TE: With the current state of game development as collaborative efforts between dozens, even hundreds of people, do you think it's possible for modern game designers to reach "icon" status?
SM: I'd like to think so. In other areas where there are large groups involved like films, you know the names of directors and ... not the writers ... or the marketing team.
TE: Unsung heroes?
SM: I think it's a lot harder for a single designer to stamp products because of all the technology and the size of the teams and the amount of polish and things that are expected in games. I do think there is still a personality - a Miyamoto game, a Will Wright game, one of my games, a CliffyB game, David Jaffe game - they are different. I think there's still room for a style, approach, a way of making games that can be unique to a designer.
TE: What advice would you give designers today to establish that voice and get noticed or brand a game as their own?
SM: I think originality is what's really going to differentiate a new designer from all the other things out there. It's actually a pretty good time to be a budding game designer. There's a lot of activity in independent games, in PC/desktop games; games that are really doable for a small team or a single designer. Independent games get a lot of attention if they have that original, fresh quality.
You know, if you want to become a game designer, design a game. That's really the only way to do it. There's no doctorate in game design ...
TE: Yet.
SM: Yet! It's pretty much if you want to do it, do it.
TE: While there is a big draw for independent games right now, have you also noticed a demand for more of the same? For instance, you're remaking Colonization right now. Do gamers want something new or do they want more of what they already love?
SM: They want it all. I think there's always been this tension between sequels and follow-up products and something new, and I think a lot of that has kept the industry growing and evolving. But I don't think there's ever really been a right answer to that question. I think it's great that we've had the innovation like the Guitar Hero games, MMO games. Those have been big steps forward that have added new energy, brought new people into the industry. Then you've got Rock Band and a rationale that you need to expand on those new ideas and genres. So I think both answers are right, there needs to be innovation and new ideas, but once an idea's out there, there's a lot you need to build on. I think Civilization is a good example. We're now up to Civilization IV and each of those games has brought something new that appealed to the audience that was designed to appeal to the audience of the preceding game. A good balance of both those things is really what's good for the consumer, and also good for the industry. Like Madden 2009, I think EA can afford some risk-taking because they know a game is going to reach a certain audience. It's the same thing here; we can take some risks with some ideas we have because we have our track record.
