|
How
do you manage that? Is there someone who's in charge of managing the
development of the universe at Epic? Or is this a collaborative thing because
there are other media that are not even videogames?
RF: It's a collaborative effort. I mean,
for the most part, I'm kind of the continuity guy; I'm the one reviewing the
book, and reviewing different aspects to make sure it makes sense in our
universe; and we have a story team on the game, with Cliff and myself, and Dave
Nash, and Josh, to make sure that it works within the game.
And the thing that's really nice is that we
can keep ourselves -- like, one of the things that we really wanted to have
when we designed the universe for Gears
of War was that we wanted to keep all of our options open to us.
We didn't
artificially or arbitrarily close doors on ourselves, because we knew that as
things required more of us, or more ways of telling the story, that we would
have to delve into things that maybe we needed to change.
And that's been one of the really nice
things. From working with movie script writers, to working with the author, to
working with Josh on his comic book, these are all avenues for us to explore
new things, and get more clarity and more detail.
Because, you don't need to
know Marcus' childhood for the game, and so maybe you don't take the time to go
explore that, because again, I don't feel the need to lock myself into
something that I may want to change if somebody does want to write that story.
So it's a matter of having that balance of
keeping the world open enough for choice and growth and whatever direction you
want to take it, but at the same time it needs to have enough information to
feed all the different mediums who request something from you. It's definitely
challenging, and that's why I'm really grateful for the additional production assistants
for Gears 2; because just that burden
alone is challenging to maintain, on top of building a game.
I
think success complicates things, to an extent.
RF: Absolutely. Absolutely. It complicates
things because now you have fans who expect something from you, and there are
loyalties, and you don't want to mess it up for them, but at the same time, it
opens a bunch of doors.
Like, storytelling as an example: In Gears 1, it's been a long time since
Epic did a story-driven game, and so we weren't as confident as we should've
been in telling the Gears 1 story,
and there were certain choices that we didn't take, because we just weren't
confident that we could pull it off, or that people would believe it, so we
backed off of that.
And now, with Gears 2, and the success we had with Gears 1, we feel a little bit more confident about that. One of the
things that I think people are going to take away -- besides the killer
gameplay, and Horde [mode], and riding the Brumak [enemy] and all that cool
stuff that I think people really wanted to have in Gears.
I think people are going to walk away from the game, at
the end of this experience, and go: "They took some risks, story-wise, and
I'm really surprised in that." And I think people will be happy about it;
I think they'll be glad that we did that. Again, maturing the franchise.
There's
a fair amount of debate right now about whether or not people want traditionally
narrative story in games all -- whether people want it, and whether we should be
providing it as an industry, whether it was a stop-gap.
Obviously,
it heated up, as a debate, with Metal
Gear Solid 4, which is basically the most traditionally narrative game yet
released. I don't know if you're familiar with Far Cry 2 at all, but they're trying to do a fully dynamic story...
Like, you can kill any character in the game, but they want to create a system
so, like, the lines can be delivered by another character. So it's quite
complicated -- and it's part of the design imperative.
RF: I think everybody plays differently;
everybody has different expectations. I think that it's much like, if you look
at gamers in general, form casual to the ultra hardcore, I think the
expectations of gamers in gameplay -- the same is true of gamers in story. I
think that everybody brings something different, and they want something
different from it, and I think that each has their own medium for a reason.
If you look at a fully dynamic world, where
the player totally tells their own story -- I mean, there's cool stuff that's
really interesting about that, but I look at "Why have interactive movies
failed? Why have the movie theaters with the three buttons where they pick the
plot choices failed?" It's because you don't have that, necessarily -- the
surprises.
I think that some of the storytelling, and
being pulled through a story, and being told a story, and having things
revealed to you that maybe wouldn't have been a choice that you would have
made, is more interesting to a player; when you get those surprises and those
twists, because you're not choosing that fate.
And so, I think it's open to all of them.
There are people who want the more "Give me the cinematics, and a little
bit of gameplay," and there are some who want all gameplay and no
cinematics. I think it's open for everybody, and there's a place for everyone.
As for us, we try to minimize our
cinematics, but at the same time, we want to make sure that the player has an
experience; there's a specific experience that we want them to have, and it's
not an open world, sandbox game, because we can't ensure you'll have that
experience. We can't maintain that pace in a normal open-ended sandbox game;
you can't ensure it. How many times do you say "Screw it! I'm going to go
do 55 taxi missions!" or whatever, right?
And now you're off the story train for a
while, and you lose that sense of where you were building to, and you lose that
momentum. I think that pace is really, really important, and for us in
particular, in Gears 1, we were
trying to get that summer blockbuster pace. If we stopped and said, "Hey,
it's up to you for the next while..." you wouldn't have felt that way. We
wouldn't have had the success we had with the number of people who actually
finish the game, if people could take breaks along the way and not get that
"Oh, my heart is racing," or "I really want to see what's the
next thing..."
But, all that being said, like I said: gameplay-wise,
from casual to hardcore, I think story-wise there's the same [situation]. There
are the people who want to choose their own adventure, and the people who want
a story told to them, and they want to live it out, and they want to be touched
emotionally, or at least viscerally.
|
Jeez even the really thick Schwarzenegger showed more of his willpower than muscles in his films.
Games are for fun not to solve identity problems. That's why so many people prefer to play Homer Simpson, Harley Queen, Little Red Cap or a creepy zombie bunny character modifications instead of your stock characters lol. I mean no offense obviously. I like how your characters are made. But people play your games because they are beautiful, because the Art inside of them is great. Because the game core is fun and levels are nice to play. It's not that people want to be thick-necked hulks brandishing around red-splotched chainsaws lol
Thx
Regards
Agostino
"and it has this thing where I want to be with these guys, and I'd go to war with these guys. And it's just cool! I mean, really, we want it to be thick-necked steroid guys; we like that vibe.
And at the same time, we've been trying really hard not to be sophomoric. I mean, we're not doing fart jokes, and all of that stuff. So there's a line there, and we're trying our best to keep the energy, keep the excitement, and keep the aspirations of a 17 to 18 year old, going, "Yeah, I want to be that guy! And I'm gonna go kick ass with my chainsaw!"