|
Dead Space represents a lot of things to the "new Electronic Arts" forged by CEO John Riccitello and the legions of developers at the company. It's an original IP, an M-rated horror game, and one of the more original and promising games to come out of its Redwood Shores studio, since the company announced its renewed focus on core creativity and risk-taking in development.
But there's more to it than that. In this interview, Chuck Beaver, the game's senior producer, discusses the team's impetus to push boundaries with this project from the get-go, and not just in terms of the goriness of the game's content.
Beaver, who previously worked on more than one of the company's James Bond 007 licensed games, discusses how the team's newfound freedom from restraint allowed it to pursue a singular creative vision.
Beaver also speaks passionately about the need to develop a meaningful vocabulary for discussing game mechanics, so production can match up to the general standards of Hollywood -- though, by his reckoning, games surpass movies in complexity.
He, too, explains how the decisions -- such as having no cutscenes -- made at the start of the project drove the direction of the game, and how capturing the "lightning in a bottle" in a creative environment is vastly superior to the highly codified design of yesterday.
How
did this project start?
CB: Well, our executive producer, Glen
Schofield, had a vision for a really gory science-fiction-horror genre game,
that he was dying to make, and what you're seeing is almost what we laid out, three years ago. The whole idea, the
skeleton of the idea, is exactly what we wanted to do, so...
There
are some games I look at, and it's like, "This is a game that's trying to
be a specific genre," and I look at some games, and go, "This is a
game that's trying to fulfill certain principles," and your game seems
like one of those. You've got this full-on, no cutscenes, in-game storytelling,
with no intrusive UI. Were those all conscious decisions on your part?
CB: Yeah. For survival horror, in that
genre we're trying to keep you scared, and apprehensive, and all those things. The market has changed a lot, to where you can't really have people too
sluggish, and the controls can't be molasses controls.
So when our character
became more responsive, and a little more quick, we had to do everything else
to keep him underpowered; which is to make there be no cutscenes -- so that
you're immersed all the time.
And we had to make the pause not be in the
inventory system -- though of course you can pause the game. But you can't
have the inventory system where the game magically stops and you go into the
inventory system and do all this magic with combining herbs and changing your
weapons and getting your ammo fixed up, and then the next frame of the game
you're magically back, all powered up and ready to go.
So that's actually a huge strategic change
from what we're used to, and so the game is very real all the time. That lethal
pressure keeps you very apprehensive throughout the game.
It's
funny, because Valve did the no cutscene thing in 1998, but since then,
honestly, almost no one has, except for Valve. There are very few examples.
What are your thoughts on that whole philosophy?
CB: Yeah. That's a good point, because we
consider that, really, a superior design ethos to tackle, and they do a really
great job about it. When we started out designing our game, it was like,
"You know... Let's do that. It's really, really hard, but let's do
it." So we tried it, and we stuck with it -- and the reason people don't
do it is, it's really hard! (laughs)
Ken
Levine said that anyone can write a 20-minute cutscene.
CB: Yeah, it's true! It's really true,
because it's so much easier when you have control of the camera, you have
control of the characters, there's no one running around with a controller in
their hand, mucking up all of your ideas and what you're trying to point at.
You'd be amazed at how much it impacts the storytelling, when you don't have
control over everything.
So the craft that it takes to get the story
to happen in someone's unpredictable interactive space is through the roof,
right? We knew it was going to be hard, and it was even harder than we thought
-- so now we get why people aren't doing that. But we tackled it, and we tried
to make it happen, and so far we've been successful, so...
And
you've got the whole audio/video log thing, too?
CB: Yeah, absolutely. So, the story
is told, like I said, through the scripted events -- things you see in the game. The rest of the story is told through the characters whom you came with,
and you're separated from, and they're talking to you through video logs, and
audio logs. You pick up video logs and audio logs from the crew, so that you
get a sense of what's been happening before you got here; there are also text
logs in the game.
The environment art is a huge way that we
found to communicate what's been happening, because you'll walk into a room and
go, "How did it -- ?!" because it's like a macabre crime scene,
right? Everything that's there tells you what happened: the scrawling of
graffiti on the walls, the bodies were placed in certain ways. So the whole
story is told through these different channels.
Again,
going back to Valve, one of the things they've talked about before is trying to
draw your attention, almost the way that a movie director draws your eye within
a frame. Taking that philosophy ends up affecting your level design, because
you have to construct things in such a way that the player is drawn to certain
things.
CB: I'd say that it more than affects level
design, it actually drives the level design; the line-of-sight considerations,
and the misdirection. In our case, where Valve maybe was trying to direct you
to look at something and pay attention -- "Here! I'm telling you
stuff!" -- for survival horror, it's all about the unpredictability and
misdirection.
And so we have the same tool, but it's
applied to elicit different meanings. So we're always trying to say, "Look
over here... HAH! Got you from the side!" You can only do that so many
times, so you have to keep it fresh, over however many hours the gameplay is
going to be; you've got to find ways to stay unpredictable.
Not
just monster closets.
CB: You can't just have a guy all,
"Rahr! Rahr!" all the time, coming up out of the side: you've got to
have unpredictability that is a function of this pattern you set up, and then
break, and then another pattern you set up, and then break. So...
|
Real is how System Shock felt to me and to this day it's still one of my most memorable experiences in gaming. System Shock 2 failed in this sense, because of poor decisions on the developer's part. Things like unrealistically fragile weapons and re-spawning monsters from thin air took away from that sense of it being real -- and it ticked me off. The choice of different classes also made the game worse, because it made the game feel incomplete and unbalanced.
I thought this game looked like a cross between RE4 -- loved the Wii version -- and System Shock and now I know that it is to a degree. :)
I look forward to this game. I hope it's story is truly immersive like System Shock, where I feel an actual sense of accomplishment after completing it, but I also hope that it's as re-playable as RE4 Wii, which is easily one of my favorite console games. I didn't play System Shock again, because it probably traumatized me. Shodan's voice was scary as hell.
Anyways, I'm playing this on the PC, so for the love of all things good, I hope this isn't another focus-group-jacked console game like BioShock.
What do you mean?
I couldn't stand the first part of System Shock BTW. I almost wrote the game off completely, but decided to give it another go when they released the enhanced CD version. Unlike BioShock which became a repetitive Disney ride, SS evolved into a complex and suspenseful game that was actually worth finishing.
BioShock was "FUN" for a period time, but here lies one of its biggest faults. I know these are games, but BS shares its name with two of the "scariest" games I've played. It shares its name with a lineage of sci-fi horror games. Why on earth did they call this game a Shock, if the game wasn't scary, but FUN? The kind of enjoyment I got from the first two Shocks wasn't fun, it was suspense and in some cases horror -- especially in the first Shock. They evoked emotions that can be equated to viewing a really scary movie, but they brought it to a much higher level, because they were able to instill that I was that guy saving the day -- more so in SS than SS2.
At no point in BioShock did I feel any real concern. It was like any other FPS, I'll just re-spawn if I get killed. There was never any real sense of danger in this game, so it became a why even bother, it's not what I paid to play, it's not what I was expecting based on my experience with the other two Shocks.
Anyways, loving a game like BioShock over the other Shocks, would be like loving a sequel to "No Country for Old Men" directed by Michael Bay and it's now a typical Holllywood action movie.
Anyways, back to Dead Space. I want this game to be thrilling. I'm looking for that level of suspense that SS conveyed so well. If everything these guys are saying is true, I'm going to love this game.
You consider Ken Levine an amateur?
Lets do a cutscene and FORCE the player to watch our WORK!
The majority of hte time it comes off like a masturbation for wannabee hollywood types...im sick of it...
Bad company was a great example, a couple of the cutscenes I had no idea who the 4th guy in the screen was...then I realized "oh sometimes me, my avatar is in the movie and sometimes its in 1st person" seemed like a pretty poor decision.
Wow, what an appalling decision, lead by ideology, trying to maintain the horror suspense, but one which ultimately can only affect the end user gameplay to its detriment.
I can understand the reasoning for it, but in practice i've yet to find game where it doesn't cause more grief than suspense. So whats the point? I'd rather lose a little of the sense of 'dread' than frequent dying due to a poor game mechanic designed solely to prevent on the fly reactive adaptation to events.
Take for example the recent 'Alone in The dark 5', that had all manor of wonder contraptions to build, but you were often exposed to danger in doing so. As the player you then have to adapt to avoid this, meaning reliance on tried and trusted combinations, pre-building specific combinations, running away and hiding etc.
Unfortunately without the foreknowledge that the game designers have you never know what or if you'll need a specific tool. All too often this can lead to having something equipped that you don't need or is the wrong tool and to top it all you're now in close courters fighting and don't have the time to re-equip. So you spend far too much time dead or disadvantaged, due to decision to take away control from the player.
Conversely BioShock does pause the game, especially useful for switching weapons when dealing with multiple enemies, requiring different ammo types. I'm sure they deliberately added this after testing with the 'no pause' option, but can't find a link to back that up atm. Anyway, a simple change it empowers the player to be far more productive and react dynamically to events as they unfolded, with impunity. Giving a far better game experience.
Now obviously having yet to play the game or a demo i've not seen the full context that the 'no pause' inventory system is used within. It may be that the use of the inventory doesn't implicitly mean encountering the issues i've outlined above, in which case all will be well. However I suspect from the type of game and similar games from the past that this will end up being frustrating, but thankfully not to the point of killing the game. Perhaps one of the first calls for being patched though ;)
Still even with this slight dampener, I'm so looking forward to its release at the end of the month. I was enthralled after I saw the first released video demo as it instantly brought back memories of System Shock 2. It may have looked similar to Doom 3, but unlike that game I suspect this will have real jump out of your seat moments. I have to say I like the concept of no cutscenes and the use of environment along with audio/video logs to tell the story should be perfect, after all it worked so well in SS2.