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 4 of 6 Next
 

Nobody really talked about Sleep is Death. I mean, it seriously lasted like 10 minutes on Twitter. That's a cynical way of putting it, I guess, but...

SS: No, no. And that's fair. I think a lot of people gave it a chance and did not find in it what some people did. Here's a perfect example, and this I have no explanation for -- well, I have an explanation for it, but I think it's really sad. Did you ever play Captain Forever?



That was just a wonderful game. I feel like it's a game that was made for game designers, though. Because my favorite part of the game is tuning the feel of a system, and that was like a lot of what the game was about.

So many people didn't get that. And I just thought that game was going to take off like a rocket because I had so much fun playing the game; I played so many hours of it. Its accessibility is the problem with it.

That was one of the really sticky innovations about Portal: the Valve method of like just playtesting the fuck out of it and realizing, "Hey, we are asking too much of people in this level. We're asking people to do too many things to solve one level. Let's take those two things that we thought, 'Oh, anybody could do that,' and separate them into two levels."

The thing is, while that sounds like it's kind of condescending, A) nobody knows because when you play Portal you certainly don't know what the developers were thinking. And B) no one's dissatisfied -- no one's sitting and playing Portal thinking, "Man, this game is talking down to me because I had to solve two puzzles in two levels."

SS: Well, there are two really important lessons there. One is depth first, accessibility later -- which is kind of one thing that we're struggling with on Shadow Physics right now. It's like we had these levels, that were a bunch of interesting expressions of shadow mechanics, and then people would play it, and then not be able to figure it out.

And so I went and made the game really accessible, but then Jon [Blow] made a really good point to me, which was that if you're going to tutorialize something, you have to show people why it's awesome right away; it has to be magical as well as teaching.

It can't be "Here's a bunch of stuff, and you just have to trust me that it'll get cool later," and that was the problem with Captain Forever. I was telling people this literally aloud -- like, "You gotta trust me; you gotta play this game for enough time so that you understand what's going on." And not that many people did.

But also Portal and Braid have a fundamental advantage over something like Captain Forever, which has more of a conceptual underpinning. Although it is really fun, it feels really good to drag your pieces around and arrange them.

But [with those games] it's really obvious immediately what the innovative, interesting thing is; it's like you just hold down a button and time rewinds as much as you want, or you shoot a portal at a wall and at another wall. What is cool about it is obvious; the ramifications of that are not necessarily obvious.

But now we're back to really pushing for depth in the Shadow Physics mechanics, and as I said earlier, that turns out to be a really hard thing to do. Because you are a shadow; you don't do a shadow, it's not a verb inherently. It's you are a shadow, then you run and jump and push and pull and slide and break things and...

You do what Mario or Lara Croft does, but as a shadow.

SS: Right, and so it's like a riff on all these different mechanics. And so the interesting question is, can we find depth that we need? And obviously I think we can, and a lot of other people think we can too, but that's part of what I meant about letting the game go where it wants to go.

So we have this experimental methodology in mind where we're going to take the time to explore the mechanics as deeply as possible. But by its very nature, because you are a shadow, it's not about a very specific aspect of fiddling with shadows. It may be a more compartmentalized or diffused experience, where it gets deep in a bunch of different areas, or it gets a little bit deep in a bunch of different areas. The thing that ties it together is that you're a shadow. It's a really hard problem.

With Portal or Braid specifically, the other thing that makes it really obvious with what's cool about them is everything else about them is normal. What I'm trying to say is…

SS: They were grounded in familiarity.

Yeah, exactly.

SS: They only innovated in one dimension.

You're completely familiar. You can contrast Portal against Half-Life 2 very easily to see what's different about it. And with Braid, it's the not-so-subtle nod to Mario all the time.

SS: Well, I think that that is part of the strategy that you use as a designer to get people into the game. You drop them off in a familiar context -- it's a first person shooter, it's a platformer -- and then you can let them feel grounded, and then you ease them into the weird, crazy stuff that you're going to throw at them.

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 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