Skip to main content
If you click on a link and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. Read our editorial policy.

Tameem Antoniades

Ninja Theory's creative director on multi-platform games and the challenge of independence

Phil Elliott avatar
Feature by Phil Elliott Contributor
Published on
GamesIndustry.biz Was that frustrating?
Tameem Antoniades

Well, the engine was good - we've got a good coding team, and I think the engine for Heavenly Sword looked spectacular. But it's the toolset that matters - the one that your artists and designers use. And our toolset on that game was extraordinarily rudimentary.

So our focus on Enslaved was productivity for designers and artists - and Unreal basically had that.

GamesIndustry.biz Was it an easy decision to go with Unreal?
Tameem Antoniades

It was the only engine that had proven itself on PS3 and Xbox 360 - there wasn't anything really else competing with it at that point in time.

GamesIndustry.biz Had you been evaluating other tech options?
Tameem Antoniades

We knew that Unreal was the choice. We still evaluated it, but evaluating a platform like Unreal takes months and months of time. And then you design the game around the engine.

GamesIndustry.biz So it's been a tricky time for some independent developers - did the timing of Heavenly Sword and the deal with Sony insulate you against the the turbulence of the last couple of years?
Tameem Antoniades

It was difficult, actually, because once our exclusivity was done we had lots of staff, we didn't have an IP and we didn't have an engine. As a studio we don't rely on investments or debt, so we use whatever we have in the bank to fund our next product.

We had a very tight window in which to place a game - and it was touch-and-go, fifty-fifty whether we'd make it or not.

GamesIndustry.biz For a company like Ninja Theory to have only had a fifty-fifty shot - with the profile and track record - I wonder what that says about the chances for less well-known developers...?
Tameem Antoniades

The economics are difficult. We did sell a good number of units, considering it was out early in the PS3 life cycle, but that wasn't enough for us as a development studio to make royalties.

So the margins are tight - you do what you can. The only thing you can do when you're making triple-A games is to make the best game you can, and support the publisher as best as possible.

It's then purely down to luck I think, actually - the planets have to align, and it's a business that I think you'd be insane to get into to make money right now, the traditional console business. But if you do, and you make it, then you make it big.

GamesIndustry.biz I guess for new companies getting into consoles on full-priced product it's about having a big publisher - like Microsoft and Ruffian - handing you something from the start? Outside of that, the cost to market is prohibitive.
Tameem Antoniades

About that - I've noticed a shift, and I don't know if it's a general trend or where we're at as a company, but there's been a change in publishers' attitudes. Before, they were always looking for the unique selling points of a game - what makes it special and stand out - and then you've got to prove that before they'll buy in fully.

Now, for us anyway, I think the unique selling point is that you're a good team with a track record, and you can ship products - and those products can sell. You don't need that technological gimmick, that amazing mechanic. When I think back to some of my favourite games of recent times I can't actually find specific selling points.

With games like Uncharted or Resident Evil 4 - they're just great games, and executed really well. That's it - it's not about what kind of rendering you do, is the gameplay mechanic gravity- or time-manipulation.