A Quote by Warren Spector

Once we can do Pixar-quality graphics rendered in real time with interactivity, I could see games costing $200 million to make, and all of a sudden you have to sell a lot of games just to break even, so I'm a little worried someone's going to do that.
I play a lot of computer games. I love computer graphics. I've had Pixar in me for a long time.
$200, 300 million games, I'm a little scared about that; there aren't a lot of companies that have the resources or the courage to spend that much.
Experience is the best teacher. I've been through a lot - going to the Olympics, going to the Finals, having a lot of good games and having a lot of bad games. It's a rollercoaster ride and I'm just happy I'm a part of it. If it was easy, then everybody could do it.
My durability is just something I took a lot of pride in, that I was able to play 70 games over and over and over and they add up to 1,200-and-something games, plus the playoff games, plus whatever.
Turns out, what I love doing is making games. Not hyping games or trying to sell a lot of copies. I just want to experiment and develop and think and tinker and tweak.
Not only do you have 16 regular-season games, you also have four preseason games. Then if you make the playoffs, you can have four more games before you get to the Super Bowl. So you can already have 24 games without the 18-game season. And 24 games takes a real toll on somebody's body.
If you take away the fancy graphics of today's games, most of the time you're left with a shell of a game that has been done to death a million times.
We believe that we can use interactivity to create meaningful games. Games with emotions and virtual actors telling you something. Resonating with you as a human being, giving you food for thought. We don't need to deliver messages or whatever, just need to create a moment in time that will leave an imprint in your mind.
We don't sell wins or losses. The one thing you can't control in sports is which games you are going to win or which games you are going to lose. But what I could control was the experience the fans have.
I used to play role-playing games a lot when I was younger, but once you start an RPG, it takes a lot of time. So I like things like action games you can just pick up and play.
When you're spending $200 million on a movie, you need to make $400 million to break even. It's a spectacle.
I like games that are simple. Not games that are trivial, but also not games that require you to invest a week or to relearn something. I like games that you can just pick up, sit down in front of, and get going.
The PC is successful because we're all benefiting from the competition with each other. If Twitter comes along, our games benefit. If Nvidia makes better graphics technology, all the games are going to shine. If we come out with a better game, people are going to buy more PCs.
Prose is an art form, movies and acting in general are art forms, so is music, painting, graphics, sculpture, and so on. Some might even consider classic games like chess to be an art form. Video games use elements of all of these to create something new. Why wouldn't video games be an art form?
I see a future in which games once again are explicitly designed to improve quality of life, to prevent suffering, and to create real, widespread happiness.
But I have to say this in defense of humankind: In no matter what era in history, including the Garden of Eden, everybody just got here. And, except for the Garden of Eden, there were already all these games going on that could make you act crazy, even if you weren't crazy to begin with. Some of the crazymaking games going on today are love and hate, liberalism and conservatism, automobiles and credit cards, golf, and girls' basketball.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!