|
When
you sit down at the beginning of the project and you... the undertaking of
making a 360 game is a very complicated process, and there's a lot of thought on
how to manage it, whether to do a lot of pre-design. A lot of people these days,
and for very good reasons, want to be as reactive as they can be -- make
things, test them, change them. How do you approach design these days, in this
environment?
PM: Yes. I mean, that's one of the things
that you learn, is that when you have got 100 people, you just cannot be that
creative whirlwind anymore. You just can't walk into an office of 100 people
and say, "I've had a really good idea, hey let's all do this for
awhile".
Because it is all about the genius of planning
out. There are people behind the scenes whose names you never hear, who are
brilliant at planning out these terrible experiments that I give them.
Part of this process that we started off in
Fable II was to say, "Right, we
are going to experiment and we're going to take that experiment seriously, and
we're going to have competitive experiments going on, and we're going to feel
absolutely fine."
There's one rule in those experiments. Any
experiment that was done, all the code and art would be thrown away, so you
weren't burdened. A lot of the time you're burdened by the need to make things
solid and sustainable and, "God, we're writing a piece of code now, and by
the time we're finished it'll be three years old."
These experiments, we iterated around. The
dog was an experiment, and the combat was an experiment, and the free roaming
was an experiment, the breadcrumb trail was an experiment. There were many
different iterations, and that is when the team is smaller and a lot more agile.
And then when you get to the end of those
experiments you have to think about it, and say to yourself, "Right, I've
got my list of ingredients. That is it. I'm going to make my game soup out of this
list of ingredients. I'm not having any more. I can have more of this sort of
ingredient and less of this sort of ingredient, but I'm not going to add a new
ingredient."
That first experiment took about a year,
and allowed the planners to plan out more consistently, into the rest of the
project. What we don't do, a lot of the times, I think publishers have this
term -- which I think is a totally invalid term. They say, "Are you in
production?" We don't -- there isn't a sense of that, because sometimes
you can't say that code is fully in production, because quite often, even
though you've got these experiments, you know what you're doing; you're still
putting something in and taking something out again because it may not work, or
may not work for this system.
Does that answer your question?
Yes.
The question I have, just from a perspective of how you do it at your studio
is, do you work with Fable I and use
that as a prototyping environment or did you work with other tools?
PM: Yes, we did, and there was a lot of
time where we sort of white boxed using the Fable
I code. I mean, one of the problems that we did have which was a complete nightmare, is not having the
tools to support the environments we wanted to create until very late.
There was a lot of white boxing, but you
know, you can only do a certain amount of that white boxing. Sure enough, you
can say, "There's a tree going to be here, and there's going to be a
building here," but how far apart they are depends on how fast your hero
moves, which depends on how fast your framerate is.
I mean, there's so many
iterations that you go through. I could show you the white box world that was
done in Fable I. You may recognize
parts of it. But an awful lot of it does change.
We had a real problem, because we wanted to
tell this story that you would remember. Normally, when we did Fable I, for example, the story actually
didn't come together till the last three months, because you didn't have the
regions. And you had to have the regions to have the voice stuff in.
And this
was our problem. If we were to tell a truly great story we need to get script
writers and directors, and gosh knows, and actors involved way before our world was even started.
So we did something which I think you are
going to see more of, in this industry, called staging. What we did: We wrote
the story. We got a script writer in. He wrote the script to the story.
Someone
with a background in linear media?
PM: Yeah, in fact the guy who did it was
called Richard Bryant, who's a smart, clever guy who doesn't mind working with
an idiot like me. He literally would sit very calmly in the meeting while I
ranted and raved about emotion, and then write down, and say "Right, then
if you want the person to feel that, than this is the line that they need to
say."
We did all that. We then hired what's
called a sound stage. It was a huge vast white room. We got seven actors in. We
flew in a film director from Hollywood
who was experienced in doing some film work, but also experienced in teaching
people to direct. And we acted out the entirety of the story of Fable II, within this white space. We
had never done that before.
And what we found is that we could get to
that [result we wanted]. You've got to put it in... It's got to be there before
you know it's there. We got to that before
we had to put it in the game. So the story, the narrative, the emotional points
of the story were there, acted in this sound space.
|
Also, it's always nice to read about a developer that realizes the importance of starting with story and emotional impact on the player. Molyneux is correct that Fable I's biggest failure was in emotionally engaging the player. I loved Fable but I don't remember a bit of the story. Reading about Fable II's emphasis on story from the get-go is very exciting to me.
Peter is a nice person that's pushing the limits like everyone should do, always been a fan of him!
That isn't the world of console games. Or at least it wasn't until console systems started supporting patches.