|
Game designer Ron Gilbert is best known for his
crucial role in classic adventure games at LucasArts, where he co-authored the SCUMM graphic adventure tool and birthed seminal releases such as Maniac
Mansion, the particularly fan-beloved
The Secret of Monkey Island 1 and 2, and Day Of The Tentacle.
Following his co-founding of Humongous Entertainment, which had notable kids' game success with the Freddi Fish and Putt-Putt titles, as well as his nurturing of Chris Taylor's Total Annihilation at sister firm Cavedog, he stepped back from those firms and into a consultant career.
More recently, he has been thrust
back into the spotlight, in a small way, thanks to the success of Hothead's
recent Penny Arcade Adventures for
the PC and Xbox Live Arcade, which he worked on and which transforms the popular web comic into an
episodic adventure/RPG. His own DeathSpank - based on an online comic he helped create - is now confirmed to be Hothead's next episodic game project.
Gilbert, in fact, is a major supporter of episodic gaming, and here talks about his role as creative director
at Hothead Games, his belief in that format, bringing back lapsed gamers with
these games, and how the Hollywood
production system might just be inevitable for the video game industry.
What
have you been up to the past couple of years?
Ron Gilbert: The last couple years I've
been doing a lot of consulting; I do a lot of game design consulting with
companies. I've been consulting on those Penny Arcade games that Hothead is
working on. I've done some consulting on a large MMO that's yet to be
announced.
I've been doing a lot of that, but I think
the main thing that I've been doing is working on the game design for DeathSpank. I've been working on it for
probably close to four years. But it's just kind of been this background thing,
which both Clayton [Kauzlaric]
and I have been working on.
And
what is Clayton's role, exactly? He, obviously, works with you on the comics on
your blog, but how did you get involved with him, and what exactly does he do
on the project?
RG: Well I've known Clayton since, probably,
1996. He used to work with me at Cavedog, and he was the lead artist on Total Annihilation, and he was the lead designer
on Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. And
we're just great friends, and we've always done creative things together, and
we decided to do these little animated comics on my Grumpy Gamer blog.
So Clayton and I just worked on those, and
I did some of the writing, and he did the art and animations for them. And one
of the characters that was created for the comic was the character DeathSpank.
He was kind of a parody, and a satirical look at games' heroes, and how
seriously games seem to take them.
And so he and I just created this
character, and as we created it, we started to think, "You know, he'd be
really fun in a game." So we just started working on some game designs,
and story, and building up this world. He and I have just worked on that
together.
Is
he actually out there at Hothead with you?
RG: No, he's the creative director at Gas
Powered Games right now. So his involvement is just kind of casual, and we continue
to talk about stuff and work out story and designs, but he's not involved with
the project full-time.
At
Hothead, I assume you're involved in a sort of general sense with the company,
in addition to your own projects, since previously you were consulting already
on the Penny Arcade games.
RG: Yeah, I'm the creative director here,
as well as running the DeathSpank
project. So, here, I oversee all of the projects from a creative standpoint:
working with the designers, brainstorming with them, and helping them out
whenever they need my help, and dealing with external projects that might come
in, and those types of things.
So
as far as your project goes, do you want to just give a run-down on what that's
all about?
RG: Sure, sure. DeathSpank is an episodic RPG that's been described as a
combination of Monkey Island-style storytelling
and adventure, kind of melded with a very light Diablo-style RPG gameplay.
DeathSpank is a kind of over-enthusiastic
hero that often does more damage than he does good, when he comes in to help
people out with things. And, as his name suggests, the game's really a
satirical look at gaming's heroes, and how seriously games tend to take them. I
just really wanted to poke fun at that kind of stuff with him.
How
contiguous are the episodes going to be, from release to release? Is it one
overarching story, or will the episodes be more independent?
RG: Each of the episodes is very
independent. There is some larger story context going on, but the story
episodes are very short little completely self-contained stories.
They're
really meant to be played in any order - you could play number five, and then
play number one, and then play number four - so the order you play them is
really kind of irrelevant.
What
led to the Diablo influence?
RG: Well I think it's because, mostly, I
love Diablo. I've played lots, and
it's been a style of game that I've really liked. And it's kind of strange,
because I really have not found a game since Diablo that I really have liked playing; you know, that kind of action
RPG stuff. They did so many things so well with that game, and I think a lot of
people have come along and tried to imitate them, and I think they've really
missed the core of what was fun about that stuff.
I
know what you mean.
RG: I'm also a big WoW player, and I really like that kind of structure of games. I
like that whole "paper doll" thing, where you build up characters,
and put equipment on them, and give them new weapons. That's just a lot of fun,
and kind of why I wanted to do that. And I think that kind of stuff could meld
really well with an adventure game, because I think those two play modes really
complement each other well.
|
You definitely need to give other designers, or level designers, scripters ownership for their part too and the lead designer needs to recognize that. Otherwise team members can get frustrated and you might lose some talent.
Basically I am trying to say its very complicated these days and amazing that situations like I describe ever produce something decent. I think it would be a great idea to have clear definitions of responsibilities and I think the old adventure genre is still ahead of the curve in these respects.
Sergey Eisenstein would not have to re-learn the mechanics of how to shoot a film if he suddenly were reincarnated and put on a brand-new film.
In contrast in games, we're reinventing the platforms and basic tools every 3-5 years, or upgrading them so drastically that the tools themselves wind up re-engineering the way games are made. On top of that, most studios have their own in-house tools and engines, with varying design and user-friendliness.
Sure, there's a bit more standardization happening these days with engines like Unreal and middleware like Bink and Havok, but even with that, there's no "one toolset fits all" solution. Most games require custom programming within the engine, which means the toolset changes, which can mean steep learning curves for the production staff at inconvenient times.
So we can't just go over to Studio Systems and rent 2 Panavisions and 3 Arris, buy 5,000 feet of film stock and "shoot a game" in 3 weeks, then take it over to a post house and cut it together, like filmmakers have been able to do since what, the 1930s? '40s, maybe?
Using their basic standardized toolset, it's still possible for filmmakers to make a *distinctive*, high-quality film. Using a generic game toolset, it's extremely difficult if not impossible for a game studio to make a distinctive game.
We're always going to have a problem to some extent with our constantly-evolving tech and tools.
Take the first-person shooter. Nothing really fundamentally innovative has happened to that genre in years. Why? Too much focus on making it prettier - better graphics. But the fundamental elements - the fact you see out a single-perspective, you move, fire, have a use key, etc - have remained static. Except for minor incremental improvements, the gameplay has remained static.
That's the issue. We can't innovate on the gameplay because everyone thinks it's about tools.
If film people ran the film industry the way game people run games, we wouldn't have Method Acting yet, we wouldn't have New Wave, we wouldn't have Cinema Verite, we wouldn't have Film Noir. We just have a lot of awesome colour 3D cameras, but boring stories and wooden acting.