Earlier this year when Okami was released for the Nintendo Wii, there were two particular gaffes that got a lot of press. The first was the fact that the IGN logo was emblazoned on the front cover the game, hidden as a watermark on the images used for the art. It’s something I still laugh at while walking through the game sections of most stores to date. The second big thing was the fact that the credits of the game did not include the game’s original creators (the game was a port of the PS2 version) and the excuse from Capcom for this was the fact that it was a rendered video with the old company logo (Clover) in it, which they had no rights over.

This little tiff between the game’s original creators and the publishers did bring to light an underlying issue that is still not really being addressed within the industry: what are the standards for credits in games? The simple answer is that there are none. Each studio is in charge of its own credit system, so whether or not it includes contractors, low-level testers or anyone who didn’t stay the entire project is up to the discretion of the company producing and publishing the game. A recent feature on Gamasutra spoke to Mark Jacobs, GM of Mythic Entertainment (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, Dark Age of Camelot), who said that only staff that are around during the game’s launch will receive credit, regardless of time spent on the project. In the same feature, it was indicated that the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) has already drafted a standard [PDF] for game credits, which Jacobs has said is not necessarily the best approach.

But what is the best approach and who are these credits even for? Most of us have sat through a set of credits in our lives, whether it is in a game or a movie, in order to see if there’s a little hidden gem at the end. In games we have the unique inability to fast-forward through these credits, and are often enticed by the fact that most games won’t save your completion progress until you have made it all the way through. Does that mean the credits are simply just a nod to each developer for the people playing the game? While that does play a part in it, the big picture is that these credits are an essential part of many game industry professionals’ resumé. It is a way to show off the work that you’ve done in any project you’ve worked on, so having your name on any number of titles could be a make or break on what kind of job you get, how much you get paid and what level you get brought in on.

Let me preface this point by saying that, yes, the movie industry and games industry are different, but given the style of credits and the kind of experience delivered for games has a mimicked style of Hollywood in a very big way. In movies, the concept of credits are broken into two entities. The first entity is the group with agents, known as the “above-the-line” costs. These people have their credits negotiated by whatever agency gets them onto the product, and includes writers, directors, producers, actors and all the big names that tend to role out first in the credits. There are standards set by each guild and a very set order of who gets what in each line of a movie. The second tier is the “below-the-line” group, the gaffers, best boys and all the other titles you’ve probably seen and might not even understand. They are budgeted costs that are meant to cover the set construction, sound editing, renting equipment, and all the other little things that go into making the movie as a whole. Almost every person involved in this process is listed on movie credits, and given the average credit reel in major films goes on for more than 5-7 minutes it shows.

It’s a convoluted, but very standardized system. However, in an industry without guilds, agents or standard organizations it’s a tough system to just implement and enforce, so it’s not realistic for the time being. When you look at software companies, it shows off more of the mindset for studios in the games industry. There is no “final boss” in Microsoft Office, and finding developer credits within the application isn’t a button that you can just easily find and click. Adobe has a list of developers during the loading screen of their Creative Suite applications, but it is very jumbled as doesn’t give you any indication on just what those individuals have done. While the games industry has a more detailed credit system, it still has the mentality of a software industry where the standards are basically set by the next guy, and don’t necessarily translate from group to group.

The IGDA standards do make a lot of sense for the industry, and it is especially geared towards developers in a big way. The attribution stipulations are very specific to crediting developers above publishers, marketing and business groups, which is just not realistic in most senses. Also, rules stating that ported games should always include the original teams at the top of the credits seem to be a bit idealistic, as well as the idea of having a specific menu item to view credits. While a lot of these seem to be trends being taken more seriously (PixelJunk Eden has a specific location in your main garden to access credits) it’s not necessarily realistic to believe these will be taken seriously without a lot of input and collaboration with existing developers and studios.

Whether standardization is a necessary road for the industry to take is still up to debate. The gaming industry is a bit more insular than the computing software industry, and does take itself up as more of an entertainment medium than simply a service provider. Standards are also shaky ground for most people, considering the apparent state of Hollywood today being ruled by agencies and special interests. With the strength of credits in the games industry, though, it should be something up for discussion with major publishers and developers. While Jacobs seems content with the idea that poor crediting will result in less interest in your game, it seems that for studios with a lot of clout, it just means developers will overwork themselves, or be overworked just to get that credit cookie. It’s another carrot for companies to hang over the heads of developing teams, and without a union or guild to ensure they are treated fairly, it is something that will need to be addressed as developing groups grow and people start to feel they have more choice in who will further their career.

The “line” approach that Hollywood takes is definitely not appropriate, and neither is the IGDA’s take in its current form. However, given input across the industry and major studios (emphasis on multiple here) begin to absorb these standards will make it more attractive for the industry as a whole, and is necessary to continue to growth and acceptance of the gaming developing landscape. Give credit where credit is due.