September 2008 Archives

Tom Abernathy gave a stellar talk at the Austin Game Developers Conference entitled "Galatea 3.0: Designing and Writing the Great Game Characters of the Future". His focus was on how the symbiosis between writing and design can create richer experiences and help play designers better do their job. His fundamental thesis: Good characters, and subsequently story, make good design better. It is his belief that a tighter integration of writing and design will create better experiences for future players.

Story is derived from characters. It emerges from the internal desires of a character. When a character acts to achieve an object of desire, hence externalizing internal desires, those desires come in conflict with the outer world. It is here in this conflict that story emerges. This is truly a classical Aristotelian approach, emphasized by Tom's references to the Iliad and Casablanca. It is also very reminiscent of Robert Mckee's screenwriting techniques, which too are derived from Aristotle's Poetics.

Tom took it a step further and suggested that characters not only make a story, they sell a franchise, creating hot intellectual property (IP) and marketing hooks. It's true, and as storytellers we must remind the pockets and purses that our craft drives sales and deserves development dollars. It is only through emphasizing the fiscal prudence of investing in story that we can convince producers and investors that we deserve just as many dollars as the art or play design pipelines. As too many of us are familiar with the opposite and clearly see the detriment in product quality, and subsequent sales, which results from a lack of investment in story development.

Bruce Sterling, legendary science fiction author, was unable to make it as our keynote speaker as scheduled.  He instead sent a graduate student of his from the future to address the conference, or so said an individual representing Bruce on stage, who looked remarkable like the man himself.  At almost 90, with the skin of a ten year old and the hair of a rocker, he was unable to make with his Segway from 2043. The good news is that in 2043 Austin is still weird, because as Bruce, or his representative said "they kept it that way." According to Mr. Sterling's representative, computers in 2043 are boring; they are really quite boring, in fact they are quite like towels, paper, and other normal things of mundane human existence. His General Electric Pocket Mediator, apparently a handkerchief, didn't function as it should, since the cloud isn't existent in our time, and I'd say the same for most of his aspiration filled techno-jargon.

Bruce's representative spoke at length, rather poetically, about the incoherence of the future. His performance at first glance seemed to add little to the conference in the way of real substance.  The main hall was empty, and virtually silent, less the lonely laughter of a few forced giggles, as if to say "I get it". Though I did enjoy his rather slanted take on a GDC keynote, it was a performance, and superficially contained little helpful substance for the world of today's game makers.  If I were to take anything away, beyond a glimpse into living on the edge of keynote infamy, it would be:

1) Redefine video games for the future.
2) Don't be a clog in modern video game publishing.
3) Explore other forms of interactive media.

Looking back it was quite refreshing, there were no product pitches, no self-comparisons to Walt Disney, he did not even try to wow the audience. Instead he was honest, humble, and insisted on 'taking the piss' out of all us self-righteous gamemakers. He threw off the rules, and that's exactly what he called upon industry vanguards to do.

Andrew Walsh presented the session posed on the question 'Are game writers witnessing the death of three act structure?  Mr. Walsh was alive, full of passionate self-reflexive humor.  His talk was a great postmortem on how layered interactive storytelling can further game experiences while maintaining their classical roots.  Clearly defending the form forged by Aristotle, he went on to explain how he used the form in Prince of Persia and how it lent to creating a next-generation interactive story experience.

In creating his installment in the Prince of Persia series he had set some clear markers for successful storytelling:

• A strong identifiable story.
• A simple playing experience.
• A deep story world.
• Allow the player choice and control.
• Making the characters feel alive.
• Providing a next generation experience.

What is his conceptual tool?  "Ondemend storytelling"  Just what is it?  Andrew went on to explain, "Ondemand storytelling is a story design that allows the player to choose when to access the story and how much of it they want to experience."   It is a layer of interactive depth that is available to the player at the designers discretion to give the story hungry player additional content.  The Ondemand elements are not required to forward gameplay, they exist to provide depth to the player, in that they allow the player to customize their own experiences.  Anyone who has played Gears of War will be familiar with such systems.  By holding a button (Y) on a console controller a player can shift focus, shift control, to the game makers, so they (writers/designers) may direct their focus to story points of interest.

At this point Chris Crawford is a legend, since his beginnings as a game designer for Atari in the 1970's he has been a proponent of dramatic games, ones which push the boundaries of the the medium to new heights.  In this 2008 Austin Game Developers Conference (AGDC) Session, Crawford focused on the creation of a new medium, one which focuses on interactive storytelling.  As creator of the Game Developers Conference (GDC) he was one of the first to speak at this years conference, over 20 years since he held the first GDC in his living room.

Apparently Chris's first proposal for this talk "14 Conceptual Shifts..." was turned down, and most recently he was asked to speak and rewrote the talk to be "15 Conceptual Shifts"' When asked why he was turned down he quickly replied, "Because I'm an asshole." Apparently Chris does not care for games, and as a result has made some sworn enemies. He seeks divergence from the game industry as interactive storytelling is to create a new form of entertainment; one beyond useless interactivity not driven by compelling human drama.  Storytron, Inc. is in fact his venture into creating this new industry. His company's website proudly displays the copy "Play a Storyworld".

He was/is a big shot, 14 hits, wrote the first book and journal on Game Design, about 16 years ago he walked away from it during the creation of the game Wing Commander.  He saw the industry falling down a dark path, away form drama and towards toys, puzzles, things which are antithetical to the dramatic potential for interactive storytelling.  Games are supposed to be about people, there is no real feelings, emotion and people. It's taken him 16 years.

This is an ongoing NDE series featuring interviews with Game Writers in the Trenches™.  The game industry is riddled with the unsung heroes of interactive storytelling.  As game developers are increasingly looking to create meaningful virtual narrative experiences, listening to the real-world wisdom of these writers can help everyone on the development pipeline understand their trials, tribulations, and needs, in hopes of enabling them to do their job as they know best. Today's game writer is Tom Abernathy, his journey as writer began in film, and now continues into video games. I'm hoping to see what we can learn from his experiences in the trenches of game development.

SED: You are currently a Writer at Microsoft Game Studios. Your career has had you focused full-time on storytelling in some of the worlds top-tier studios, what is the most challenging part of writing stories for games?

Tom Abernathy: Without  question, the interactive element.  Those of us who have worked as writers in other narrative media are trained and experienced (if we ARE trained and experienced) in linear narrative.  The spin that interactivity - which is to say, non-linearity - puts on things can really mess with your head.  There are so many tools we're used to having at our disposal - timing, sequence, parceling out information in a certain way, dramatic irony, on and on and on - that increasingly fly out the window the more control over the direction of things you give to the player.  We writers are used to driving the experience, and then in games, suddenly we're not.  That's a tough transition to make, and, after ten years in this industry, I'm still making it.

That being said, the challenge it presents is incredibly rewarding; you're forced to take out and reexamine all your habitual ways of doing things and to ask yourself WHY you've done them that way and, now that you can't, how else you can do them and still get the kind of effect on the player that you want.  Certainly, the more linear the narrative, the easier it is.  But I've really come to appreciate and embrace the challenge of giving some control over to the player.  It's a Zen experience; it's all about letting go.

SED: Was there a realization at some point in your life that you wanted to write specifically for games?

TA: I think so, yeah.  Not in the sense of an apple-on-the-head moment, but I remember quite clearly when I was in film school at USC getting my MFA in '95 or '96, being in my apartment and looking to video games to give me a break from the grind of that program, firing up the PS1 and playing the stuff that was out that had any pretension to narrative, and just wanting to hurl the controller at the TV set.  The kindest thing I can say about most of those games was that the writing seemed to have been done by a well-meaning amateur with some innate ability but no craft, no sense of what separates good writing from bad or good storytelling from mediocre storytelling or flat, boring characters from characters that pop off the screen and get you interested.  (Never having been a big PC gamer, I wasn't aware at the time that, even then, there were some PC games that aspired to more, writing-wise, and even a few that achieved more.  But even if it had, I think the contrast would have just made me angrier.)

And the thing was, given my varied background as an actor, a theatre director, a filmmaker and a screenwriter, I just KNEW I could do better.  I didn't know how well I could do, but I knew I could do better than what I was seeing, just by bringing some of my skills gained in other media to games.  (One thing I think helped was that, with such a varied background, I was already used to approaching a new medium and figuring out how I could take what I had learned in another and bring it to bear; I'd had to do that several times already.)  So I went on a crusade to find someone in the games industry who would give me a chance to do that.

This is an ongoing NDE series featuring interviews with Masters of Narrative Design™.  While 'narrative design' is not a term in common usage, the design of story experiences is nothing new.  As game developers are increasingly looking to create meaningful virtual narrative experiences, looking at the lessons learned by these masters becomes increasingly valuable.  Today's master is game author, developer and designer Ken Rolston.  As an early innovator in 'pen-and-paper' role-playing games he brings to video games a unique sensibility from 20+ years of experience in interactive narrative design. I'm hoping to see what we can learn from his wealth of knowledge and wisdom.

Stephen Erin Dinehart:  Ken thank you for taking the time to interview with the NDE.  You are currently Lead Designer on a computer role-playing game (CRPG) at the Toy Headquarters (THQ) studio Big Huge Games?

Ken Rolston: Yes.

SED: You have created both 'pen-and-paper' RPGs and CRPGs how are these experiences different for you?

KR: 'Pen-and-paper' RPGs can be authored by a single person [though they aren't so much anymore], and produced and distributed using mature technology... paper printing and publishing.

CRPGs are far from a mature medium. You make everything up, nearly from scratch, each time.  CRPGs are also vast production challenges, involving many people, many disciplines, and huge budgets, and they represent far greater risks of time and capital.  And they are far harder to test and iterate rapidly.

Finally, as Sandy Petersen says, the worst tabletop RPG session I ever played is far better than the best CRPG [computer role-playing game] I ever played... because of the dynamic relationship between the players and the GM [game master] in tabletop RPGs, and because of the more satisfying relationships among players and their avatars.

I've also had the pleasure of watching people play my paper games like PARANOIA, and it's like watching productions of a play you've written... exceedingly gratifying.

CRPGs are just way-too-much work, take way-too-long to produce, and cost way-too-much-money to produce as a medium of personal self-expression.  And they don't evolve in the hands of your users as much as paper RPGs do.

But... I've recently been replaying OBLIVION, and it was pure delight.  So perhaps the gratification for the labor is somewhat delayed... but profound.

SED: Do you have a paper prototyping testing phase for your CRPG?

KR: We make real working prototypes as fast as possible to explore systems, interfaces, and graphic presentation.  We often make small brute-force paper prototypes of system elements, more for communication than testing... using cards or markers or Lego's.

This is a new NDE series featuring interviews with Game Writers in the Trenches™.  The game industry is riddled with the unsung heroes of interactive storytelling.  As game developers are increasingly looking to create meaningful virtual narrative experiences, listening to the real-world wisdom of these writers can help everyone on the development pipeline understand their trials, tribulations, and needs, in hopes of enabling them to do their job as they know best. Today's game writer is Haris Orkin.  His experience as writer runs the gamut of media types, with a most recent focus on games.  I'm hoping to see what we can learn from his knowledge and experience.

Stephen Erin Dinehart:  Haris thanks for taking the time to interview with the NDE. Your most recent project was Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, can you explain your role and duties?

Haris Orkin: I was hired to work with the team on the story for the game and write the script for the live action cinematics.   The story was collaboration between Mical Pedriana, who functioned as the narrative designer, Jason Torres, the lead game designer, Mike Verdu, head of EALA, and me.   We wanted the tone and the concept to be a continuation of Red Alert 2, which came out about seven years ago.  Mical was the audio lead on RA2 and wrote all the unit responses. I was a big fan of that game and the Command and Conquer series in general.  So I knew the tone and the story and the characters and was thrilled to be included.   A bare bones outline of the basic story was already in place by the time I was brought on board.   But I suggested some changes, fleshed out the existing characters, came up with some new ones, and created the relationships and conflicts and many of the specifics.   I also wrote and/or rewrote what we call the "Talking Heads"; live action head shots of various characters that appear in game that help steer the player in the right direction vis-à-vis game play.  I helped Mical on unit responses and co-op commander responses and barks as well.

SED: Is that a full-time or contract position?

HO: Contract.

SED: Was there a significant change in the format of your solely the cinematics versus writing for an entire game as you did on Call of Juarez?

HO: I wrote the cinematics for RA3 with Final Draft, a screenplay program.    But all the unit responses and barks were written in Excel.   COJ was written entirely in Excel.   While RA3 has clearly delineated cut scenes (and the talking heads), COJ has fewer cut scenes and more scripted events, so you're still within the game world.  (Much like Half Life 2.)  All the cut scenes used in COJ used Techland's proprietary graphic engine, so it was easier to keep a feeling of seamlessness between the game play and the story.  We also told a lot of the story with artwork and audio monologues while the levels were loading.   RA3 uses the same story-telling mechanic that Command and Conquer series has always used.  I think it still works for an RTS game, since we're cutting from live action scenes to a top down RTS view.   To cut from a live action scene with real actors to a first person view with CGI characters could be pretty jarring and possibly pull you out of the narrative.  RA3 does use CGI cut-scenes that show off the units and big story moments and I contributed ideas for those as well.

According to The Department of Defense a war game is "a simulation, by whatever means, of a military operation involving two or more opposing forces, using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed real life situation."[1]  It seems that Russia, the European Union and the United States of America, are in a very real war-game about the future of new Europe.  Grabbing "living-space" for Russia in Georgia must be a move made with a greater strategy.  Certainly it must be part of a larger campaign, but what is the goal? 

Not long ago, 'total annihilation' had the United States and the former USSR both engaged in war-games to determine the outcome of such a scenario should it escalate to "World War III".  Thanks to war-game strategic studies by the likes of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), only three outcomes where determined to be possible in the confrontation between the two powers: "1. Loss of Command and Control 2. Unleashing Tactical Nuclear Weapons 3. Gas or Biological Attack". [2]