Storytelling in Computer Games 131
Cosmicbandito writes: "The latest issue of XYZZY News features transcripts and audio downloads of a 2 hour panel discussion titled "Storytelling in Computer Games Past, Present and Future". Scott Adams, the celebrated designer of classics like "Adventureland" and "Pirate's Island", described his experiences in the early days of the home game market, offered his opinions on the current crop of games, and made predictions about games of the future. Scott is credited with writing and marketing the first commercial computer game. Of special interest to Slashdotters, he is also an avid Everquest player. And no, he doesn't draw "Dilbert"." Think "pre-Infocom".
Game creation tools.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't that just mean more cookie-cutter games with slightly different graphics? The games that really make a difference I think will always be built from the ground up and based (hopefully) on a somewhat unique concept..
Re:Game creation tools.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Engine design is the slowest part of game development, which is why so many engines get licensed for games.
Half Life is a decent example of this, tho it was very much rewritten. Raven is a company that does this with id's engines..
Re:Game creation tools.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Another consideration is that these tools will likely allow developers to make games more quickly and cheaply than is currently possible. If games require a smaller investment in time and money, then developers and publishers will hopefully be more willing to go out on a limb and try something new.
Re:Game creation tools..AND FURTHER (Score:3, Interesting)
RIGHT, and and video card performance keeps scaling up, it's easier to take a mature game engine, like id's, and tweak it to take advantage of improved frame rates, pixel shading, etc and to take advantage of whatever improvements might be made in OS shim software like DirectX.....
having to "ground up" create a game engine when the underlying tech paradigm (ChipSetX over pci/agp, yadayada) is a be-atch, and you'll be hard pressed to beat the work of the current OG's, like Abrash, Carmack, Romero, et al
now when a ***BRAND NEW*** chipset approach comes out...all bets are off and then it's who can get their "fastest with the bestest"...
but its really hard to really innovate on mature technology to the point where your newer tech has the kind of advantage it would need to displace its "big market share" competition...
which neatly explains the demise of one vid adapter mfgr after another, insufficent value differentiation in products, that's when two leaders ***ALWAYS*** emerge....the Best Marketed Product and the Best Value Product...everyone in the middle tends to get stomped...(UMM, HP and Compaq???)
Lost art of storytelling (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, maybe I'm just nostalgic. But computer games used to be great when I started out with my Amstrad CPC: Graphics were amazing, Sound not so much (the CPC had cheesy sound) and the Games were fascinating.I used to play such simple things like Boulderdash, Gryzor (a shoot em up) and all time classics like Bard's Tale and Elite.
What made those games great? Considering nowadays games those were ridiculously simple: Few colors, 320x200 pixels and horrible sound. The stories? In Elite you fly around with a ship you could equip with a lot of gimmicks, you bought and sold goods to get money or you became a pirate and attacks innocent traders, you were able to smuggle forbidden goods. Sometimes you even got to do special missions (those really happened rarely). I'm not too deep into games anymore, but I don't know of a single game nowadays that comes anywhere near!
Bard's Tale was so much fun too: You ran around with a party of adventurers and killed anything 'moving' (of course nothing did really move, this computer had 64K of RAM:-). Storyline? Well, you went to diffrent places to kill and eventually fought the ultimate evil wizard... Nothing compared to todays multiple CD epics. Yet, I did kill that evil wizard multiple times... today I hardly ever finish a game anymore.
Why did that happen? Did I change? Or did the games get boring? Is it some kind of 'been there, done that'? I don't know.
Playing todays games I am fascinated by the graphics and sounds for a while, I play for a few hours and then I'm getting bored. Somehow I keep getting the impression that the money goes to the artists, not to the script writers. Producing a computer game is getting more and more like making a movie: You need a script, but you get most of the audience with the special effects. Some gems (like Myst) emerge sometimes, but those are rare and far between...
What really catches my imagination for a while is the multiplayer feature of todays games: Real humans are so much more challenging then those dump computer controlled opponents. But even there I eventually feel bored: Most games just don't let me do what I want to do. They restrict me too much to be fun for long.
Am I the only one who feels like that?
Regards,
Tobias
Re:Midway != good games (Score:2, Interesting)
Very, VERY few of them will consider "Mortal Kombat 4" or "NFL Blitz 2000" as anything more than muscle-twitch brain distractions.
The difference between a technically sound game and an instant classic is in the storytelling. Unfortunately these days most game companies would rather crap out seventeen sequels to Virtual Duck Fucker than to sit down and make something with a compelling plot line and interesting characters.
What upsets me the most... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does this upset me so much?
I will tell you why:
Go to the bottom of that page, and notice that he gave away copies of Return to Pirate's Island 2 [msadams.com]...
Guess what - that game, as it exists today - would not look like it does now had it not been for my direct input.
You see, during the development of RTPI2, I was a beta tester for Scott, for this game. I, among other people, signed up on a mailing list, got copies of the game engine and data modules (an Windows EXE and various DAT files) to play around with - to note what was right, what was wrong, what should be improved.
I noticed right off things to be improved - the descriptions of rooms and objects were very primitive - I asked him to change it, so that it would be more story-like. I gave him the suggestion of adding sound effects to help liven the game up a bit. It was strange, once I started making the various requests, there was a small hiatus in postings to the group from Scott, then he announced that he was going to completely revamp the engine based on my suggestions! I was floored!
I had gotten onto the list, and became a beta tester, because I see him as an influence on my early computer life - I got into computers and programming because of the early games, especially text adventures. As a kid, I looked up to him in those early days as a notion of someone who had "made it" - there were others (you don't hear much from them - like Bill Budge, etc) - but to actually get this kind of chance, well - couldn't pass it up.
But never did I expect to cause him to totally alter the game play of that new adventure. But I did, somehow.
Anyhow, he finished up the game, thanked all of the volunteers, mailed each of us an autographed piece of the game script code, and gave each of us a copy of the finished game. The list went on for a while, then was shut down (not too many months ago, actually).
But one thing he gave me (though I can't give it to anyone - at least not yet), is something that very few beta testers get - actual game code. You see, I knew what he was using for RTPI2 - Visual Basic. I offered to convert the system back to standard console mode, by first doing whatever cleanup to the VB code, then downconverting that to C, and making it portable (with a Linux port in mind for the future). Well, I got the code (and no, I will NOT give it to anyone, so don't even THINK about emailing me), and (sorry to say) - it was crap. Basically it was a VB wrapper around the old hacked up IBM BASICA source from the original game of RTPI (or was it GWBASIC?) - anyhow, it was ugly - damn ugly. I started a conversion, trying to straighten out the GOTOs and whatnot into more standard VB (and let's not turn this into a VB flame fest, alright?), but I stopped after a few days - it was horrible.
But, I still have the code, and I might still convert it, someday...
So - I can't understand why Scott says he hates text adventures - I think he might be bitter about the way things have gone with RTPI2 - as far as sales, etc - he just isn't making money there. Maybe he is also bitter about the fact that it is nearly impossible for a person to "go it alone" as far as making a game is concerned, and marketing it, and selling it.
No, I don't think RTPI2 is the be all and end all of text adventures. Infocom has already proven what really can be done. I just can't understand why it is possible for fantasy fiction authors to make a bundle, but as soon as you try to make a text adventure game, no one seems will to buy the thing for "reading pleasure" - I tend to wonder if an ebook-type system, where you could actually read and adventure, would be more of the style (think of it as "choose-your-own-adventure" or "twist-a-plot", but on steroids). Would anybody buy such an interactive book (I am also thinking of Diamond Age here, as well)?
Constructing a story in games... (Score:2, Interesting)
For a long time people have analyzed the telling of stories, and in particular the work of Joseph Campbell has been very prominent. Christopher Vogler, with his book The Writer's Journey : Mythic Structure for Writers [amazon.com], took it a step further and effectively wrote a formula for creating a story.
Well, I wrote my own adventure game engine [twilightsoftware.com] and released it to the public, and then I started making my own shoestring-budget adventure games.
I found Vogler's book invaluable for two reasons:
Firstly, it helps to create a story that has all the elements that the audience expects in a well-told story.
Secondly, the same formula helps in designing puzzles that progress forward.
While I can talk about how I did this in my own games, it's cool to take a look at some of the classics and see how they used the same ideas. Ron Gilbert's phenomenal Monkey Island 2 is one such example. Act one has a story that introduces the characters and a small setting, with three or four items that are required to build the voodoo doll. A string of three or four independent puzzles are chained together with one conclusion. Act Two sees the world expanded to a number of islands, with a similar set of separate strings of puzzles. Act Three is a kind of grand showdown. But the hero's journey is not yet complete, and Guybrush faces what I always called Act Four, on the final island, in which the hero is redeemed, in a fashion. Reading Vogler's book helped clarify many of the choices made.
Hmm, where is this post going? I guess there are a few points:
- Building puzzles that integrate with story can be a beautiful and elegant process.
- Having a plan as to how the story will be laid out makes it easier to design how puzzles are laid out to integrate with the journey.
Making shoestring-budget adventure games with your friends as FMV actors is cool fun
- Brendan
Re:Lost art of storytelling (Score:1, Interesting)
As for more modern games; Machievelli (sp?) the Prince - similar trading kind of game, though definite differences (commanding fleets of basic ships & larger armies). I've always liked Civ-Like games a lot (RTS as well, though).
Part of it is "been there-done that"; after all, the field of game systems that work is fairly small. I think there is some less freedom, though not uniformly - it's partly story, so you have a reason to go from A to B, while with no story you can do C or D as well, and there are fewer consistency problems.
You might like Daggerfall, though it's aging (and probably still buggy) - a game I always intended to pick up for free movement in the world; I think they may be making a sequel.
Multiplayer brings in another whole host of problems with freedom, of course, with keeping things 'equal' between the players if it's confrontational.
If it's cooperative, then there's being able to keep track of everyone.