know it's been out, but been too busy to see it).  And Hitman needs to be "Quickly Executed," because no one cares.  The Eidos games were being played by Eidos reps only, as the world walked by.  Oh how far Lara has fallen.  And deservedly so given the lack of innovation.

Bioshock looks beautiful, but a little too slow paced for my liking.  I'm sure it'll be a System Shock sized hit, though.  Which is basically a mild hit, not a mega-hit.

Good grief the Japanese can't name a game to save their lives.  Everything comes right out of the Official Manual of Generic Fantasy Words Names, like Dynasty, Final, Shadow, Dark, Legend, Sword, on and on and endlessly on.  They're not the only game name lamers -- there are so many poorly named games at the show I laughed out loud more than a few times.

Didn't see Gears of War, but heard good things.  Overall, was not an impressive E3 as far as finding unknown nuggets.  All the top candidates going in emerged unscathed by surprises.

Oh, and heard a LOT of negative comments about the Wii controller from developers who messed with it.  Be very worried, Nintendo.  Didn't get to see it myself because I didn't have 2+ hours to wait in line.  What a dumb way to run a booth, meanwhile the open booths of Sony and Microsoft I explored fully.