[Se777eN]

Cliff Bleszinski: Interview
18-Jun-2009 The Gears of War producer talks Gears, survival horror and being a giant douchebag...

Some know him as CliffyB. Others call him Cliff Bleszinski. Few refuse to acknowledge him as another other than 'that giant douchebag'.

Advertisement:

Whatever you want to call him, there's no denying the meteoric rise to fame that the Gears of War Lead Designer has experienced since the cover shooter was released.

It's a fame that has put him at crest of the Gears of War wave and at the mercy of the internet, who ridicule his love of the spotlight.

All said and done, how happy are you with Gears of War 2?
I remain extraordinarily proud of the work that I do as well as the gifted team I work with. But that said, nothing's perfect and hindsight is 20/20. Matchmaking was very flawed out of the box; the game did ship with exploits, and it's an unfortunate reality when you make a product that is played by millions of players on day one.

That said, Horde was really a resounding success, and this really seems to be the era of co-op really and truly emerging as its own thing, much like versus did years ago in the Quake and Doom era. But we'll continue with DLC and keep that long tail as long as possible.

I think we did a far better job with the story this time around - I think Josh Ortega is a fantastic writer, the game had a tighter story, made a lot more sense, had some nice twists and turns, a little bit darker. That said, of course it's not Shakespeare; it's still a popcorn blockbuster.

But people love to beat up on us about story for some reason, and they focus on the buff characters and the chainsaws, and they fail to see any of the nuance in the game.

But how the Maria resolution wound up panning out was so interesting - if you go to YouTube right now and look up that spoiler scene, there are 780 comments on there and two-thirds are people saying things like "this made me cry," "this is the saddest moment I've ever seen in a video game," "oh my god that was horrible." Sometimes you've gotta trust your gut and make the kind of game you want to play and believe in yourself.

You hint at these ideas that you have not explored. What are the game ideas that have gotten away while you've been focusing on Gears?
Well, this is getting a bit much, but there was a rumor about me doing a survival horror game, which I have absolutely no idea how that hit.

Somebody wanted you to make a survival horror game.
I know! And that's a genre that's very near and dear to me. I love Silent Hill 1, 2 and 3. The other ones didn't happen; it's like Highlander sequels. I'm sorry, I know that's dickish.

I'm a huge fan of Condemned; I think it's one of the most underrated franchises and one of the most poorly marketed franchises. I thoroughly enjoy Resident Evil 5; yes, people have their crits, but they should f*** off because it's a stellar game. Fatal Frame - Jesus, I had to stop playing Fatal Frame 2 because it scared me too much. Maybe I'm just a big p****.

But that's a genre that's near and dear to me and I would love to somewhere down the line get around to doing something like that. But it's a tough sell when you start making something psychological, single-player oriented, very nuance-based.

And that will be a challenge, because in case you haven't noticed, at Epic, we're not always that good at nuance. We tend to paint with large brushstrokes. So no, I'm not making a horror game next. Gears is very much near and dear to me.

Do you feel shackled by the franchise at this point?
No. There's only been two Gears games, man. There's still plenty of opportunities for things you can do in a cover-based shooter and there's still a lot of stories to tell in the Gears universe. I'm not burned out on that at all.

But there are tradeoffs. With an established IP, you're not saying "Are we going to do cover?" and "Who is this Cole Train guy?" It's all there - the writer writes and it's a known entity. But with a new IP, it's raw and wide open - you don't know and you're playing in the sandbox and feeling out. "Is this feature going to work? Is this fun? Who's this character, how does this fit into our fiction? How does this all come together" It's like solving a giant puzzle in your head, and it's great.

Whenever I talk to people in the business, I ask "What are you working on?" and when they say "I'm working on a new IP," I say "Good for you!" Because I swear to god, if tomorrow someone came to Epic and forced me to do a licensed IP - "you have to make the new video game for the new Mummy movie" - I would go out back and put a shotgun in my mouth.

Original IPs are the best-selling and the strongest titles in the industry because they generally don't have to adhere to rules or limitations. You can say "Can we do a flamethrower? That will fit into the fiction." It's the wild, wild West in the business right now. It's like the comic book industry back in the day.

Since what you do is so subtle, it's hard for people on the outside to see what you do. Are you afraid that all people see is your flashy image?
That's the problem - the perception. By taking on the responsibility of being the face of the company, there's an assumption that I'm not there every day, banging away on design documents and meeting after meeting and playtests and things like that.

There's a weird element when you put yourself out there - just because you're visible, you hate that person. Back in the day when I was a kid and looking forward to getting into the business, I remember feeling that when I saw Tommy Tallarico's print ad for his first album of video game music. He had torn jeans on, and I'm looking at that thinking, "What a douchebag! This guy's gotta be a real tool."

And for some reason, there's that attitude when you're a gamer - "Oh, I hate you!" But whatever, it's fine.

There's that photo of me with the red shirt on, holding the Lancer chainsaw? That was originally going to be for that Rolling Stone issue. We took that picture like a year ago. And people said, "Cliffy needs to stop doing photo shoots and be more focused on the games!" It's like, dude - that was me grabbing Aaron Smith at work and going outside for five minutes and taking two f**king photos.

What did you think, it was like four hours of makeup and stylists and hookers and blow all day long? If I'm not there working with the guys, I start going crazy. The criticism is what it is; you can't put yourself out there and not expect a little bit of flack.

Are you a douchebag?
I'm a giant douchebag.

Seriously - you drive a flashy car, you use styling product...a lot of gamers don't comb their hair, let alone style it, and they don't drive a fast car. So they look at you and go, "Oh, what a douchebag." Do you really think you're a douchebag?
I think I'm okay. My whole goal is to look like someone who is loud and out there. And then what I'm hoping is that people will say, "Have you met that guy?" And hopefully people will go, "Yeah, he's actually a nice guy."

Well, very few people get to meet you and say "Hey, Cliff's cool."
My goal any time I'm at a signing or if someone comes up to me, is to shake their hand and look them in the eye and say, "Thank you so much." I mean, this is the reason why I have a job. You need to be thankful and appreciative of your customers, as much as they call you a fag on the internet. Because they're still talking, man. I'd rather have that attention than not have anybody talking at all, because it means you're relevant.

Everybody thinks they know you from your videos and interviews and games. How do you see yourself?
I'm just a big kid. But I'm also the adult with an interesting career and an interesting life that I was hoping I could be when I first saw Space Invaders when I was six.
Xbox Feature: Cliff Bleszinski: Interview - Official Xbox 360 Magazine

[Jacko Jab]

Originally Posted by Se777eN

I'd rather have that attention than not have anybody talking at all, because it means you're relevant.

What a douche bag

[jason g]

[DTS MAN]

The way Cliffy B confirmed he is a douchebag shows me the whole thing is getting to him. what a wnkaer

[Billy Goodgun]

So long as Cliffy B combines the gameplay of Gears 1 with the graphics and campaign of Gears 2 and calls it Gears 3, I will be a very happy chappy, and he can be as big a douche as he wants

[DTS MAN]

Not for me Billy i have had it....wasted too much time hoping for improvements....Gears 3....i dont think i'll be buying that.

[Billy Goodgun]

You should try reading The History of Rasselas: The Prince of Abyssinia, by Samuel Johnson. It is an excellent novella on the nature of hope and optimism, and whether hope is ever really good for us. It sounds to me like your hopes have been dashed one too many times!

But as much as Gears 2 was probably my biggest disappointment on the 360 to date, it was not without its merits. Campaign was good, Horde remains good for twenty minutes of distraction, and Epic tried to overhaul some basic mechanics to add entertaining bits of gameplay. The laggy online side and broken matchmaking were a monumental let-down, especially given that it didn't really need a dramatic overhaul, and smoke grenades have also helped ruin the game IMO. Surely, though, Epic went wrong by removing elements that were already there. Why is there no facility to at least check ping before joining a game? Why is there no region filter? Why can I not search for specific gametypes or maps? And, perhaps most heinous of all, why was there a sudden switch to lancer-based games when the hardcore Gears players were happy using their shotguns? And what's with all the games with respawns? To me, the intensity and brilliance of Gears was in having tight, confined maps without respawns. The shift from this helped alter that unique Gears flavour into yet another generic shooter.

Just my opinion, mind, but those are the places Epic went wrong. If they can realise this in time for Gears 3, all is not lost. But it is still a mountain to climb, and I'm not dead set on buying Gears 3 yet - time will tell.

[Zzebedee]

Gears 3 is a no brainer for me, i thought the Gears 2 single player campaign was great so felt no compulsion to whine like a girl on a daily basis about the multiplayer like most of the people on here

[Gazelle]

Originally Posted by Billy Goodgun

You should try reading The History of Rasselas: The Prince of Abyssinia, by Samuel Johnson. It is an excellent novella on the nature of hope and optimism, and whether hope is ever really good for us. It sounds to me like your hopes have been dashed one too many times!

But as much as Gears 2 was probably my biggest disappointment on the 360 to date, it was not without its merits. Campaign was good, Horde remains good for twenty minutes of distraction, and Epic tried to overhaul some basic mechanics to add entertaining bits of gameplay. The laggy online side and broken matchmaking were a monumental let-down, especially given that it didn't really need a dramatic overhaul, and smoke grenades have also helped ruin the game IMO. Surely, though, Epic went wrong by removing elements that were already there. Why is there no facility to at least check ping before joining a game? Why is there no region filter? Why can I not search for specific gametypes or maps? And, perhaps most heinous of all, why was there a sudden switch to lancer-based games when the hardcore Gears players were happy using their shotguns? And what's with all the games with respawns? To me, the intensity and brilliance of Gears was in having tight, confined maps without respawns. The shift from this helped alter that unique Gears flavour into yet another generic shooter.

Just my opinion, mind, but those are the places Epic went wrong. If they can realise this in time for Gears 3, all is not lost. But it is still a mountain to climb, and I'm not dead set on buying Gears 3 yet - time will tell.

Great post

[Raffboner]

Originally Posted by jenHenry

I love that more people are now playing Guardian than previously. With the right players, Guardian is excellent.

Guardian is the only game type I go for now but I don't mind the occasional submission match as I tend to have a half decent game

[jason g]

Originally Posted by Raffboner

Guardian is the only game type I go for now but I don't mind the occasional submission match as I tend to have a half decent game

i only have 2 submission captures, people don't help u, they just wait until u lose the meatflag so they can grab it, the only gam i played where we played as a team i got both captures, annex is just as bad, people go round hunting for kills rather than capturing the annex rings.

[Raffboner]

I've been quite lucky on submission playing with randoms think I have 31 captures. If I don't get the flag I'll help as 9 times out of 10 they drop the flag near the target so I just shotgun the other team and grab the meat for an easy score.

[mattclarkie]

Originally Posted by jason g

i only have 2 submission captures, people don't help u, they just wait until u lose the meatflag so they can grab it, the only gam i played where we played as a team i got both captures, annex is just as bad, people go round hunting for kills rather than capturing the annex rings.

It annoys me to. Managed to get 6 caps, would be 7 but I gave one to a friend so he could get an achievement.


Guardian annoys me, yesterday I finally got my 10th leader win but that was hard going. As the leader you are the most important player and the one that the enemies target, but your team just abandon you to farm kills.

[shagaboopon]

If you want to get the submission achievements quickly its essential to play in a party or play nothing but it. Personally I hate submission as a single game can go forever. I got mine playing with the same group of 5 people, we played player choice at the time and just concentrated on getting caps for who needed them whenever it popped on the playlist.

Annex is a pain sometimes when you get teammates who just don't get the concept of playing the game type properly.

[Billy Goodgun]

I still need the Submission cheevo - think I have like two measly meatflag captures or something - but I have the Guardian one. The Wingman achievements are the ones I have no hope of getting, as it still seems to be the laggiest gametype, for whatever reason.

All the things mentioned above are frustrating, although they're not unique to Gears 2. Any game with objectives will mean some players try to boost their kills by not playing the objectives, while other struggle to win the game for their team without the proper support. It's the same in Red Faction, the same in Halo, and the same in CoD. It's one reason why I try to avoid objective games unless I'm in a party.

[jason g]

Originally Posted by Raffboner

I've been quite lucky on submission playing with randoms think I have 31 captures. If I don't get the flag I'll help as 9 times out of 10 they drop the flag near the target so I just shotgun the other team and grab the meat for an easy score.

Originally Posted by mattclarkie

It annoys me to. Managed to get 6 caps, would be 7 but I gave one to a friend so he could get an achievement.

what annoys me in submission is only the person capturing the meatflag gets the score, it's a team game and people are making sure u get the meatflag into the ring so it should be everyone getting the score, annex is a team game, it's not based on just those who capture annex rings.

[Billy Goodgun]

100% agree with that. Maybe the achievement should be tougher - get 50 flags (team) - or something, but it's a stupid way to work it as it stands. I have personally spent a whole match going for the flag, then dragging the sorry sod all the way to the capture point, only to be knocked over by a smoke and killed at the 11th hour. Someone else then bags the flag and the achievement credit.

[kopchoir]

The games just s h i t end of really and i have no intentions of going back to play it

[Billy Goodgun]

I still want my Suicide Missionary achievement - after I get that, I will vomit on and burn trade my copy of Gears 2, I think.

[Horatiogreen]

Originally Posted by Zzebedee

Gears 3 is a no brainer for me, i thought the Gears 2 single player campaign was great so felt no compulsion to whine like a girl on a daily basis about the multiplayer like most of the people on here

Totally agree. I enjoyed the SP campaign enough to guarantee I'll buy GOW3 regardless of how bad the MP was.

[Laubi02]

well for those that arent quite looking forward to the third game, heres something to maybe kindle some hope:

gow2 - a (upon many others) reason why it was a let down because 1st one was such a success and the merits overwhelmed the critism.

gow3 - hopefully, they are not too stupid so with this mountain of critism, hopefully spawns a treasure on top of that hill!

also, if anyone issick of finding game, laggy games etc,

ive started a thread hoping to get players for private matches:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/gears...all-gears.html

so there wont be waiting times, hopefully laggy games, and we can always play around with teams to make them fair etc!!

[Waynej]

You know, there are a few tactics you can employ to help you get host. And no, I don't mean cheat and bridge host. If you're playing with less than 5 players, it's a good idea to count to 10 once you start matchmaking. If it comes up with a 'Found Player' before 10 seconds, cancel wait a few seconds and try again. Now, this still does not mean you're host if it goes to plan, and maybe it's just my paranoia but I seem to get host at least 65% in my favour instead of just blindly joining.

Typically I connect to Mexicans, then Americans, and it's ****. It really is a shame they did not test this matchmaking out properly before release, I'd much prefer the old lobby system from the first game for the sake of better quality matches.

[Laubi02]

Originally Posted by Waynej

You know, there are a few tactics you can employ to help you get host. And no, I don't mean cheat and bridge host. If you're playing with less than 5 players, it's a good idea to count to 10 once you start matchmaking. If it comes up with a 'Found Player' before 10 seconds, cancel wait a few seconds and try again. Now, this still does not mean you're host if it goes to plan, and maybe it's just my paranoia but I seem to get host at least 65% in my favour instead of just blindly joining.

Typically I connect to Mexicans, then Americans, and it's ****. It really is a shame they did not test this matchmaking out properly before release, I'd much prefer the old lobby system from the first game for the sake of better quality matches.

ooh you cheeky monkey

youre the type that gets called a "host power" by some 8 yr old american kid!!! haha

to the other above comments, i think the multiplayer is still great, a lot less rambo-action than the 1st gears but a lot more tactical imo! its just the lobby system and lag issues that put people off!

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Waynej

Typically I connect to Mexicans, then Americans, and it's ****. It really is a shame they did not test this matchmaking out properly before release, I'd much prefer the old lobby system from the first game for the sake of better quality matches.

If they would of just put the lobby and 3 pips like Gears 1 it would of been much better