GAME JOBS
Contents
Redefining Game Narrative: Ubisoft's Patrick Redding On Far Cry 2
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Sledgehammer Games / Activision
Level Designer (Temporary)
 
High Moon / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [1]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [3]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Redefining Game Narrative: Ubisoft's Patrick Redding On Far Cry 2
by Chris Remo, Brandon Sheffield [Design, Interview]
11 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
July 18, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 5 of 7 Next
 

CR: From a developer's perspective, it is kind of exciting, the idea of divorcing story from writing. That's something you could never do in any other form of entertainment, and for whatever reason, really, it's rarely, if ever, actually been done in games. That is kind of a cool thing.

PR: Right. In a sense, there's kind of been a weird and unfortunate development on that side, because, think about it, right? Writers in games just kind of got to this stage where they were able to make their point. Where they were like, "Guys, you really need to bring in good writers. Like, writing matters."



CR: A lot of people still don't believe that.

PR: Yeah, exactly, and so they kind of started the clock on it, and they're like, "Okay, now we have our window. Let's get in there and really be important, and start in there early, and get what we need, and get paid what we should be paid." All of this stuff that writers have been struggling to do in every other medium they've worked in. And I kind of feel like, "Okay, yeah, but now we're coming to the end of that."

CR: They're pulling the rug out from under you.

PR: Yeah! And now we're going to get to a point where it's like, "Okay, you guys realize that what you're doing is sort of the literary equivalent to being a texture artist." Right? And that's something I have to struggle with, because I don't want to say that to anybody. That feels patronizing, and condescending, and belittling to what is ultimately a very, very, very vital craft.

CR: Now you're offending texture artists.

PR: Yeah, exactly. There you go. I'm offending everybody. I will actually manage to piss off just about every discipline in this entire business with this one talk. No, here's my point. The art director comes in. The art director does not... he establishes a structure in which texture artists, modelers, character designers, 3D artists, level artists all have to follow certain thematic objectives and targets, and then be able to sit down and generate data that supports that. And that's what they're doing.

That's not to belittle it, but they are generating data in support of that target. Right? And my point is that writers have traditionally been people who tell stories, who construct stories, and narrative structure, and then build on that... and then, yeah, they write a bunch of dialog, and they write scenes that help reinforce that, and they iterate, and edit, and do all these things they need to do to make that stuff hang together.

And what I'm saying is, the problem, in a sense, we are taking away from writers, to a certain extent, the structural part of their job. Right? At least on this game, we are saying, "No. There is a narrative design that helps to kind of support the player doing what they want to do, and having meaningful consequences as a result of that."

The writer's job is to deliver the dialog, the scenes, the character... they still have to deliver that stuff. If we don't have that stuff, it sucks. Right? So it's still vitally important. Just like we have to have good texture artists. We have to have good shader systems. All of that stuff matters. None of it is more or less important than anything else. But, what we are doing is we are taking something that is in the traditional role of the writer, and we're breaking it out, and we're making it systemic, and we're letting the game handle it. Right?

BS: I don't think that's actually really... I don't think it's bad, and I don't think it's that different from how it is when it works well anyway. Because the writing has to match... has to meet the objectives of the game, and you can't just have someone, stream of consciousness, write out a story, and be like, "All right, now we're going to make our game."

PR: Well, yes. If you want to take it to its absurd limit, yes. But the problem is that, even if you dial back from that kind of scenario, that's not too far off from what a lot of game writing ends up being. It's like you get a game that's in production, where they go, "Shit. We're at beta. We need a story." Like, I mean, no joke, that really happens.

And so then they bring in some writer, who may be a great writer, and may even have done maybe a great game's writing, and say, "Okay, you need to help us make this good now." And they've been put in a totally untenable position. What are they going to do? All they can really do is write cinematics. All they can really do is write stuff that the player has no impact on.

And in that case, they're better have asserting a certain amount of authorial control, just so at least that stuff is good. Right? You look at GTA. I love the writing in GTA, but it's a damned talky game. They're still cutscenes. I'm still sitting through them. I can skip them, but they're still cutscenes.

CR: The interesting thing I was going to say about GTA in regards to what you were saying about... I think your texture artist metaphor is actually a really apt one because, looking at GTA, I think the part that is similar to what you describe is everything that happens when you're not in the cutscenes.

Like the dialog, when you're not in a cutscene, is essentially textural. It's essentially creating a texture within the world. As you walk down the street, and you hear conversations, and you bump into someone, and it generates something they can say, and there's all these, essentially actually a massive amount of dialog, that is embedded in the game that is not part of the core narrative. That's sort of what you're describing. You're extending it to the actual story of the game.

PR: Oh yeah. That's 100% correct. Yeah, I want the core plot to be delivered to me by me overhearing cell phone conversations while I'm walking down Mohawk Avenue in Broker during GTA IV. That's what I'm saying. And yeah, I'm still going to walk into a downstairs adult video store and still have conversations with people, but my feeling is that, as much as possible, there shouldn't be obvious seams between that content. It should feel like part of one cohesive continuity.

BS: The biggest difference with that metaphor is that you don't... players don't mind if they see the same texture a few times.

PR: Yes, in that situation, probably we are staring at literally 10 or 20 times the amount of content. But I think there are a number of technical hurdles we'll have to overcome to get to a stage where it's feasible for us to build out huge, huge, huge quantities of that stuff.

I mean, okay, let's abuse our texture art metaphor a little further. On Far Cry 2 one of the things that people have commented on is that, well, this is an amazing, large, open world, and yet you can walk right up to any tree, add incredibly close detail with your sniper scope, and see individual veins in the leaves. And you can see the bark, the texture of the bark.

And we did that - or Alex Amancio, our art director did that - by developing a completely different kind of graphics pipeline that put the emphasis, rather than having giant, high-resolution textures with lots and lots of data in the texture, on layers of shaders, using masking systems, and kind of procedural noise, that allowed us to generate very noisy, random, life-like kinds of detail in our rock, in our ground, in our leaves, in our vegetation, in our animal fur, and all these things.

CR: It's the opposite way that id is going with the MegaTexture thing, almost.

PR: Exactly. None of that stuff's going on there. It's the interaction that just kind of... it's super-pretentious for me to call it this, but it's this kind of highly granularized, fractalized sort of approach. But that's really the way it works. When I was doing the talk on narrative, I said a big goal for us is to offload the processing of the story to the player's own brain. Right? It's kind of like an exercise in distributed computing.

Players... human beings are predisposed to seeing stories everywhere they look. It's something we've genetically developed. It's part of our nervous system. We indulge in what's known as a "narrative fallacy". When we walk around and things happen to us out in the world, if we're listening to our iPods, and the context changes depending on what the soundtrack is. This is something that human beings just do, whether we are thinking about it or not.

And I think as story designers and as game developers, what we're trying to do is give the player lots of raw materials to help produce that effect. And I think that's kind of the same idea. We need to develop a new story pipeline and a new kind of story architecture that allows the player to supply a certain amount of the context, and also infer a certain amount of the intent, even if it's not actually there. Because we do that in real life, so we can apply it to our experiences in simulation, and in our work as well.

 
Article Start Previous Page 5 of 7 Next
 
Top Stories

image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
Comments

Lee Sheldon
profile image
"PR: Yeah. I guess even I, when we went to GDC, and Clint was there, and John was talking about the repetitious stuff on his side. I did my talk about narrative design. We were kind of shocked, honestly, that... personally, I would have expected that by now, at this stage that we're at, in this generation, that there would be a whole schwack of other people all solving the same problem, kind of at the same time.



And I fully - given the number of talks on narrative that were happening - I fully expected to have somebody show up and go, "Hey, look what we did." And totally just render moot everything we've been working on. And it never really happened."



I didn't attend that talk, but I've been working on modular and systemic storytelling since 1995. I taught it for six years at one-day tutorials at GDC beginning in 1997, and continue to present it at conferences today. My book, Character Development and Storytelling in Games, published in 2004, goes into detail on how to create stories in the way Mr. Redding describes.



In the beginning I was told by people who thought stories must be linear and strictly authorial that games and stories didn't mix. Then when I started talking about modular storytelling, I was told it wouldn't work. Then I was told okay, maybe it would work, but it was too hard. Now that I've moved my systemic storytelling to virtual worlds, I'm told that narrative-driven virtual worlds won't work, especially worlds with on-going stories. We're building one now.



And for the past two years at Indiana University I have been teaching the techniques Mr. Redding describes, and other skills, to the next generation of videogame and virtual world storytellers. They get it.



The next step is to convince the majority of game companies that hiring 70% programmers , 30% artists, and 0% writers may not be the best way to build games that transcend, challenge, and inspire.



"The sense that we must push the medium toward a form of interactive narrative that is as strong and vital as the innovations in other areas of gameplay and technology has taken hold with many creators."



I guess my reaction is: "It's about time."

John Mawhorter
profile image
I've read and own Lee's book (it's great) and largely agree that modular storytelling is the way to go in games. At the same time I see the point of those who look at the bottom line and can't justify the expense required. If they're delivering a good linear story than good for them (see Half-Life series) and linear storytelling has its place in games. My frustration with games is in waiting for the technology to be there, like PR says, so I can write the whole game myself. I don't feel I have a giant ego, but I want to see my visions realized on an artistic, design, and writing standpoint that I have as much control over as possible. This is one of the many reasons I dread my planned entry into the games industry; I don't think my creativity will be put to full use. Collaboration can be immensely helpful but also a source of constant frustration (frustration is my current feeling). The main hurdles for storytelling to me are technological. It is very difficult to generate a modular story as compelling as a guided one without a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters generating possible content (the 10% of the game gets seen approach). PR's solution seems like an interesting one and we'll see if it can generate compelling player-directed narratives.

Steve Austin
profile image
John,



Even with modular storytelling you'll probably get a better experience by letting a group of people drive the creative process, and just acting as a guiding force to this group (creative director?). You might be pleasantly surprised to find that many of the programmers and artists have very good insight into what makes a great game play experience, what constitutes a great story, and in general, what interesting characters are all about.



By the way, I should mention, I'm one of those 70% programmers you mentioned, and yes, I often feel like my creativity is not being put to its full use. :-)

Lee Sheldon
profile image
John didn't mention the percentages. I did.



"You might be pleasantly surprised to find that many of the programmers and artists have very good insight into what makes a great game play experience, what constitutes a great story, and in general, what interesting characters are all about."



They'd better be able to do more than have insight. They'd better be able to write, too.



My point was that the practice of creating a game development team composed of 70% programmers and 30% artists guarantees you aren't going to have any dedicated writers around.



I have several friends who are equally good at programming and writing, but it takes more than insight. I have insight into the jobs programmers and artists do on my games, but nobody in their right mind would hire me to code or draw.



I guarantee the actors at the Globe Theatre had insight in all of those things. Only one of them was Shakespeare.



And those aren't my percentages. Those were given publicly at a conference I attended in June by a senior HR person who works for a huge game publisher.

Stephen Dinehart
profile image
This is a great piece, it's nice to hear about Narrative Design from the trenches; thanks Patrick et. all. I wonder sometimes how much the use of abstract narrative models really helps us. I love to talk about them, but recently there was a lengthy rant on the IGDA WSIG about branching dialog systems that just about made me want to vomit. Some people seemed terribly convinced of how vital they are (clearly Zork and D&D pic-a-path novels are still a hit). Some tried to argue for sake of replayability they are vital, but between the number of people that finish a game and the number of people that replay it, I really doubt we are even talking about 25% of our audience. What it really comes down to is the UX, what does the Viewer/User/Player (VUP) feel when they are done, what is their story? It is there that the game story is alive, in cognition, in the VUP's mind.



I look forward to playing Far Cry 2 and witnessing the degree to which it drives me to emote. While working on "COH Opposing Fronts" I was able to do some user testing in relation to narrative and it proved very helpful, though in post. I imagine more robust narrative related user-testing during production would be tremendously valuable, to understand just what a particular narrative element, narreme, is conveying to the VUP and how that narreme might be improved to encourage concinnity with the intended metanarrative.

Kirk Battle
profile image
That was epic.



Speaking just as a lowly critic, the way I think of these kinds of games is that they are a series of inter-operating vignettes. Moments or scenes that are created by a writer are activated based on the actions allowed by the game design and given meaning by the art and speech.



In other words, the writer doesn't create events. He creates reactions.

Stephen Dinehart
profile image
Mr Jeffries... nice reduction; very nice... :)

Sande Chen
profile image
I remember Lee Sheldon's session at GDC where he talked about modular storytelling. It was several years before his book was published. It made quite an impact on me.



I too echo Stephen Dinehart's remarks that it's nice to hear from a narrative designer in the trenches. It's always a good thing to hear about the work of game writers who "get" games.



As freelancers, Anne Toole and I are lucky that Writers Cabal does get the chance to work with developers at the earliest stages of game development.

Lou Hayt
profile image
The modular story approach sounds very good but unfortunately it is pretty vague, especially if the atoms of the systems might be a piece of animation, sound or other type of asset. This level of granularity seems overwhelming. Since all stories are told through the human eye it is common that a cast of characters and their state form the context of a specific point in an emerging story line... manipulating that data drives the story. Places, social groups and other elements of a good story are only worth monitoring on the story-telling level if they have "character". Based on that I would steer towards using characters as the atomic unit for a dynamic narrative engine.

Sande Chen
profile image
Lou, for modular storytelling, it's good to think about each individual segment as an atom. It is a structure.



If you have a bad day, there are any number of events that could make it a bad day.



You can go through these even in any order and still have a bad day.



You could even have the same dramatic "This is the last straw -- worst day ever" moment regardless of which event happened last.

Aubrey Hesselgren
profile image
Excellent interview. It's great that this approach is finally getting some traction in a mainstream title.



The theories behind it have essentially already been in a lot of games, but those games have described them in a far more abstract way... Civilization, Total War and X-Com (as mentioned), feel more like emergent, player owned sets of events than guided narrative. Those games have never represented themselves as if they're *trying* to tell a story, and so they aren't landed with the criticisms that most conventional literary figures point at game narrative.



Instead, they create something *new* - a medium unto itself. A player's generated story is not necessarily going to be Dickens every time, sure, but the important fact is, it belongs and responds to them. That creates a completely different relationship with the audience. They're not an unpaid actor in a scripted world anymore. They're being listened to, responded to. While designers still have the "hands off" control through systemic design, the players forge their own path through possibility. I think that that, alone makes it a unique medium worth pursuing. We're growing up as a medium, and realizing that this whole interactive storytelling thing is NOT about self consciously, cow-towingly trying to make a perfect generative Dickens with every play-through, or trying to ape narrative conventions of fixed storytelling in order to justify the endeavor. We're discovering that we're making something brand new - something different from what the movement set out to create.



FPS game productions have typically had to be more focussed on their own core gameplay - the moving and the shooting. So much focus is required just to get those fundamentals right that higher level things suffer. Focus on the higher level things instead, and you get pretty clunky core gameplay (I'm a deus ex fan, obviously, but seriously... its combat is not what you'd call "fun").



Because of this deep focus required, the scope for adding this extra layer of *deep*, granular narrative interactivity on top of an FPS is rare, to say the least. It requires a lot of guts to back, from the money men all the way down to the devs in the trenches. I salute you!



I'm so glad we're over the notion of Branching Plot structures being the be-all and end all of interactive narrative, by the way.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech