|
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.
|
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."
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. :-)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.