Gamasutra - Letters to the Editor


				\|\|\|\|

Letters to the Editor

Letters To The Editor:Submit A Letter
View All Letters

11.06.2003

If You Think Physics Is Hard, Good Luck With A Drama Engine
Benjamin Krotin has a point. His views may seem anachronistic, even downright crass at times, but I wholeheartedly support his point. That being said, my intention with this letter is not to attack Randy Littlejohn’s character. I will, however, suggest that his aspirations for interactive drama are impractical.

Why is our industry so saturated with individuals who feel compelled to express their flamboyantly unrealistic visions, without any plausible assessment of the practical concerns that go along with actualizing those visions? Has Mr. Littlejohn personally applied these dramatic principles to a published title? If not, then what is our motivation for listening?

One of the limitations of interactive software is that it must be comprised of specific instructions that can be executed by a computer. It almost goes without saying that decomposing dramatic principles into machine-readable code seems a lofty goal at best. However, even if we could devise such a language, we would still be met by many great difficulties. The following example illustrates this point.

The laws of Newtonian mechanics can be expressed in a precise mathematical language suitable for computer implementation. The laws are completely deterministic, thus eliminating a major complicating factor in program design: ambiguity. However, the task of designing and programming a robust physics engine is nothing short of monumental. Middleware companies such as Havok employ the talents of hundreds of specialists to develop its physics engine. Despite this devotion, we are nowhere close to being able to simulate physics with full believable accuracy. Although we have made progress in areas such as rigid body simulation, the accurate simulation of fluid motion, for example, requires far more cycles than we have available for real-time applications. Second, integrating a middleware physics engine into an actual game project is an unholy nightmare.

If these kinds of problems are inherent in physics (which has a well-defined mathematical foundation) then how about drama? How does one define "narrative environments" or "dramatic tension" with mathematical formalism? One could assemble a group of philosophers to concoct all sorts of ethereal hypotheses and theories, but at some point, somebody down on Earth is going to actually have to build this "drama engine". If we can’t even get physics right, then drama seems glaringly unobtainable by comparison. Furthermore, the poor sap who gets stuck programming this engine will not likely be versed in the rigorous mathematics of drama, such as CHARACTERIZATION + DESIRE = GOAL and GOAL + CONFLICT = STORY.

Blame our computers for their lack of sophistication if you will, but at present those equations would generate compiler errors.

-Greg Morchower

Author Randy Littlejohn responds:
I wanted to get people talking, and this I have done. In the process I have inspired a some people, perhaps struck fear in others, and raised the ire of yet others still.

To answer your question about a motivation for listening, there was a time in game development when blue-sky discussions were a good thing, because they sparked innovation. But it can also set up unrealistic goals, and I understand that the business of interactive entertainment needs realistic goals and a pragmatic path in order to deliver good product on time and on budget.

Nevertheless, when blue-sky discussions become a thing of the past and the interactive entertainment industry becomes dogmatic and formalistic in the name of profit, innovation will suffer. A purely formalistic approach is short sighted and can lead to an over emphasis on satisfying a single niche market. This niche becomes increasingly hungry for "something else" –- even if these people don’t know what it is. At the same time, a much bigger market is left with nothing at all.

Looking ahead is a good thing, even if blue-sky ideas cannot be achieved immediately. If a new gold mine can be foreseen in the distance, it is wise to begin preparing the road now.