Contents
Spanking Death: Ron Gilbert Goes Episodic... And Loves It
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [10]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Spanking Death: Ron Gilbert Goes Episodic... And Loves It
by Chris Remo
9 comments
Share RSS
 
 
June 30, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 7 Next
 

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.

Advertisement

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.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 7 Next
 
Comments

Dean Gebert
profile image
Coming from the movie industry, I still don't understand why games wants to move into the Hollywood model. It's exclusive, fragmented, and rarely innovative. On top of that, it's financially obese at every step of the supply chain. None of these things are good for consumers. Why do we want to follow this model again?

Tim Carter
profile image
Film is rarely innovative? What planet did you come from? Also if film being "obese" means that the creators get a cut that reflects the fact that they... um... actually created the work (as opposed to the suits and the shareholders getting it all, and the creators getting a mere wage), then I'll take "obese" any day.

Luke Rymarz
profile image
Disregarding the money aspect, Gilbert does make some other interesting points about the movie industry. Clear job titles would be very useful, proper standardization (movie scripts all look the same, why not game design specs?), and more focus on cultivating talent by publishing games that are in the middle ground. As it is now, it seems like you either already have a big studio to make your game, or you build it in the garage as an experiment. Something in between, like a lot of indie movies, does sound like it would bring a lot of talent to the surface.

Philipp Kolhoff
profile image
Comparing the game and movie industry i always like to see episodic games like TV Series because it is so obvious. Episodic games should tell some small stories with recurrent characters and elements and maybe a larger storyline over all episodes of a season. By doing that, the gamer has the chance to get to know his characters in a much deeper way. For example, the game designer has the chance to take a whole episode just to introduce one character. And i think taking the time to slowly build up a story would pay off. At least it does in TV series. Following a Season of Lost or Heroes is by no means less attractive than watchnig a blockbuster movie. It is just different and for some people exactly what they are looking for. So is episodic gaming.

Anonymous
profile image
Concerning his comments about a bunch of people designing something. I think think the disadvantages outweigh any advantages. There always needs to be one person in charge of the final design. For us it seems like its the lead designer but there are too many people above him on the chain that can come in and change things. It might be someone who is remotely attached to the game but they can come in and ruin ideas.

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.

Jeff Zugale
profile image
The movie industry has a distinct advantage over the game industry - they only have one basic "platform" that's been essentially the same for roughly a hundred years, the motion picture camera and photographic motion picture film. Even though the technology has recently changed a great deal with the introduction of digital filmmaking and processing, the basic hardware used to shoot a film is essentially the same, and functions the same way. You have a camera, it has lenses and some kind of recording medium, you have lights and sound recording equipment, and all that other stuff.

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.

Trace o'Connor
profile image
This interview really got me thinking about target audience and how they like to play games -- not just age, gender, and what entertains them short-term. The section on p. 4 talking about Valve, Portal, and "hard core" gamers who like to play to the end really intrigued me. Emailed a link and the topic to a few friends whom I thought would also find this tasty food for thought. Thanks for the inspiration! -- And I'm looking forward to Deathspank!

Tim Carter
profile image
Jeff Zugale, you have it backwards. Film has been a constantly evolving language. Eisenstein wasn't "trained". He was an inventor. The thing in film, though, is that because the technology is more constant the aesthetics and forms can be innovated on. In games, a huge issue is because the foundational technology keeps shifting under us, we can't get down to the business of innovating games.

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.

Steven An
profile image
Total agreement with the "lapsed gamer" market. There have been other names, like mid-core and ex-core gamer, but I can say I'm definitely in this market. I have other responsibilities these days, so I can't dedicate myself as much to games, but I still want to play "full" games. I have no interest in Bejeweled, but no time for Mass Effect either. "Portal" was great for me. Looking forward to "DeathSpank"!


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment