Long-term Division

I am in Switzerland at the moment (believe it or not, it is not as boring as everyone reckons and the weather is gorgeous. You can, however, by knives, chocolate and cuckoo clocks to your hearts content!) and recently booked to go and see Oasis (huge in Europe, not quite so big Stateside) play at a Festival in the land of the cow bell. Since I booked, however, I have been reading reports detailing the state of the band at the moment, and the picture is this; the original drummer, bassist and guitarist have all left, and been replaced. The two Gallagher brothers, the crucial guitarist and singer pairing, have taken to only turning up occasionally, and almost never as a pair. So, on any one day, you could be watching only one member of the original band strutting his stuff, supported essentially by a cast of (talented, but not what you came to see) makeweights.

This got me thinking: how much of itself can something lose / give up and still claim to be itself? For instance, if Detroit's famed Russian Five ice hockey players all left the team, could Detroit hire five new players and claim that they were the Russian Five? Could Disneyland fire Mickey Mouse and still be called The House of Mouse? In a way relevant to this column, how many key members can a game developer lose while still using its track record and pedigree as a way of drumming up interest in its products? Look at ID Software. They are still held in awe amongst members of the gaming community as 'The Team who made Quake'. Since Quake, however, many of the team have left. Most famously, John Romero quit to co-found ID Software, taking a couple of others with him. Recently, ID fired crucial but troublemaking artist Paul Steed citing 'differences in direction'. Various team members have left as well, including quite a few of the sound department, which begs the question: does this still count as the team who made Quake?

Some of you may be getting jumpy here. After all, have I not recently written glowing pieces about ID, saying that they are well placed to take gaming to the next generation? I still believe that everything I said was true, but I am just issuing a warning here (this article is also being sent to the ID press office, and I will print their reaction as and when). They cannot afford to get complacent and try to live off reputation. And we, as games connoisseurs, must treat their product in the same way as we would treat a game from a little-known company, albeit one studded with a few star names. When looking at games companies (either with a view to investment or just out of curiosity), I would judge by the following factors:

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic