|
I also heard you once say you really enjoyed programming; it was your preferred aspect of game development. Is that the case in the past? How did you wind up getting to this situation of much more narrative and design?
RG: Yeah, okay. Here's the truth behind that then and I think I know where that came from. You know, my first five games I wrote by myself, so I was the programmer, I was the artist, I was the terrible writer, I was the sound effects engineer, and I was the marketer. I wrote the documentation, et cetera.
But since then, on we started having teams. The first artist we hired and every artist we've ever hired has been a hundredfold better artist than I ever was. I could literally just use stick figures. The first writers we hired from an English mastery standpoint were all head and shoulders above me.
Programmers, on the other hand, were different. I was actually a good programmer. When we would hire programmers, I felt comparable to them in skill, though I no longer program. But I could, I believe, if I'd kept up the skill, so to speak, be a good programmer. But now every programmer we hire could run circles around me.
Design is the one very unusual case. In design, I can name in the industry only a handful of people that I think are as good or better designers as I am. And it actually less a statement towards what a great designer I believe I am -- because I still believe I make plenty of mistakes and I'm only so-so at it -- but rather how hard the problem is and how unique a moment in time I began.
Because since I was the programmer, artist, designer, etcetera, it means that I now truly understand the trade-offs between those disciplines, and I understand what's important about design versus if you look at most designers today, they don't get a chance to be all those different skills, and most everybody just thinks, "Oh, I love all these games. I've got my great idea for a game. I can't program and I can't draw art, so I'll be a designer."
And so designers have no job qualifications really, if you know what I mean. And so everybody wants to be one and nobody's skilled at it.
Hopefully it's slightly changing now that engines are getting more usable -- for example, in the console games space with Unreal. The scripting is much easier for people to use now. And also in the independent or Flash gaming spaces, where there are game makers and there are ActionScript libraries that can help people get there.
RG: It still requires design skill. One interesting thing about designers... most programmers worked hard to become a programmer. I mean, they spent years studying it. Most artists were somehow born with some natural low-level talent -- I don't understand how that happened -- but then they also spend years honing it. Most designers, by the time they decide to design their first game, have not put in the years of labor to become a designer that those other skills already have.
With or without any tool advantage. More importantly, when I sit down to do a design -- which is my favorite part by the way, not programming -- when I want to design, for example, a symbolic language to include in the game, which I love to do, I will go buy an entire research library on the subject, and I will pore through that subject for a month, because even though I wasn't an expert on it, the only way to successfully include that area of design is to truly become as close to a world-leading subject as it possible, because I'm competing against literature, from a qualitative standpoint.
Almost no other designer that I have ever know does that level of research to this day even though I go talk about it all time. Whenever I talk at GDC or talk to designers, I go, "It's labor. You've got to sit down, and if you're going to talk about any particular subject through your design, you have to become the expert in that area. And if you're not, you're just going to be retreading the same ground everybody else has done, and it's not going to be interesting."
That might be where something of a programming mindset may come into play. I mean, designers don't tend to be research and development oriented.
RG: Right. Designers tend to be gamers who want to fix what they think was broken in the previous game. But that's not the way to be a great designer.
Similar to your point of storytelling not necessarily being rewarded, do you think that many players even notice?
RG: Well, I think, for example, I didn't see Fallout 3, but I'm guessing it also looked and sounded and played very well. Therefore, it's a good game all the way around.
What's interesting about games, especially hardcore games -- the core of what we do -- is gamers aren't really forgiving of sucky aspects of any game. So, just because you have good story is no excuse to be less than pretty close to state of the art on graphics, sound, action, etcetera. And each of these is really hard to do. It's hard to do good graphics. It's hard to do good sound. It's hard to do goo action. And story is extra hard.
And so, that's why I think it's missed a lot, because it's harder than most other aspects and it gives you no additional reward. You can't throttle down on your spending on those other areas to do a pretty good story. You can a little bit, but not much.
In my experience, gamers will tend to have a strong response to graphics they perceive to sub-par or physics that are wacky, but I'll get all up in arms about a story that I think is irresponsible or bad or poorly written, and I'll see nothing written online about it.
Native English speakers have so little interaction with the written word, speaking properly, and grammar, I sometimes feel like they wouldn't know a good story from a bad story.
RG: You know, and I think fundamentally we share the same what I'll call "disappointment" in the perceptions or demands of the American consumer. I agree with that.
That being said, I think there are worthwhile exceptions. For example, Lord of the Rings. Even as a painfully long movie, the fact that they took the time and really did pretty good justice to that very sophisticated, deep, and meaningful story, I think it was appreciated by the general marketplace. It's just hard to do. And those are the exceptions.
|
Good morning, Remo. :)
So true, but I wonder how that compares to, say, aspiring movie director & producers? On the one hand they do the same thing to an extent. On the other, many are research-oriented and those are usually the ones that make the biggest contributions because they draw from outside the industry.
'And so designers have no job qualifications really, if you know what I mean. And so everybody wants to be one and nobody's skilled at it. '
I'm not sure about this. I think this is a conflation of production skill with game design skill. It seems to be me core game design skill is just that - the art of designing core activities for players to do, which are fun/interesting/compelling. And then being able to communicate these activity-sets to the team in a way that they work with existing art and technology. It's a soft, nearly intangible skill. But just because it's soft and intangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The state of Facebook games is such that they're indirectly interactive. I do nice things for you, you do nice things for me, but even if we're both interacting with the same Farm at the same time, we don't see each other and can't talk.
Closing the gap, giving people things to do together, and still keeping the game casual, now that would be a design challenge.
It is nice to hear someone like Garriott affirming the importance of research. Now I feel my tendancy to obsess about fully knowing something I wish to design around has more weight than my own conjecture.
John, isnt it even more of a design challenge to come up with gameplay thats fun for friends *despite* having only asynchronous communication?
Theres nothing wrong with designing games around friends interacting in real-time. Im just not sure that capability is right for the architecture of social networks like Facebook.
It seems to me that if social nets like FB are to become the Next Big Thing in gaming as Richard Garriott predicts, its the very asynchronous nature of friends casually communicating with each other -- as distinct from single-player or massively-multiplayer architectures -- that will enable this result. So thats probably where design creativity needs to be directed.
Speaking of which, its nice to hear an Industry Figure sticking up for designers as people who have a unique gift of understanding how systems fit together to achieve an overall purpose.
IMO (and since my opinion is free, take it for what it's worth) is as follows.
VGA Planets. Trade Wars.
In comtemplating Facebook games, we also step back in time to the days of dialup services and BBSes. Gaming occurred in these enviornments (VGA Planets being one of the most notable) and ought to have some wisdom for us to take forward into Facebook.
I don't want to excessively downplay the challenges of developing asynchronous multiplayer games for Facebook. The challenges ARE there. If nothing else the potential scale of the world is many orders of magnitude larger than any BBS game. How do you keep an asynchronous story straight when you and a friend happen to be playing at the same time? Farmville doesn't have the sort of story progression that can be thrown off by multiple players stirring the pot at once.
It's just not totally unexplored territory.
That Facebook presents such a limited platform for synchronous activity is *why* such content is the greater challenge in my mind. Clearly any Facebook game that accomodated synchonous multiplayer play would also have to handle the asycnhronous case. Keeping the two modes straight and complemntary in a story-format is also a challenge.
Me, I gave up on FarmVille and I am just about ready to jump Café World (friends who want to play with me be damned). Why? Zynga, as much as I like these guys, are FLOODING you with spam. The first Minute of FarmVille these days is clicking away pop-ups. If you're not careful, you click on more ads in the playing field. And Café World is nearly there, too.
I do understand and respect that they need to maintain a business and micro transactions is what they live from. However, all it has done for me so far was drive me away from their games.
Once you introduce sync games, casual play becomes more difficult to maintain. In particular, if we look at the MMO model, players become dependent on other players to get some content done and they need to invest a lot of time in the game as well.
Is there a middle ground? There sure is! I have a lot of ideas and some include sync play.
@Andrew. I think there is going to be a lot of competition in this space and that will/should cause companies to back off on the amount of spam.
@Bob. The game/entertainment industry is evolving as it always has. So, imo its not a fad, simply another step in evolution. Keep in mind the majority of folks playing these social games would never bother with a PC or console game, so there is no 'everyone to get back to regular games'. This is why this space is pulling is so much crazy money, its expanded the player base dramatically.
I don't think I'm the only one who know at least a couple hundred people playing these games that either use their work PC to play or have a PC at home that could not handle a game created within the past 3 years.
@John Trauger "could be so good at design that he doesn't need to play Farmville to figure it out. "
With that approach you are missing 90% of features that make a game social: virality & retention & events that you couldn't "figure out" unless you'll play it.
@Gesine You'll come back to the game as soon as it will provide enough of new content and meta-game layers. Or you'll see new beautiful pics in news feed :)
What I would say to you is this: What things have you done outside of the game industry? What outside world experience can you bring that will let you make something meaningful and interesting?
The article sez RG has been playing a lot of phone games. He may be assuming that Facebook games are similar. Now I don't play games on my phone, but it strikes me that phone games are more like games from the pre-internet days of desktop computer games. I don't know (or not know) that phone games play to the social/viral aspects of Facebook that Farmville does. Based on some fo RG's comments, he's thinking of essentially moving casual internet gaming portals to a facebook app.
If true --and it may or may not be, my telepathy is down today--RG would be missing what makes Facebook unique and sometimes annoying (Farmville does indeed want to put a whole lot of sheer carp on your wall if you let it. I only publicized opportunities for myself or other players like lost animals barn-raisings or when I levelled to a number divisble by 5).
I'm about due to check in with Farmville and see if the server has erased my farm yet. I'm about 3 months clean and sober, now. :)
I don't "play" Farmville myself but I have in the past.
That said, if he hasn't studied it and doesn't have intentions to it is in direct violation of his own statement of how essential extensive research is.
But from a guy who did Ultima 4 in early eighties, one of the first real moral games at least (what makes Bioshock and Mass Effect decisions system a kid's play) and foresee in Ultima 7 a living world that would take place in the pioneering Ultima Online, i can really expect from him something more than Farmville's watching and copying from the others.
Being a failure or a sucess, he doesn't have to knock on the door to ask for permissions.