|
CR:
This is a really esoteric question, but when you say that, it kind of reminds
me of the early history of film narrative, where the directors had to be
extremely specific about everything that was happening, to the point where they
were explaining in words what was already going on on screen. As audiences got
more acquainted with the language of film, directors take more risks and were
more fluid.
I
know Will Wright has grand thoughts about where gaming could go, but I'm
wondering - do you think gaming could get to the point where you could release
a game where you were fluidly switching between different types of gameplay and
having enough faith in your audience to... even if they haven't necessarily
played that one type of thing before, have enough of a sense of how they're
interacting with the game that they could more easily transition?
SJ: I think that depends upon how tied the
future of games are to genres, or as individual pieces? It certainly seems to
be going in the direction of genres so far. If it continues like that, yeah, I
expect that will be true.
There's a lot to be said for familiar genres, because
you can definitely do interesting things within those boundaries and people are
ready to go. You don't have to teach everything from scratch every time. You
just have to be careful that... you know, strategy is in a bit of trouble now,
because the genre's gotten very complicated.
BS:
With the look and feel of it, Spore's
got kind of a casual kind of visual style. It avoids the Uncanny Valley completely by being cute little
guys. I feel like it's got the aesthetic for the casual gamer, and then the
gameplay for the hardcore gamer, but I'm wondering if those two actually meet,
like if the casual look turns off the hardcore gamer and the hardcore potential
gameplay vice-versa.
SJ: It's possible. There's a lot of
speculation that goes on within the Spore
team about, "Is this a mismatch for this audience or that audience?"
I think a lot of it goes back to Will not really thinking in terms of audience
and just thinking in terms of, "This is a radical new idea."
Ironically, as years have gone by, some other games seem to be incorporating
similar ideas.
BS:
He's been talking about it for a while, so...
SJ: It's been quite a long project, but I
think it just started with, "Wow, this is a really powerful idea, letting
people see what everyone else has done." I think to some extent, he's not
very worried about that. I'm sure there are people who are worried about that,
but...
CR:
The industry as a whole is very driven by that. [laughter] That's what makes it
so surprising.
SJ: You'll have to talk to someone else on
the team that knows this a lot better than I, but I believe that originally, it
was a lot more realistic-looking. It did not have that cartoony look.
I don't think they made that change to
appeal to the casual crowd. I think they made it because it just looked kind of
weird. You'd end up with a lot of really grotesque creatures, I think, whereas
if you have more googly eyes and bumpy parts, people ended up making more
appealing-looking creatures. I think that's more or less why the decision was
made. It was just part of the creative process.
BS:
What have been the challenges for you? You've touched on some of it, but just
moving from a project that was so explicitly hardcore gamer-focused to
something that is less about a focus on an audience and more about trying out
new ideas. Or has it not been more challenging and more freeing?
SJ: It's definitely been more freeing. I
think it would be harder to go in the other direction. Because I kind of went
into it at the very beginning and said, "Okay, this is not about making
the most balanced game in the world. This is not about giving people a
challenge that's going to take them years to work through all the different
levels." I decided right off the bat to not worry about that too much.
But there have been many times where I
would put stuff in the game that I had to take out because it's made the game
frustrating for people - things that I probably would not have taken out if we
were aiming for a classic gamer audience.
There isn't a lot of space in the game for
instruction. For a game like Civ,
it's taken for granted that when you decide what to build in the city, you're
going to have ten choices, and we're going to have fairly detailed pop-up help
to help you understand that, and there will be a place to go to, to explain all
the different concepts.
In Spore,
there are three different building types, and there are three different vehicle
types. There's not necessarily a lot of room for maneuverability there. So
yeah, I think for the most part, I haven't worried about that too much.
|
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game)
As far as Spore, I'm excited that its going to be a game that spans so many styles. It sounds the ultimate in complexity - if it walks the player through all the styles it will do very well and will be just massive.
As for CIV Rev I've played the demo and my thoughts from a person that is familiar with the civ games on PC, but that never was a hardcore player of them was that I felt Civ Rev was too simplistic, so simplistic that it led to boredom.