GAME JOBS
Contents
Steve Swink On The Art Of Experimental Games
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Sr Game Designer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [2]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [4]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Steve Swink On The Art Of Experimental Games
by Christian Nutt [Design, Interview, Indie, Console Digital]
17 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
April 8, 2011 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 

What other games have you studied this way?

SS: You know I've played through Braid, I don't know, like 10 times or something, and the same with Portal. And when I play those games, I look at them -- well, at least I like to think I look at them -- in the way that a composer looks at a piece of really good music. And I think I see some things that you don't see unless you're trying to make a game like that, and when you play those games there are just hundreds of little tiny design decisions and that's a very different way to play a game.



But when I play games that I think are really good, that have a really wonderful progression, and they exploit really fascinating mechanics in an interesting way, and it's all just put together extremely well -- like the holistic view has been observed and understood, and everything fits very well and it's very clean and elegant and beautiful -- I get really inspired.

I mean I play through Portal and Braid and World of Goo and X-Com and stuff, and I get ideas for Shadow Physics levels really quickly. And it's not based on the surface similarities, it's based on...

Like that level in Braid where there are three piranha plants and you have to rewind to get them at the same period of amplitude, and so you have to like adjust them so that the little goomba guy gets through at the right time.

And I'm not imagining it three shadow plants and a shadow goomba wandering through there, or that sort of thing, but it just really fires off my idea bone; it doesn't feel like play, it feels like study. But a really fruitful study, it feels really interesting.

Talking about analysis and inspiration, how does that filter into Shadow Physics?

SS: Yeah, well, it's like the purpose is to make something, hopefully, that can be really interesting and beautiful and make somebody's life better. I think the highest piece of praise you can give to a painting, song, movie, game, is that it inspires you to create. If you make something that inspires kids to want to be game designers, that's the highest possible praise you can ever give to someone.

That's sort of like the litmus test. That's like a symptom of making something that's that good. And I still feel like we lack the language in order to describe what's good about games like that, and why they're so good.

And so when I play a game that I think is that good, I'm always just trying to gather all this data together to form some picture so I can understand better and try to articulate why it works the way it does.

And part of that is the process behind making it, and part of it is the result of making it, and part of it is which design decisions were important and which ones weren't, and, you know, part of it is luck or whatever. But that's sort of like the whole thing coming together -- it's that desire to make something beautiful before my hours are up; to make something that is meaningful.

And so ultimately, I think that should be the metric by which we judge whether or not a game is really good -- not how much money it makes. You know, by how many people's lives it touches, which is an impossible thing to measure. But there are artifacts that you can look for. It's like you play a piece of Mozart music, it's really hard to argue that that is really beautiful piece of music. It's like the Aria of The Queen of the Night from The Magic Flute; it's like a cellphone ring tone, you hear it all the time.

Talking about the money question -- money equaling success -- obviously Braid is an objective success, if that's how you define success. But at the same time, you can also take Braid or Portal and you can move back and think about them in terms of, what games did you hear people actually bothering to talk about for more than the first six months after they were released?

SS: Yep. Yeah, what were the formative games of the last ten years? The list is very short. I feel like you can tell the difference when someone's talking about a game that just did really well and made a bunch of money, or is successful in the way that games have been successful for many years.

Like StarCraft II. A lot of people love that game, and I feel like I have a handle on why a lot of people love that game. It's because they had enough money to spend on it that they can spend as much time as it took to make it just an immaculately balanced game.

But that's different from the reason why people talk about Braid and Portal, because Braid and Portal are different, but they're different in a way that is really, clearly wonderful and interesting to people. It's kind of like Passage, because it's really hard to define what it is about that and how it all comes together. I think even Jason [Rohrer] is struggling just a little bit. It's like, I don't think he's been able to recreate that type of resonance in any of his other games.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 
Top Stories

image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
Comments

Andrew Grapsas
profile image
Wow. Insanely good interview. A lot of meat in there. I can't wait to see what these guys build :)



Scott Anderson was a great programmer when I worked with him at Kaos. Very excited for him!

Steve Swink
profile image
He is still an insanely good programmer :).

Alexander Bruce
profile image
Excellent interview Steve. Really enjoyed reading it.

Steve Swink
profile image
Cheers! Oh, and I owe you an email reply. Poke me on Skype if I don't get back to you in the next day or two.

raigan burns
profile image
best quote: "it just really fires off my idea bone"

(it works better if you imagine a *sproing!* sound effect happening)





p.s - yes to the shower time. shower time rules!

Steve Swink
profile image
Yeah, that was a misquote. Should have been "idea boner."

Carlo Delallana
profile image
Shower time, commute time, toilet time, zoning out in a long line for your morning coffee...I find that i'm much more receptive to creative ideas

Dolgion Chuluunbaatar
profile image
Was at one of his talks. Shadow Physics already is DAMN AMAZING. There's tons of gameplay potential in there. Also, Swink's stance on game design is really inspiring. Great interview1

John Mawhorter
profile image
Good interview. I'd like to make the note that accessibility and depth of gameplay are opposites in many ways and that people trying to make good games should lean in the direction of depth. Not all of the indie audience is hardcore, but a lot of people dumb down their game for no reason. So your shadow mechanic is complex and makes for some difficult puzzles? Well, that's the kind of thing you should be doing.

Steve Swink
profile image
I think the x-factor that's hard to appreciate until you try to make a game like this is that there are types of complexity. There is definitely a "right" type of puzzle, one that is difficult to figure out for the right reasons and is highly rewarding to solve. It's relatively easy to make something so complex that people can't figure it out. It's very difficult to make puzzles that people are intrigued by, engaged by, challenged by, but which feel fair and satisfying after they're solved. Finding those is what's taking (us at least) a long time. They sit at a weird intersection of mechanics, rules, game objects. 100s of tiny decisions must be made and everything is this sea of ambiguity. All you can really go by is your intuition. Is this cool, basically.

Lance Burkett
profile image
On the theme of success, enjoy a quote;



"Success isn't about making lots of money. It's about making lots of options."

-Chris Rock

Lance Burkett
profile image
For me, shower time is completing lots of monotonous mathematics homework. Something about the monotony makes it a nice time to meditate on creative ideas.

Tim Carter
profile image
Hate to push the whole "let's-adopt-the-film-model" agenda again, but I'd like to point out that it's common place in the film model to fund a creator while he is in the earliest stages of creative - even if only sketching things down on paper - so that he doesn't have to "basically [live] like a college student..."

Steve Swink
profile image
I see what you're saying. I do think that the monetary constraints are a motivating factor in pushing development forward, however. Many of the most successful indies (World of Goo, Braid, Meat Boy etc...) would tell you that crushing financial pressure helped them get their games out and helped shape what the games became and the kinds of decisions they made in development. I think they would tell you that that pressure was positive for the quality of the games they created.



I guess the other thing is, funding a creator at the earliest stages implies being very comfortable with that creator's output. Indie Fund is still taking a huge risk in funding the game. They just want to see a gameplay prototype before they commit, which is completely reasonable. Funding a wild-eyed design sketch on a napkin just doesn't make sense. And making a prototype is not that difficult or time consuming, all things considered.



So in this case it's more about how much funding rather than when the funding occurs.

Roman Campbell
profile image
Pure genius! Thank you Swink!

Joel S
profile image
I want shadow physics! Where is it?


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech