|
As
someone who covers the industry every day, it's sort of remarkable. When a
publisher announces its initial release timeframe, it really is sort of a given
that it's going to end up being one, two, maybe three quarters later. I mean, I
always wonder why publishers don't just automatically assume games are shipping
six months after they're announced - and then I think, "Well, how do I
know? Maybe they already are taking that into account."
RG: Well I could tell you. I could tell you
exactly why they do that.
Okay.
RG: They do that for financial reasons.
Because they're trying to put together financial plans, and they have a board
of directors, and they have budgets, and they have earnings, and they have all
these other things.
So, I think a lot of them take that whole philosophy that
it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. It's easier for them to put
together a budget and a bunch of financials that look positive and aggressive,
even if in the back of their head they just know the stuff's going to slip.
So
this is the machine you were up against for the last couple years.
RG: Yeah, definitely. Yeah.
So
you spent some time sitting at a desk at Double Fine, working on your pitch,
and your design; what exactly did that entail?
RG: Well I spent two periods at Double
Fine: I spent a period, maybe I think it was two or three years ago, where I
worked out of Tim [Schafer]'s office for a few months; and that was really putting
together the initial design in a sketch. And this actually wasn't for DeathSpank. This was for another game
with the same gameplay, the same melding of RPG and adventure, but it wasn't
the same story. I started just putting together a lot of pitches - you know,
setting up meetings with publishers, you know, doing that sort of thing.
Then I went off and I worked on some casual
games for a while with Clayton, and then I did some consulting jobs, and then I
came back to Double Fine just a couple of months ago. But at that point I knew
I had to deal with Hothead, so that was a much more focused thing, where I
really wanted to get the design of the very first episode of DeathSpank completely done.
So I was
very, very focused during the last few months that I was there, just cranking away
on this design, getting the story written, getting the puzzle structures done,
getting the RPG stuff all figured out, and I also wanted to write a couple
other episode stories. So that's what I was doing the last few months, when I
was working in Tim's office.
Obviously
you're positive on it, but what are your thoughts on this whole episodic gaming
thing that's happening? People seem to be cautious in getting into it, because
it does seem to be a difficult schedule to maintain.
RG: Yeah, I think it is. And I think there
are a lot of positives to episodic gaming. I think, for me, as a designer and a
storyteller, I like being able to tell a lot of little stories. Being able to
take a character like DeathSpank and just put him in many, many different situations,
to me, is a lot of fun. And so, to me, that's one of the things that I really
like about episodic gaming.
I think there are some other very positive
things about episodic gaming. I think a lot of gamers are getting older, and
they don't have as much time to spend on [gaming]. They're having families, and
wives, and kids, and all these other things, and they still love gaming but the
thought of picking up a game that's going to take them, you know, thirty or
forty hours to finish, can be a little bit daunting and intimidating. So I
think what they do is, they play games and then they never finish them.
So I think episodic gaming done right, like
what Telltale, and the way that I want to do it, I think you can give these
people very rich, deep experiences that are just shorter. And one nice thing
about doing the episodic is, when I do a DeathSpank episode, I'm pretty damn
sure that everybody's going to see the ending. Which means that I can actually
focus effort on the ending of my game. When you're building a very large game,
you put a lot of your effort into the beginning, because maybe only 20% of the
people will ever see your ending.
So I think those are some of the things, to
me, that are very interesting about episodic. I think the distribution is an
issue; I think we're just starting to get really good digital distribution, and
I think that's key to the episodic stuff being successful. So I think those are
some of the hurdles.
I think some of the other hurdles, I think
a lot of gamers still think that episodic is taking one big game and just
hacking it up into pieces and then selling it to them. And I think that's just
one of those things that time will fix, and when people start to play really
good episodic games, they'll realize that it isn't a large game hacked into
pieces, but they're actually short little games, and it's a very different
structure; not only for the game, but the story.
It's a lot like television and movies, you
know. A television series is not a movie hacked into twenty-two pieces; it has
its own structure, its own way of telling the stories. And I think people will
slowly realize that about episodic gaming, and they'll start to appreciate what
it can give them from a gameplay and a storytelling standpoint.
|
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.