The 2009 Warning on Industry Self-Reference That Predicted Today’s Trends

In June 2009, Paul Barnett, then the creative director of Warhammer Online, issued a scathing critique that has aged with striking prescience. Speaking to PC Gamer UK, he warned against the dangers of obsessively self-referencing existing hit games, arguing that this practice was creating a homogenized landscape where true innovation couldn't survive. His comments, often dismissed at the time as the grumblings of a frustrated director, have since materialized into the exact industry challenges we face today regarding live service titles and risk-averse development cycles.

Barnett’s frustration wasn't just about bad reviews; it was about a systemic shift in how games are conceived, funded, and executed. He coined the term "design memes" to describe the untested patterns that studios blindly replicate because they worked for others once. As he bluntly stated, "If you have enough gravitational force... your idea becomes consensus driven, and that consensus is limiting." This insight remains a crucial lens through which to view the modern gaming industry's reliance on safe formulas over bold experiments.

The Rise of Pseudo-Science in Game Design

Barnett’s anger stemmed from what he viewed as the sanitization of creativity into a rigid set of rules. He argued that while many people were trying to codify game design into "theory," they were actually just creating design memes that were treated as sacred science rather than untested hypotheses. According to Barnett, these concepts—much like the MSG sprinkled on everything—become buzz phrases that designers accept without questioning their validity or applicability to new projects.

"Design memes don't get tested before they become part of our designer-thinking DNA; they just become words... It's treated as science when in fact it's pseudo-science."

Barnett pointed out that successful figures often justify their own methods as the only sensible way to make games, effectively pushing a personal viewpoint rather than teaching universal truths. This creates an environment where consensus-driven design stifles anything different or risky. The result is a cycle where studios endlessly clone ideas labeled as "clever" simply because they are already popular, leading to a homogenized market that fails to challenge players.

How Consensus Kills Funding and Innovation

The most critical consequence Barnett identified in 2009 was the financial gatekeeping that follows this consensus. When an industry agrees on a specific formula for success, funding becomes contingent on adhering to those patterns rather than exploring new ideas. Barnett noted that if you have a different idea in such an environment, "you can't get funding; you can't get a pitch meeting." This forces developers into the realm of terrible elevator pitches designed solely to fit expectations, such as the infamous "It's Half-Life meets Peggle!" approach.

This pressure creates a scenario where:

  • Innovation is penalized: Unique concepts struggle to secure the necessary capital for development.
  • Creative direction becomes rigid: Designers feel compelled to dictate canvas sizes and paint types rather than allowing artistic freedom.
  • Young talent is misled: Aspiring creators are suckered into reading books or taking courses that promise a "fun matrix" which, as Barnett noted, simply does not exist.

Barnett compared the situation to the dot-com bubble, where terms like "microtransactions" and "mid-session games" became buzzwords driving investment without proven long-term viability. He suggested that the industry has become so focused on replicating past successes that it is corrupting both the players who bankroll these projects and the people attempting to create them.

The Case for Intuition Over Instruction

Perhaps Barnett's most controversial point was his dismissal of formal game design education in favor of raw intuition. He famously praised abstract artist Jackson Pollock as a better game designer than many professionals, suggesting that true creativity cannot be quantified or taught through a book. "There is no way to quantify 'gigglehertz,'" he argued, implying that the magical element of fun is beyond the reach of pseudo-scientific formulas.

He warned young fans who want to make games about falling for the lie that reading articles or attending courses will teach them how to succeed. In his view, talent and ideas come from doing, not from analyzing theory. While he cited Psychonauts as a financial failure at the time (a title that would later see a sequel years down the line) and treated indie games as a novel concept rather than an industry staple, his core message remains vital.

As we look back at this interview in 2026, the only real difference is the terminology; live service games have simply replaced MMOs as the current vehicle for these self-referencing risks. Barnett’s warning that "consensus is limiting" and that it "corrupts everything around it" serves as a timeless reminder that the industry must guard against letting past hits dictate its future.