Chris Crawford Interview [Archive] - Indiegamer Developer Discussion Boards

Spaceman Spiff

06-13-2006, 10:41 AM

Chris has been pessimistic for quite a while now, and in my opinion he has blinders-of-the past on.

He was part of the genesis of computer gaming era - that period from 1976/7-1983/4 when everything was new and the rules and genres were far from being figured out. It was an exciting time - I remember it well and wish I had done more then - but it's over and you can't go back*.

It's a lot like joining a company during the startup phase, and staying with it over the years as it grows into a multi-national mega-corp. You'll never get the fun culture of the early days back, but the company of today can do things the start-up never dreamed of; and, of course, it's less personal - no way to host GDC in Chris' Living room** and no longer is it an exclusive club where everybody knows your name.

I've had to go through my own letting-go of the past when it comes to gaming and game development. I own development systems for early game consoles, and scores of pre-IBM PC computers... but guess what ... I don't have the time or opprotunity to make games for all of them despite my desire to do so (back then, and still now).

We all have to deal with the fact that things change, and the world moves on with or without us. DOS based games don’t sell much any more, and a match-3 gems game isn’t going to set up your retirement. So what. We can get hung up on it, or move on to the next things ourselves.

I guess what I am saying is that I think Chris is so negative on the industry because it's not what it used to be for him, and he hasn't fully come to terms with that hard truth.

Now imagine what would happen if you put Chris and Greg Costikyan in a lecture room toghther.. no wait... :-)

* - I see our inide efforts todays as being more advanced than 'big commercial' efforts of that era.
** - If you didn't know, from wikipedia:
Originally called the Computer Game Developers Conference, the first conference was organized in 1987 by Chris Crawford as a series of salons in his San Jose area living room. Designers present at these sessions included Tim Brengle, Don Daglow, Brenda Laurel, Dave Menconi, Brian Moriarty and Gordon Walton.

GameGlyph

06-13-2006, 10:45 AM

He's a guy who made some decent games about 20 years ago and thinks he knows it all.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

cliffski

06-13-2006, 10:47 AM

"My advice to the gaming industry would be to sincerely copy Hollywood more closely"

I dont know who this guy is, but I cant bear to read beyond that. What a total and utter load of bull.
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!
Games are interactive, they are NOTHING like movies in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

I've worked at companies were people who have been in the industry twenty years go all hollywood and start employing hollywood scriptwriters and other *talent*.
Its a joke, the two forms of entertainment are totally different.
As for the lack of innovation, the guy obviously cant be botherd to look very far. Like others have said, either do something about it, or just shut up. I'm allowed to rant, I'm making original games :D

TimS

06-13-2006, 10:57 AM

Games are interactive, they are NOTHING like movies in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

He was actually advising the industry to copy the way Hollywood runs itself as an industry... not advising game designers to copy movies.

I have to agree with the general feeling of the thread though... spend less time doing interviews and more getting that Storytron up and running to show us the "wave of the future" already...

mahlzeit

06-13-2006, 11:05 AM

. . .spend less time doing interviews. . .
That's what they call marketing. ;)

Christian

06-13-2006, 11:23 AM

Storytronics, which is now 14 years in the making.

Storytron is now a fourth generation technology, check its site.

Im sorry, but until I see action on his part to change this, he can cry and complain all he wants

Come here and see: www.storytron.com

And his attitude is no new either, he allways complained about the industry, the doesnt enjoy video games from a looooong time now, even he says so.

he knows it all.

Thats not truth, you miss-interpret him.
I think that when people really love something, and someone attacks what they love, they inmediatelly hate the attacker and try to attack too without even thinking, they simply react, but even if Chris attacks what you love, i think that he has some very valid points that deserve to be thought (listened) at least.

As for the lack of innovation, the guy obviously cant be bothered to look very far.

Can you point me to the innovation?.

Ryan Clark

06-13-2006, 11:28 AM

Wow... we were in the IGF, and hey, maybe Professor Fizzwizzle isn't a 100% new concept, but some of the games up for the "Innovation in Game Design" category sure were!

The winner, "Braid", requires the user to manipulate time (fast-forward, rewind, etc) to complete levels. I've never seen this before, and I thought it was a very cool idea.

Though perhaps it's derivative because it's still a platform game? I'd like to see anyone come up with anything (well, anything fun!) that isn't somehow derivative.

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 11:31 AM

Storytron is now a fourth generation technology, check its site.

Yeah, I read that ... but what does that "mean"?

Savant

06-13-2006, 11:35 AM

Can you point me to the innovation?.
In the past decade? Are you serious? I know you've become Crawford's yes-boy but come on...

Mike D Smith

06-13-2006, 11:49 AM

Nothing is ever completely 100% original. But I don't think pure originality is that important anyway.

"Is the game fun?" is the core principle most people care about. It could be fun because it's mostly new to people, it could be fun because it's a throw back to some older game types. It will most likely not be fun for people if they have already played a "better" version of the same thing. That's where the cloning problem comes in.

Forget all this focus on "originality" and focus on the purpose of your game, whatever that is (fun, teaching, political statement, making money, artistic expression, etc.). I've found that originality often comes naturally from trying to make the game the best you can for what you want it to accomplish.

Applewood

06-13-2006, 12:00 PM

I actually found his piece pretty enjoyable to read, but then again I'm a pessimistic old git myself.

Trust me, there's some good games about on the indie scene, but there's an *awful* lot of utter shite. I think if anyone spent a day researching "so what's available in the downlable arena", they'd pretty much come to the same conclusion as Mr Crawford. Don't forget we're biased as we know where to look.

You can only spot so many straight clones without coming away with the attitude that that's all there is.

Christian

06-13-2006, 12:11 PM

I agree with Mike, but ill copy and paste somwething from the article

GS: Is there an argument to be made for revisiting an idea that people still enjoy? If people are still playing it and buying it and they want to play it…is it so terrible, in that instance, that something is not necessarily innovative?

CC: No, there's nothing inherently wrong with recycling the same thing over and over and over, but how do you know what you're missing if you're not trying? Has anybody noticed that we don't appeal to the general public? Has anybody thought that perhaps it might be a good thing? In fact, the industry has talked about reaching out to a broader audience for decades, but the industry is not willing to do anything about it. As long as you keep recycling the same product you're going to have the same markets.

Savant, what you call innovative? When i think on innovation i think about gameplay (Crawford too), there has been very very little innovation in this industry, the huge majority of games are just clones or derivates.

DangerCode, it means that there has been 4 usable version of this technology, but none of them had demonstrations for the public, but this last generation is going to, you can download the pre-alpha of the authoring tool and storytron is going to be released on september or october as says in the interview.

Savant

06-13-2006, 12:15 PM

Savant, what you call innovative? When i think on innovation i think about gameplay (Crawford too), there has been very very little innovation in this industry, the huge majority of games are just clones or derivates.
So you're saying that games haven't changed at all in the last 10 years?

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 12:32 PM

DangerCode, it means that there has been 4 usable version of this technology, but none of them had demonstrations for the public, but this last generation is going to, you can download the pre-alpha of the authoring tool and storytron is going to be released on september or october as says in the interview.

Okay. But I don't see how "It's fourth generation" combats the fact that it's taking a popular game designer with deep pockets 14+ years to make something unique or innovative (that hasn't demonstrated itself yet).

Like I said before, I think his standards are a little out of whack. And he comes off a bit too much "holier than thou."

cliffski

06-13-2006, 12:39 PM

The huge majority of books are also derivative kack, but that doesnt mean that Tolkein, Shakespeare amd Jane Austen didnt exist.
The huge majority of games are kack, and I'd say that goes for big names games as well as indie. That doesnt mean that Katamari damacy, Giants, Eve Online etc dont exist.
This guy seems to think interactive storytelling is the future. If it is, bury me now. Personally, if I want good story, I go to a storyteller like Iain Banks, J R Tolkein or Jane Austen, I certainly dont go to a medium that is primarily interactive and cannot be linear.

As for the show me the innovation, I point you at games I've found innovative

ShortHike
Masters Of Defence
Wildlife Tycoon
Gish
Bridge Builder
Democracy

I don't want to hear big retail guys whining that games are not innovative. Either make your innovative games or shut up.
Bah!

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 12:46 PM

The huge majority of books are also derivative kack, but that doesnt mean that Tolkein, Shakespeare amd Jane Austen didnt exist.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. We can talk smack about any industry or profession like this.

Which kind of makes me laugh. I can't think of anything more mundane more unoriginal and less innovative than bitching about how things aren't the way they used to be and how we've all lost our way.

:D

Christian

06-13-2006, 01:13 PM

You have books for all tastes and about everything imaginable, games are not like that, thats the problem.

Techology has changed, did games change at the same time?, no.
In those game you basically do the same thing than in previous made games.

Okay. But I don't see how "It's fourth generation" combats the fact that it's taking a popular game designer with deep pockets 14+ years to make something unique or innovative (that hasn't demonstrated itself yet).

Ah well, we will have to see if those years give something true or innovative. Anyway, i wasnt trying to probe anything by saying that, its just a fact.

bignobody

06-13-2006, 01:14 PM

"My advice to the gaming industry would be to sincerely copy Hollywood more closely"

Seems kind of funny after complaining about no innovation. When did Hollywood last innovate? It's all remakes these days...

Christian

06-13-2006, 01:21 PM

If you keep reading, he explains that statement.

So you spread a lot of money over a large area and most of it is just dead loss. You'll find one idea out of a hundred that's worthwhile, and Hollywood has developed a balanced system. They don't throw money away. They've developed a balanced system that generates enough creative return for their monetary investment.

I think thats the problem, people dont really read what he says heh... they just hear the attacks and put their hands on their ears to not hear more.

bignobody

06-13-2006, 01:36 PM

True, I didn't read the article, just the quote. Of course part of this "balanced system" is "Hollywood accounting" practices then (you know, how no movie has EVER generated a profit...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

:D

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 02:01 PM

Ah well, we will have to see if those years give something true or innovative.

Very true. We'll see. But wait ...

... do smell that?

sniff
sniff

... it's the stench of 14 year-old software. Some people call it vaporware.

:D

(I'm just kidding around. Sort of.)

But even if it is successful he would have taught us that it takes 14 years for a celebrated game designer to make something innovative. That alone renders the discussion obsolete IMHO.

YMMV.

impossible

06-13-2006, 02:06 PM

I posted this purely because I thought it would bring up some interesting conversation, and I was right :). When it comes to innovation I agree with Savant, its ridiculous to say no games have innovated in the last decade. Whole new genres have emerged since 1996, including MMORPGs, Rhythm\Dance games, 3D platformers, diablo style action RPGs, and many casual game types. Not to mention a variety of innovative games that don't have enough clones to be considered a genre.

There were some very innovative games at IGF. Braid, Strange Attractors and Witches Yarn (seems like Chris Crawford would be into that one...) would all definitely go into the innovative category. Sure you had stuff like Glow Worm and Dad N' Me, but those also weren't nominated for innovation.

The problem is the more games you play, the more things start to look the same. Even pretty major innovations can seem minor. So Everquest is not innovative because MUDs have been doing the same thing for years. Diablo is not innovative because its a roguelike. Mario 64 isn't innovative because its just Mario in 3D. All Rhythm games are Simon. Katamari Damacy is basically Pacman (Rohomech's favorite innovation argument.) All of these things are true... but innovation isn't necessarily about doing something 100% new, something that many people would argue is impossible.

mahlzeit

06-13-2006, 02:11 PM

But even if it is successful he would have taught us that it takes 14 years for a celebrated game designer to make something innovative.
But he isn't making a game, so his being a celebrated game designer doesn't really have anything to do with this Storytron thing. It's not a game. Nor is it the future of games. Because it's not a game. So why compare the two? Chris has been inventing a new medium. (Not a game.) ;)

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 02:12 PM

If you keep reading, he explains that statement.

Yet he still relies on the assertion that "They've developed a balanced system that generates enough creative return for their monetary investment."

(emphesis is mine)

He acutally is telling us that the movie biz is more creative than the game biz. IMHO, our posters here are justified on calling him on that. He doesn't say anything regarding games that can't also be said about any industry.

So I don't view him as a wise sage. He's just a crusty old fart dumping on the new generation of innovators. I imagine that pattern is as old as time itself. How original.

YMMV.

impossible

06-13-2006, 02:19 PM

So why compare the two? Chris has been inventing a new medium. (Not a game.) ;)I think this is BS. What's significantly different in Storytron that IF authors aren't already doing, or Facade doesn't do?

I played an Erasmatron demo years ago and wasn't impressed. I still need to check out Storytron, but from what I've read no one has created anything of note with it. Constrast this with Inform 7, where Emily Short created tech demos and tutorials that are actually interesting stories. To me it seems like he has developed interesting technology but no actual interactive story besides very small demos. In order to build a new medium, you really need to have some compelling content.

DangerCode

06-13-2006, 02:22 PM

It's not a game. Nor is it the future of games. Because it's not a game. So why compare the two? Chris has been inventing a new medium. (Not a game.) ;)

And therefore CC is not to be held up to the same standards he prescribes for the rest of the industry? ;)

mahlzeit

06-13-2006, 02:55 PM

I think this is BS. What's significantly different in Storytron that IF authors aren't already doing, or Facade doesn't do?
Interactive Fiction isn't the same as Interactive Storytelling. In IF the story doesn't change depending on the player's choices, in "IS" they do. IF is just a bunch of "use this object in that location" puzzles with a story draped around it. Storytron is like a computerized storyteller that makes up the story on the spot. (Although an "interactive story" is obviously a different beast from the story from a novel or movie.)

I suppose Facade is like Storytron, but their approaches are apparently different. I'm no expert. (Nor did I say that Crawford is the only one inventing this new medium. People have been writing about it for ages, but he is one of the few people actually writing implementations.)

cliffski

06-13-2006, 03:02 PM

but facade is just brute force, having a ton of responses. As far as I could tell, its like a huge flowchart with some fuzzy logic. Thats not moving AI forwards, thats just spending a lot of effort on a single heavily scripted encounter. Maybe I misunderstand?

impossible

06-13-2006, 03:31 PM

Interactive Fiction isn't the same as Interactive Storytelling. In IF the story doesn't change depending on the player's choices, in "IS" they do. IF is just a bunch of "use this object in that location" puzzles with a story draped around it. Storytron is like a computerized storyteller that makes up the story on the spot. (Although an "interactive story" is obviously a different beast from the story from a novel or movie.)
This is true of *MOST* IF but not all of it. There is some puzzle-less IF with very dynamic stories out there, things like Galatea. I'm more interested in the end product than the technology behind it, so Storytron might be much better equipped to do these sorts of things than the Facade engine, but there isn't really a quality demo to show that.

but facade is just brute force, having a ton of responses. As far as I could tell, its like a huge flowchart with some fuzzy logic. Thats not moving AI forwards, thats just spending a lot of effort on a single heavily scripted encounter. Maybe I misunderstand?I don't think Storytron can automatically create new written responses for you though? I'd imagine it would require a good deal of scripting to create anything interesting with it. I think the idea is to get stories that play out in different ways and are non-linear, not to make AI that creates stories for you.

dislekcia

06-13-2006, 03:45 PM

Had an interesting discussion about this today too... Two things stick out in my head:

1) What makes Storytron NOT a game? It sounds like the main reason it's not a game is because it doesn't have flashy graphics and the interaction is somehow "more verbose"... To my mind that just makes it a complex, non-graphical game. He seems to have this idea that games are a subset of the interactive entertainment arena, I reckon that given how dependant on interaction Storytron is, it's a game.

2) What does the whole "state of the industry" rant matter? More innovative and interesting (and above all, fun!) games are being released now than ever before. It doesn't matter that it's such a small percentage of current game releases that are somehow unique, what matters is that there are more unique titles for me to enjoy every year. Even if I have to ignore tons of other games... I already ignore tons of books and movies that I find contrary to my tastes.

Although, I could see where he was coming from. What he said isn't really that inflammatory, just based on a different set of reasoning.

Christian

06-13-2006, 06:04 PM

I think this is BS. What's significantly different in Storytron that IF authors aren't already doing, or Facade doesn't do?

I played an Erasmatron demo years ago and wasn't impressed. I still need to check out Storytron, but from what I've read no one has created anything of note with it. Constrast this with Inform 7, where Emily Short created tech demos and tutorials that are actually interesting stories. To me it seems like he has developed interesting technology but no actual interactive story besides very small demos. In order to build a new medium, you really need to have some compelling content.

I wasnt impressed either... but i doubt that the intention was to impress either.

He says that stoytron demos will be ready next year, i hope i can contribute to that, meanwhile you can study and play with the authoring tool, so that when the beta is released and storytron too, you can start testing what you can do with it. This new medium is building, slowly, but its building.

innovation isn't necessarily about doing something 100% new, something that many people would argue is impossible.

Yes impossible, but, innovation is supossed to be something new in a medium, not a face lift, or lipstick applied to an old thing. If you give a new look to an old design, or if you put something of other design on it, its not innovation!, its frankensteining! (from frankenstein: a horrible beast made with dead body parts (joking)), its mechanics copy, same old thing, resources management, eye hand coordination, and thats it, the player does the same things that in other games. You may say that the player doenst eat dots, you may say that now what he does is collect objects and make a huge ball with them, but if you look deeper into the mechanics, the player does the same thing, he moves towards things. Innovation or facelift?... Remember its an interactive medium we are in, its the interactivity the thing that matters, the thing that makes the medium what it is, that is the thing that needs the innovation. Right now its just copy paste of interaction.

If you want to see true interactive innovation, see how many kinds of games that the board games have, its incredible, we should learn a lot from them, even thought they too have clones and stuff like they, but they actually keep pushing themselves in their game mechanics, and its because they dont have other choice, we on the contrary get distracted by the flashy graphics, and the stories and the marketing tags, board games dont have all that stuff, all that mix from all the other mediums to get distracted from the true important thing, interactivity design in their games.

Storytron is a technology, its allows interactive stories to be played, its not a game, you can play games with it (he explains the differences in the article too). A different kind of game, the thing is that Chris Crawford doesnt want to call them games because of a marketing strategy. Most normal people dont play most video-games because they know that they are for kids and teenagers, so to not be associated with the current state of the industry, they dont want to be called games.

impossible

06-13-2006, 06:30 PM

If you want to see true interactive innovation, see how many kinds of games that the board games have, its incredible, we should learn a lot from them, even thought they too have clones and stuff like they, but they actually keep pushing themselves in their game mechanics, and its because they dont have other choice, we on the contrary get distracted by the flashy graphics, and the stories and the marketing tags, board games dont have all that stuff, all that mix from all the other mediums to get distracted from the true important thing, interactivity design in their games.
I've really got into boardgames a lot over the last year. I couldn't agree with you more. To me it seems like casual games have the potential to be the german\euro style board game equivalent of digital games, but seem to be moving in a different direction now.

Davaris

06-13-2006, 09:44 PM

I tried out the StoryTron editor and it was too hard for me. Also his instructions didn't match his current build so they were very confusing.

I do think he's right that the industry needs a shake up as I haven't wanted to play a game for years.

He could be a nutter or a missunderstood genius. But one thing he is good at is getting people to talk about him. ;)

mahlzeit

06-14-2006, 01:38 AM

1) What makes Storytron NOT a game?
I think that's a problem of definitions like "game" and "story". Storytron probably has elements of both, but it really is neither. (Although it *is* some form of interactive entertainment.)

The main difference seems to be that games are mostly about things (collect things, shoot things, combine things) and that Storytron is about the interaction between people (i.e. dramatized characters) whose character arcs follow a certain theme to its conclusion (one of many conclusions, actually, because where the story leads depends on the choices the player makes).

By the way, I don't think that "interaction" automatically means "game", because all software is interactive but not all software is a game.

Savant

06-14-2006, 03:49 AM

I do think he's right that the industry needs a shake up as I haven't wanted to play a game for years.
See, I don't get this. I'm never without a game to play. Never. There's always something cool to play whether it's on PC or console.

delsydsoftware

06-14-2006, 06:33 AM

<Rant>

I actually read through the interview, and I think Mr. Crawford is really saying "Hey kids! Get off my lawn!". Everything on Earth is derivative, period. You can trace combustion engines back to the discovery of fire. You can say that modern science is not innovative because it builds on the work of thousands of other scientists. You can say that Rembrandt was not innovative, because he was using the same painting style as other Dutch masters. Yet, we believe that Rembrandt and Einstein are geniuses. How is that possible? :rolleyes:

The game industry seems a bit more limited than the field of science, though. In the field of science, you are trying to solve a specific problem. If your solution doesn't solve the problem but leads to more research, it is still successful. Now, if you make a game that is different from anything on the market and it isn't fun, the idea is basically a dead end and gets swept under the carpet. Since everyone's idea of fun is different,there is no specific formula for making a game fun. There are plenty of vague rules of thumb(risk vs. reward,etc.), but there is not one all-encompassing answer to the question "What makes a game fun?". I think Crawford is really missing out on this. There are a lot of innovative games that are being developed that don't meet the "fun" requirement, and are swept under the carpet before they get past the prototype stage. Then you have games like Democracy which are fun to play but don't fit the accepted formula of "fun". This, in my eyes, is innovation at its best---redefining fun.

Crawford wants innovation in gaming, but he also complains that games don't reach a mass audience. The only way to reach a mass audience is through experimentation, and that's what we're seeing in the game industry right now. Clones are basically repeated experiements. If the audience is still around after a few clones, you can say that this genre of game is solid. Tetris, for example, is a winning formula. Tetris doesn't need a dynamic storyline, particle effects, or prerendered video to be fun. I have a keychain version of Tetris lying around somwhere, and it's just as fun on a keychain as it is on a Nintendo DS. Once Tetris was established, you had tons of game developers trying to build on that formula. Nintendo took the Tetris formula and changed it a bit---Dr.Mario was the result. In my opinion, Tetris and Dr. Mario are equally fun, but for different reasons. One is a spacial orientation game, one is spacial orientation with color matching. In my book, that's an innovation.

His Storytron system(which should win an award for having the worst name imaginable) is not innovative by his own definition. It sounds like a cross between a choose-your-own-adventure novel and an Infocom text adventure. Time will tell if the Storytron system will be successful. But, when game developers repeatedly boast about a game that hasn't been released yet, they are losing touch with reality. They are "drinking their own Kool-aid", and it's a formula for disaster---see Battlecruiser Millenium for a good example. :D

I agree with the other posters---14 years is a long time to not produce a tangible product. Show me this innovation of which you speak, and I might go a bit easier on you. :p

</Rant>

Anthony Flack

06-14-2006, 07:02 AM

I have never actually wanted a game to be innovative. When I play a game, I don't ever think that I'd like it more if it was breaking more new ground, not really. Having played many thousands of games, most games do feel stale and boring, yes. But the ones that are still exciting are often not radical at all. They're just very good at entertaining me and not doing anything to piss me off.

Simple. Except it isn't.

As a developer, I do like to see people pushing out into new territory, because that's interesting. But as a player, I'm not looking for radical ideas; I'm looking for flawless execution. If they can do both at once, then they will have my highest esteem. But actually I'm just as happy racing a motorbike if it's a fun motorbike race.

Anthony Flack

06-14-2006, 07:16 AM

And having read the interview now, it just sounds like an uninformed rant from someone who actually has no idea at all about what has been produced in the last decade, and doesn't care to take a proper look because he's made his mind up already.

Yes, there was innovation back in the 80s. There was also blatant copying. Yes, the industry largely subsists on a few fairly well-honed genres now. However I do think there is just as much innovation now as there was back then, if you actually cared to look - instead of simply looking for the first reason to go "oh, look, there's a platform. Derivative. Next."

By the time the interviewer asked about Nintendo's branding idea, only to have it dismissed as being like the "emotion engine" he was basically talking complete nonsense just for the sake of being grumpy.

Christian

06-14-2006, 08:39 AM

DangerCode

06-14-2006, 09:23 AM

You have no problems with it because you are part of the same market that the industry has allways aimed at, and thats the problem, what happens with the other people who arent interested in the things you like?. Innovation would solve this problem, but your kind of innovation only happens in the sub-set of things you like, so its not really innovation, its frankensteining, upgrading, lip-sticking, face-lifting of old ideas.

It's all too heavy-handed and over-generalized for my tastes. Plus, it's insulting.

And to be frank, such lectures are better received from someone who has shown us the way by example. The complaining part is just too easy.

Christian

06-14-2006, 09:53 AM

It was not my intention to insult anybody, sorry.

But just look arround you, who is the main market of the industry?.

Well, he left the industry to work in what he belived in (storytrin, for 14 years?), what better example than that?.

Polycount Productions

06-14-2006, 10:28 AM

Seriously, after I saw the article I heard people saying rude words about Crawford being a jack(bottom). Why the negativity or the hostility? Everyone has the right to express his opinions, and if Crawford thinks innovation is dead, maybe that encourages us to actually bring more innovative games rather than slacking off the man - no matter what he has (or hasn't) done in the past. If you disagree, so you disagree. That is just a viewpoint of one man.

It doesn't take Ph.D. or an author of book to tell which game is good or innovative. Every one has the right to express their opinions, old, young, in-the-between - and even children (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?p=97178). If somebody loves games today, he loves games today.

Savant

06-14-2006, 11:22 AM

Crawford has been beating this drum for years and some of us are tired of listening to it.

(Irony! OH SNAP!)

lakibuk

06-14-2006, 11:29 AM

Crawford has been beating this drum for years and some of us are tired of listening to it.
(Irony! OH SNAP!)
Haha, he's the AAA version of Savant.

Ricardo C

06-14-2006, 12:27 PM

Haha, he's the AAA version of Savant.

Favorite post ever :D

Escapist Games

06-14-2006, 12:29 PM

Here's the heart of the problem: Chris sees game design as "art". Most of the rest of us see it as "business".

Innovation wins awards, it pleases the intellectuals and the artists, it's remembered as groundbreaking... but it doesn't often sell well to the masses.

Savant

06-14-2006, 12:53 PM

Innovation wins awards, it pleases the intellectuals and the artists, it's remembered as groundbreaking... but it doesn't often sell well to the masses.
Yeah, the Sims was a real disaster. And what about those crazy "first person shooters" those guys in Texas are doing? Nobody wants those. And don't even get me started on these massively multiplayer games - unsellable!

DangerCode

06-14-2006, 12:58 PM

It was not my intention to insult anybody, sorry.

Actually, I feel I should cool my own jets a bit anyway. Apologies.

illume

06-14-2006, 04:02 PM

This interview is mostly a publicity gathering device.

It worked didn't it?

I emailed Chris a couple of years ago, and he is aware of the many new ideas coming out. He's aware of lots of what is going on. He is aware of lots of the different scenes (including this site!). However he still thinks there's lots of rubbish out there.

He does have a good point about 'this industry' needing to reward, and invest in innovation more. People are interested in movies which are new and interesting. The same way that people are interested in games that are new or interesting.

However art isn't an industry. The real innovative works will come from the artists. Those not necessarily making games just for cash, or to make good games. People trying out new ideas to see if they are interesting. If you need to make money from a work, then it's much easier to follow a path that you know will turn out good. Rather than try some weirdo ideas that may not be popularly interesting.

As for storytron being new? It's interactive fiction. Pick a path, or choose your own adventure. Text adventures. I'm sure, that with good writers it will be quite an experience.

If it is good, then I'm sure it will be cloned quickly. Those 14 years of development will be snapped up by those not wanting to research the possibilities, and who are happy in following a tried path.

bla bla bla. The End.

Sharpfish

06-14-2006, 05:33 PM

If you were a millionare and didn't need to work another day in your life but still chose to develop new game ideas, then you would be someone I would like to meet and shake the hand of.

Most/All game designers are intimately tied into the money cycle so have to make concessions and compromises time and again (same for indies who want to try to eek out some kind of existance).

The problem is the guys with the manpower to pull it off are also responsible for mucho $$$$$$$$. If these two juxtaposed facets, "Creativity" and "Money", could be decoupled for a while the industry would / could explore a thousand new avenues. There is too much at stake for them to risk it. I personally have some ideas (as I'm sure we all do) for games I would like to see in the future (and no I couldn't possibly make them myself even if I stayed up really, really late one night) ;) As much as we like to toot the horn of the indie spirit it can only make small moves within small parameters with "provided" hardware and software techniques.

A lot of interactive entertainment will need to loose it's linearity, be completely removed from what we think of as classic games (dexterity/logic) while also not falling into the trap of being "movie like" or relying on a story as is the current trend. The experience would ideally be about and unique to the player, involving/provoking the imagination more than ever before. I think certain aspects of hardware are going to have to be revolutionised before that utopia can arrive. If the powers that be just keep throwing more polygons and better lighting and faster AI at the same designs we will get some great games but nothing new. Eventually everything that can be done with that tech will have been done. I believe even the simplest of 8 bit games from days of yore are perfectly capable of being "awesome experiences" but only to those who have not seen better technology. The player is too aware of the technology these days, they demand more shaders and more levels instead of demanding unique experiences.

One of the best things that some future technology could do to maintain FUN and excitment within games is to prevent over-familiarity. Maybe (and this is abstract) this would mean some kind of induced amnesia. I know it sounds crazy (and I'm not even from california and I don't have a beard nor a pony tail) but everyone is always looking at what the game can do explicitly to innovate rather than the way it's supported via it's interface (human to machine). Ok Wii is an example of someone trying to do something a bit different but it's still be applied to the same old kinds of games. And it's also too little to enable real innovation. I guess I am saying that apart from the Money and Risk factor that there is also a natural limit to genres and innovation on similar (idea saturated) hardware.

So really, all we can do now is thank god for the video display and the microchip and just enjoy, and hope that we get as lucky with technology within the next 30 years as we did in the last. Evolution can't be forced surely? At least not by the well intended but ultimately powerless.

Anthony Flack

06-14-2006, 06:03 PM

Christian

06-14-2006, 08:51 PM

As for storytron being new? It's interactive fiction. Pick a path, or choose your own adventure. Text adventures. I'm sure, that with good writers it will be quite an experience.

It is interactive fiction, or is it interactive storytelling?...
The writing of such storyworlds (storyworld: a story "written" for storytron with swat, the authoring tool) is not made with paths, imagine a soccer field, a storyworld is the soccer field and the soccer-players, when you participate in a storyworld you are actually playing a soccer game, its not linear, it doesnt have paths, but its not infinite either.
And because of this, you dont really writte no story, what you do is stablish the bounds with a script language. But is sugest you to visit www.storytron.com and read the Overview part, it explains things much better than i.

Its ok, i find that the idea of making a game for dog bridders is interesting, we are all different. I wish there were games that i liked like you do, because right now there arent games that i really like. I hope i can change this, or contribute to the change, with myself making games for people that share some of the same interest that i have.

illume

06-14-2006, 09:18 PM

Blogs and forums are a new "non-game" form of entertainment. So is watching You Tube. These are better examples of things that appeal to non-game players. But what does that have to do with what we do?

I think being constrained to games is probably not a good thing. Rather be constrained to entertainment.

For those wanting an insentive, check out the persons sales who made a fish tank screensaver-game (on the game producer site). Or the karaoke crossed with a game (sing star), dancing, drumming, music in general. Those games have crossed mediums and are quite good and successful. Fishing, and hunting games are other examples.

How about incorporating some game ideas into a blog? Or game ideas into a forum? Add a 'theme of the day' feature into blogs. Where it puts a theme of the week at the top of the peoples blogs. If they choose to enter the theme blog competition they can have their blog entries rated by other entrants.

You tube could also have theme competitions. Also you could have a treasure hunt on you tube. Where people have to mark videos which have a red ball in it. Or videos which have only men. Ok, those ideas might suck... but there's probably more interesting things you could do.

I think crossing mediums will probably create just as interesting 'games' as crossing genres of games. With a similar amount of possibilities created for new forms of entertainment.

The point in the article about industry needing to invest in research is a good point. One way would be for game companies to let(or make) their employees enter into game competitions that seek to experiment with new ideas. It's one way of focusing research with little expense. It's also a way for people to get a creative outlet in an otherwise boring job.

Or fund prizes for more competitions. Or sponsor people to come into one place for a week to hack away at different game ideas. Sponsor people who come up with good game play as researchers. Give art grants to people making interesting games.

Jamie Cheng

06-14-2006, 11:36 PM

I listened to this guy at GDC, and everyone rolled their eyes when he spoke. It's like I could hear the collective rolling. He used his time quota entirely with rhetoric, and never gave us any substance. When pressed, he just shot them down with what essentially boiled down to "I'm right. You're wrong."

Has anybody noticed that we don't appeal to the general public?

Last I checked, my dad wants to play Brain Age, millions of moms play Bejewelled, and all of Japan plays either Brain Age or Nintendogs. The biggest audience for Brian Age in Japan were older adults. Who is this "mass audience" he's talking about that we don't appeal to?

I just wish he'd use actual examples of games we call innovative, and tell us why he thinks they're "appalling". Then maybe we can have a conversation. Right now it sounds more like a religious debate.

Sharpfish

06-15-2006, 02:28 AM

I don't think non-linearity is a utopia. I actually, actively dislike games that stray too far from linearity. I don't want to make my own story, in the infinite interactive story space. Generally, I just want to play through the game, but I want that experience to be enjoyable. I don't want to have to find my own path so much. Progress is all very well, but we should be very clear about why we want to try new things. How interesting is interactive fiction? Is it as interesting as, say, non-interactive fiction?

Yes, I am in the subset of people who already like games. But I don't care at all. I'm not interested in finding the new form of electronic entertainment that will appeal to dog breeders or flower arrangers or soap opera fans. They're probably happy enough doing that other thing, anyway. New forms of entertainment will appear naturally. Blogs and forums are a new "non-game" form of entertainment. So is watching You Tube. These are better examples of things that appeal to non-game players. But what does that have to do with what we do?

As for familiarity - well, one of the games I enjoyed most in recent months was Gradius V. It's a side-scrolling shooter, in a fairly traditional form. It's even very similar to the numerous older Gradius games. And I have played very, very many shooters over the years, and this one was not much different. It was a little bit innovative in places, but only slightly.

But, it was also better than most games in the genre. A mediocre shooter would be terribly boring. This one had me hooked on it. I can't pinpoint it, exactly. But I've played a lot of games, and I've dismissed a lot of games. And the rare ones that have hooked me are often surprisingly generic...

Everything you say (in that post) is geared towards non innovation. This discussion was supposedly about how or why innovation doesn't happen that much. I agree a game to be played for fun with the current restrictions usually fares much better (with the typical "hardcore" gamer) with a begining and an end (which is why I prefer "Resi Evil 4" To "Animal Crossing WW" for example - though I had fun with both). I was looking to the future where not every form of interactive entertainment can be linear because it's the linearity that is imposing the same restrictions on games. If you have a game with 20 hours of gameplay, and taking into account every game that has already been done what widly innovative stuff could you squeeze into those 20 hours? If the game has a lifespan and a linear path it is still more akin to a book or a movie with only enhanced deviations.

As I said the games of the future (that will be the innovation that everyone seems to be crying out for) will not strictly be "games" in the traditional sense, therefore the traditional concepts of games (start, finish, levels, story etc) will also become less important or required.

Other than that we stick to the same format and just get more and more realistic or powerfully abstract games. All still good games but not wildly innovative.

edit > I don't know about "non gamers", I too couldn't give a toss about including more non gamers that is for the big guys to worry about. Bringing granny on board is not innovation but I never said to bring anyone new on board. I am talking about taking those guys who have been into games since their childhoods to a new level of involvement, excitment and empowerment (layered on top of challenge, reward, discovery). I have to use abstract terms because we discuss it using today's games as reference points.

For now, I am happy enough playing a good solid game even if it's core gameplay is based on a late 70's idea (shoot em ups for example)... the true innovations (or evolutions) will follow in time. The technology is still very young. :)

Sharpfish

06-15-2006, 02:44 AM

One way would be for game companies to let(or make) their employees enter into game competitions that seek to experiment with new ideas. It's one way of focusing research with little expense. It's also a way for people to get a creative outlet in an otherwise boring job.

It's funny, having had something similar happen @ the company I used to work at we were asked to submit game design concepts the "reward" being a design secondment under the creative director of said company. The handful of people who were successful in principle were the ones who propsed an FPS with this or that story/twist, or a derivative version of another company's concepts. There were a couple of out-there, wilder ideas that got recognized as having merit (mine inclued) but ultimately the company were only interested in doing more of the same (though typically the company has always tended towards sequals and samey product ;) ). My point is that it's clear that many of todays powerful game houses are infintley more interested in ROI and money in general than giving the player what he probably doesn't even know he wants yet. It wasn't always like that and I have hope that in the future it won't be like that.

I still think there are good games being made today (otherwise I wouldn't play, talk and write about them) but everytime the innovation topic crops up it seems easy to attack all games. I have seen evidence of a few game devs going the extra mile to give players something they really want, but it's always, always compromised by the reality of business. To trully innovate firstly the industry needs business innovations that allow pure creativity and brainstorming outside of the low risk genres.

Anthony Flack

06-15-2006, 03:08 AM

Everything you say (in that post) is geared towards non innovation.
Yeah!

I'm playing devil's advocate a little, because I do agree that there are problems in the industry, especially in the way that games are approved, funded and directed. I do think that creative freedom is absolutely important if the games business is to mature. But I'm wary of people stating "innovation" as the goal. It's so loaded.

And it seems to be something that is peculiar to games; perhaps it's over-compensating for perceived shortcomings. But why is it that it's considered necessary for games to evolve into something entirely different, as if the thing they are now is some kind of inadequate pupal stage on the way to their true form?

Most people aren't crying out for radical changes to the structure of films. People don't feel the need for novels to become something else entirely. Nobody is complaining that we need a new kind of music that redefines the relationship between composer and listener. And just as the flower arranger or dog breeder might be happy not playing videogames, they are likely quite happy for flower arrangement and dog breeding to remain more or less how they are. Sure, they have their limitations. But people who like that sort of thing are quite happy - otherwise, they'd do something else.

Where do people get the idea that computer games are so important that they need to keep expanding to conquer the whole world of entertainment?

Computer games as they are today are no more limiting than, say, comic books. Each have their limitations, but there's still plenty of creative scope in both without having to radically deconstruct the form (unless that's what you really want to do). If you're feeling too constrained by the medium, then perhaps you've chosen the wrong medium. If you're looking for an example of restricted thinking, how about the assumption that your creativity needs to be expressed through computers at all?

mahlzeit

06-15-2006, 03:17 AM

If you're feeling too constrained by the medium, then perhaps you've chosen the wrong medium.
Hence interactive storytelling. It's not a game.

Savant

06-15-2006, 03:47 AM

This interview is mostly a publicity gathering device.

It worked didn't it?
This is the lamest argument possible.

"Haha, you guys are talking about it! He wins!"

It's kind of hard to complain about/discuss something without actually talking about that something, isn't it? I guess you can argue that the only way to win is to pretend the interview doesn't exist but that doesn't really accomplish much.

Sharpfish

06-15-2006, 03:47 AM

Yeah!
I'm playing devil's advocate a little, because I do agree that there are problems in the industry, especially in the way that games are approved, funded and directed. I do think that creative freedom is absolutely important if the games business is to mature. But I'm wary of people stating "innovation" as the goal. It's so loaded.

I'm of the same mind (don't confuse my pie-in-the-sky posting with my take on reality as it stands).

And it seems to be something that is peculiar to games; perhaps it's over-compensating for perceived shortcomings. But why is it that it's considered necessary for games to evolve into something entirely different, as if the thing they are now is some kind of inadequate pupal stage on the way to their true form?

Agreed, that says it very clearly. All I am saying is that for this "innovation" to occur it will take more than just new game designs based on the same tech and format. I am not saying the innovation SHOULD occur or even replace what we have now, if anything it will be an additional kind of "Interactive entertainment". I am fine with games as they stand and their incremental improvements. The posts were actually directed at Crawfords ideals (not agreeing with him).

Most people aren't crying out for radical changes to the structure of films. People don't feel the need for novels to become something else entirely. Nobody is complaining that we need a new kind of music that redefines the relationship between composer and listener. And just as the flower arranger or dog breeder might be happy not playing videogames, they are likely quite happy for flower arrangement and dog breeding to remain more or less how they are. Sure, they have their limitations. But people who like that sort of thing are quite happy - otherwise, they'd do something else.

Indeed, and I'm not crying out for radical changes to gaming. It is what it is. I just think that in the future an evolution of what we term "games" will occur. Simply put comics are art on paper with a story, films are storys depicted by actors on film. Their technology is fixed, it doesn't change. Computers are far different. They are always evolving and so to are the interfaces (more importantly). It's just not as fast as some would like I suppose. The first computer games were more like accidents of technology rather than mass-market intended usage of the tech (like books, films, comics are). And as computers and related technology are enablers they encourage new ways of presenting their entertainment where books and films can not.

Where do people get the idea that computer games are so important that they need to keep expanding to conquer the whole world of entertainment?

I certainly don't think it should. I like books because they are linear stories that involve the imagination. I love films because I just sit there, switch off and become immersed for an hour or two. I love games because they are the closet we have to interactive dreams, taking situations that are not real and bending them to our will. It's just not done that powerfully yet. Each has it's place and I would hate to see the death of any of them.

Computer games as they are today are no more limiting than, say, comic books. Each have their limitations, but there's still plenty of creative scope in both without having to radically deconstruct the form (unless that's what you really want to do).

Yes. Games are games and films are films. It is not I who thinks they should blur the lines between but the big game studios who continually ape hollywood. Personally, I like games without stories and just gameplay (old school) and I enjoy some games with deep stories. Freedom of choice is what computer games iare good at... so long as it is within the typical recognized boundaries of what today's technology can offer us. Which is why I don't go on about innovation and instead say "accept what we have and enjoy" in the same way we have to accept books and films. The "future talk" I posted before is a hypothetical core change in technology, business and thinking to enable these radical innovations that folk like Crawford seem to advocate. Because I suggest them I certainly do not mean anything we currently have is inconsequential to entertainment.

If you're feeling too constrained by the medium, then perhaps you've chosen the wrong medium. If you're looking for an example of restricted thinking, how about the assumption that your creativity needs to be expressed through computers at all?

I will take it you mean "you" as in a general you there, because I don't feel restricted by the medium as a player or a developer. I also express my own creativity via other methods (music and writing). I only hope games can bring about more creative thinking in someone PLAYING the game in the future. By straying away from the linear, story, level based format you can introduce the players own creativity into the "game" thus increasing his immersion and involvement. This would open up avenues for new types of gameplay other than simple Left, Right, Jump, Click, Shoot, read, Kill, Race which is what we have today and all we will have for a long time to come while "constrained" by the technology. I never said it was a bad thing. That is what games are. I am firmly of the school of thought that says "stop moaning and enjoy playing what we have" and I don't think games were better particularly in the past, and I am looking forward to quite a few games this year. Part of me is always looking at the future and hoping though. :)

Anthony Flack

06-15-2006, 05:08 AM

The "you" I was referring to was the general "you" rather than you, personally - as was the rest of the post. Like yourself, it was my thoughts based on Crawford's arguments, aimed at nobody in particular, and not meant to be a disagreement but rather a further clarification of what I said before. (I really must be careful about that on forums...)

These are just the kinds of things I think about when I read comments like Crawford's in the interview. I'm always looking forward to new things as well, but I can still get caught up in the same old thing done for the hundredth time, if it's done just the right way. And while I'm the first person to express dissatisfaction with the way this industry does business, I'm not complaining about the games themselves - there's still more games I want to play than there is time to play them.

Jack Norton

06-15-2006, 06:49 AM

Well while Chirs keeps talking, other people make games. I just finished to play the game Fahrenheit (obviously the EU version without censorship) and it rulez, except the action sequences (I hate them).
Don't know about his interactive storytelling, but I think will have hard time to beat that game atmosphere. Is awesome.

yanuart

06-15-2006, 07:07 AM

hah forget bout storytron ! Orgasmatron, now that's an innovation!

whisperstorm

06-15-2006, 08:24 AM

When I look at Storytron vs. say Inform 7 - I get the feeling that Storytron is going to be the next Xanadu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu) :)

Escapist Games

06-15-2006, 12:00 PM

Yeah, the Sims was a real disaster. And what about those crazy "first person shooters" those guys in Texas are doing? Nobody wants those. And don't even get me started on these massively multiplayer games - unsellable!

The Sims is perhaps the most obvious example of an innovative game selling well. But the popular MMOs aren't innovative -- World of Warcraft is Everquest with improvements. Everquest was a graphical MUD. The truly innovative titles in the massively multiplayer genre, the legs the giants now stand on, did NOT sell well.

Look at the top selling retail and casual games. How many innovative games are on those lists? Not many.

Successful titles are usually built on several generations of refinement. This has the additional benefit of allowing the concepts to become more familiar. Success is often awarded to the guy who *perfects* someone else's new idea. (Zuma, Diner Dash, etc.)

I'm CERTAINLY not arguing the point that we don't need innovation. We do. Desperately. I'm just saying that it's a tough way to make a living. ;-)

illume

06-15-2006, 05:09 PM

It's funny, having had something similar happen @ the company I used to work at we were asked to submit game design concepts the "reward" being a design secondment under the creative director of said company. The handful of people who were successful in principle were the ones who propsed an FPS with this or that story/twist, or a derivative version of another company's concepts. There were a couple of out-there, wilder ideas that got recognized as having merit (mine inclued) but ultimately the company were only interested in doing more of the same (though typically the company has always tended towards sequals and samey product ;) ). My point is that it's clear that many of todays powerful game houses are infintley more interested in ROI and money in general than giving the player what he probably doesn't even know he wants yet. It wasn't always like that and I have hope that in the future it won't be like that.

I still think there are good games being made today (otherwise I wouldn't play, talk and write about them) but everytime the innovation topic crops up it seems easy to attack all games. I have seen evidence of a few game devs going the extra mile to give players something they really want, but it's always, always compromised by the reality of business. To trully innovate firstly the industry needs business innovations that allow pure creativity and brainstorming outside of the low risk genres.

Ah, that's interesting. Maybe it needs to be taken a step further?

I think googles* business innovation of letting their employees work on whatever project they want for 20% of their time could be it. With either that 20% being 'make any type of game you want' or just work on whatever project you want.

* not that they invented it first, just that it is most well known for them.

illume

06-15-2006, 05:11 PM

This is the lamest argument possible.

"Haha, you guys are talking about it! He wins!"

It's kind of hard to complain about/discuss something without actually talking about that something, isn't it? I guess you can argue that the only way to win is to pretend the interview doesn't exist but that doesn't really accomplish much.

What interview? I haven't read any interview?*

A pretty lame argument for sure. I don't need to win in a conversation though. If I come accross that way, it's not intended. I was pointing out that this interview is a thinly veiled publicity stunt. It occured to me that some people might not realise this, so I thought I might point it out. Probably another case of me stating the obvious.

* The lamest possible joke.

Savant

06-16-2006, 03:50 AM

I was pointing out that this interview is a thinly veiled publicity stunt. It occured to me that some people might not realise this, so I thought I might point it out. Probably another case of me stating the obvious.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone, in any industry, that someone being interviewed about a product they made is essentially an advertisement. There's no thin veil to be found.

Anthony Flack

06-16-2006, 08:35 PM

There's a difference between advertising your product and complaining at length that nobody else has done anything remotely interesting for the last 10 years.

Especially since, as creative people, we are slightly different than your standard commodities manufacturers who will happily slag each other off all day. There is usually a fair bit of respect and support for other developers - I think that generally we feel we are on the same side more than we are in competition.

soniCron

06-23-2006, 11:29 AM

"Everything that could have been invented, has been invented." ~ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of Patents, 1899

Anthony Flack

06-23-2006, 07:17 PM

http://www.ideafinder.com/guest/archives/wow-duell.htm

Pyabo

06-24-2006, 01:01 AM

http://www.ideafinder.com/guest/archives/wow-duell.htm

Thanks, Anthony! Another dumb myth bites the dust...

soniCron

06-24-2006, 11:12 AM

Yes, thank you -- I noted the plethora of pages citing its inaccuracy while I was searching for the exact "quote."

Since we're being pedantic: Was that supposed to invalidate the idea? The reflection of absurdity when almost an entire industry believes everything possible has already been achieved? Does this not strike anybody besides the Chris Crawford supporters as utterly asinine? You don't have to like the guy to see his point...

Savant

06-24-2006, 12:24 PM

The reflection of absurdity when almost an entire industry believes everything possible has already been achieved?
Where do you see evidence of that? And, by extension, are you saying that you see zero evidence to the contrary?

soniCron

06-24-2006, 01:56 PM

And, by extension, are you saying that you see zero evidence to the contrary? No. I carefully chose "almost," to quantify that observation.

Where do you see evidence of that? This thread is a good start.

Any time Chris Crawford (or Greg Costikyan, or any dissenting voice etc.) is brought up in conversation, insults abound. "He's so pessimistic -- so self-righteous. He doesn't know what he's talking about." Rarely a, "You know, he's right: We are a bunch of pop music stars wallowing in our own creative excrement."*

The "innovation" commonly cited among industry professionals is nothing but elaborate rehash. The first-person shooter, for example: It's still a shooter, regardless of the perspective -- 3D, 2D, it's all the same. "Shooter" is the operative word, not "first-person." (To be extremely critical, Dance Dance Revolution is nothing but a one dimensional shooter.) Even The Sims is nothing but a simulation with new variables. True innovation breeds new genres; it doesn't comfortably sit in any existing category.

When one dismisses the few dissenting voices of an industry that call for self-realization, one is dismissing innovation as though it were an unreasonable thought. It may hurt to look at how damaged we have become, but it's necessary to recognize our faults -- there is no growth without acceptance. We are a narcissistic industry, insular and festering on our own self-centered desires. Until we recognize that we are largely incomplete (with such a potentially bright and vibrant future), only then can we accept and explore true innovation. Dismissing those that challenge us to change is further perpetuation of this unhealthy behavior.

Instead of saying, "Not," try asking, "Why not?"

*Ironically, without having actually achieved the "pop."

Savant

06-24-2006, 03:56 PM

Rarely a, "You know, he's right: We are a bunch of pop music stars wallowing in our own creative excrement."
You rarely hear that because, frankly, that isn't the case. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise because I see you're writing paragraphs now which means you've dug your heels in. No biggie. Agree to disagree.

Anthony Flack

06-24-2006, 05:34 PM

True innovation breeds new genres; it doesn't comfortably sit in any existing category.

It isn't necessary to do this in order to be a part of a vibrant industry, though. Does every great film, great book, great piece of music create a new genre?

soniCron

06-24-2006, 10:18 PM

Oh, of course, no! I obviously agree that it's acceptable to output less-than innovative games. (Jeweltopia (http://www.solaristudios.com/)) But we've only just recently entered the realm of the "talkie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkie)," so to see people arguing that this stagnation is good, like there's nothing left to explore...? It distresses me.

By all means, please keep making your puzzlers, shooters, and sports games, but please don't laugh in the face of those who aren't satisfied with what we've got.

Christian

07-01-2006, 10:48 AM

Chris Crawford wrote a short response and asked me to post it for him, so here it is:

I went through this lengthy discussion and have a few reactions to offer. I shall represent the arguments presented here in caricature form.

1. "Chris Crawford is a poophead." Who cares? It doesn't matter whether I'm Zee Greatest Game Designer in Zee Universe (for which I have an award) or an Orphan-Raping Scumbag Zombie. My character, intelligence, and general worthiness as a human being are utterly without relevance to anybody here or the games industry. Let's lose the cheap gossip and focus on the issues, OK?

2. "14 years to develop the technology? It must suck!" Let's think in terms of man-years, not years. The technology has maybe 16 man-years of work in it. Compare that with the number of man-years that go into the typical game these days and I think you'll understand the problem. Moreover, I'm not just building the game engine. I'm building the engine, the front end, AND the development system. AND I'm not just building a single product -- I'm building the whole system for a new medium. That's a lot of work for one guy. I have gotten some help from others, and am starting to get more help, but the total number of man-years is still pretty low.

3. "Storytron is just IF." Wow. Um, perhaps the writers of such comments would do well to study the documentation on Storytron a bit further. Storytron stuff is immensely more algorithmic than IF. Its grammar is immensely more complicated. I can understand complaints that it's too complicated, but complaints that it's just rehashed IF strike me as ill-informed.

4. "Storytron is a bad name". I originally called it Erasmatron. I always wanted to call the player "Erasmagasm", but my wife vetoed that. The March of Progress.

5. "The games industry is innovative enough, already!" Then how come everybody doesn't play games? Shouldn't interactive entertainment appeal to everybody?

KNau

07-01-2006, 04:28 PM

The "why doesn't everyone play games" question is pretty easy to answer - it's technology and interface. Other than the alternating stigma of nerdishness and murder simulators the technology and interface are the real barriers to entry for the non tech savvy.

A keyboard is a huge barrier as a control device for anybody who hasn't been using one for years. A mouse only slightly less so. If Storytron requires anyone to type full sentences than it's a dead technology before going out the door. If it even requires people to read full sentences from a computer screen then it's already in trouble.

Listen to people who create casual games for a living - they're much closer to the "everybody" audience than you are or have been. And I don't mean that as a slam (I have Chris' books) it's just a fact.

Having heard Ron Gilbert's grumblings I will at least give Chris Crawford credit for putting his money where his mouth is and not just whining about the state of gaming.

soniCron

07-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Having heard Ron Gilbert's grumblings I will at least give Chris Crawford credit for putting his money where his mouth is and not just whining about the state of gaming. In all fairness (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060630/murdey_01.shtml):
...I'm working out of my house because I'm working on my own projects. ...I've got this game in development, and I'm shopping it around to publishers...

If a low-cost game came out that actually did incredibly well, I think that would cause a lot of people to turn their heads. I think some kind of collapse of the whole console business would cause that to happen.

...it was really kind of my goal as I set out. I thought about the design and I said, “here's a game that's got an interesting art style that I can produce relatively cheaply and relatively quickly, but it's got a lot of really good elements that people like with the action stuff in a strong story.” That's really why I went out and did this whole thing.

Anthony Flack

07-01-2006, 05:18 PM

The "why doesn't everyone play games" question is pretty easy to answer - it's technology and interface. Other than the alternating stigma of nerdishness and murder simulators the technology and interface are the real barriers to entry for the non tech savvy.

Yep.

Besides, do card games count as interactive entertainment? How about sports? Or just having a conversation? This is the true diversity of interactive entertainment that collectively appeals to everybody. Computer games aren't for everyone. Some people would rather be outside, or meeting their friends at the pub, or whatever.

Nothing you can do will ever appeal to everybody; you will have a certain audience. Whether that audience is made up of people who like computer games already, or if you want to try to break new ground with another group of people is up to you. I expect it's more risky, but potentially more profitable, to go after an "untapped" group of people, but I don't think it's any better. We don't need to be computer game missionaries.

soniCron

07-01-2006, 05:53 PM

Not everyone will like everything, but when "Favorite Movie, Music, Book" pervades every personal profile out there and "Favorite Game" is nowhere to be found...? It's not even close to the same level of integration as the other major mediums are. There's a lot of ground to cover in video gaming and digital interactive entertainment as a whole. ;)

Christian

07-01-2006, 05:58 PM

The "why doesn't everyone play games" question is pretty easy to answer - it's technology and interface. Other than the alternating stigma of nerdishness and murder simulators the technology and interface are the real barriers to entry for the non tech savvy.

I think the true problem is simply that people are not interested in the experience of playing such games.

And i encourage you to visit storytron.com , since it doesnt operate with typing sentences, it uses a baby language called Deikto, go and read!.

Video-games are not like movies, everyone sees movies, not everyone play games, that is the thing/problem, we should change that, its better for everyone, if more people play games, we win more money while doing what we like.

Anthony Flack

07-01-2006, 08:12 PM

Well, my wife hates computer games. All computer games. I guarantee she would hate Storytron too. She just would not see the point in it; it would be a waste of time for her. She doesn't want to interact with a computer in that way at all. She doesn't want to play games with, or against, a computer, or participate in a computer-generated environment.

However, she loves You Tube. You Tube is giving her what she wants. So if you made a game that was like You Tube, it would be perfect. If you took out the game part.

See, I think it's us computer game people who are too zealous about wanting to find ways to insert "computer" and "game" into everybody's idea of fun.

if more people play games, we win more money while doing what we like.

Except you aren't going to make things that everyone likes; nobody can. Just make the games you want to make, and concentrate on finding an audience for that. Never mind whether videogames are reaching everyone; just try to make sure you are reaching enough people to pay your bills.

soniCron

07-01-2006, 08:57 PM

Anthony: See what she thinks of iSketch (http://www.isketch.net/) or Make-a-Flake (http://snowflakes.lookandfeel.com/).

Anthony Flack

07-01-2006, 09:55 PM

She's not here right now, but I tried them.

I guarantee she would hate them. She's just not interested in using the computer in this way. I can imagine her being actively hostile to the idea of clicking away to make a stupid picture of a snowflake... she'd want to know why I was trying to waste her time.

The most recent thing she has become interested in (as an extension of her interest in You Tube) is iMovie. But no, that doesn't mean she wants to play a movie-making videogame, either.

KNau

07-01-2006, 10:14 PM

So interactivity will always alienate some people. I suppose that's why every attempt at the "interactive movie" (where the audience chooses the course of action) has failed miserably.

And there is no "passive" game so there will always be a significant population segment who doesn't want to be engaged that way. Interesting point.

soniCron

07-01-2006, 10:26 PM

You really can't draw that conclusion at this stage of the game. This stuff is really in its infancy. The only people interactivity is sure to alienate are those who go through their days only watching television or film. (Or sleeping, or nothing.) Otherwise, it's just a matter of finding the right interactivity. Even if they talk to people, or edit movies on iMovie, they are interacting at some level...

Laser Lou

07-01-2006, 11:06 PM

The only people interactivity is sure to alienate are those who go through their days only watching television or film.
Like Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127). Well, I had to throw that in there :) . And, of course, he does write and answer questions, so it's not an exact match.

Anthony Flack

07-01-2006, 11:44 PM

Well, I think that computer games do have certain inherent limitations - because they're not passive; because they are non-physical, indoors activities; because they are essentially pointless.

Passive entertainment is much more easily digested; games can't compete with movies on this level, they will always require more work than watching TV. And they'll never be able to replace sports and outdoor activities, which for many people offer all the gaming they need, in a form they prefer. And multiplayer gaming will never be as social as actually going out and meeting people. And then there are people who prefer their hobbies to be more creative, more constructive than whiling their time away playing games.

soniCron

07-02-2006, 06:56 AM

...because they are non-physical, indoors activities; because they are essentially pointless. They are now. Who knows what the future holds? And, pointless? *laughs* Some of the most popular things in the world are pointless!

And multiplayer gaming will never be as social as actually going out and meeting people. Don't assume the limitations of the interface will last indefinitely.

And then there are people who prefer their hobbies to be more creative, more constructive than whiling their time away playing games. But by the same token, there are the sandbox games, like Sim City, Soup Toys (http://www.souptoys.com/), and Lego Digital Designer (http://ldd.lego.com/). And content-creation based games like Spore are blurring the lines between creating, playing, and sharing.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I get the impression you're stuck in this old world of shoot-em-ups and twitch titles, and seem to be resisting the potential future of interactive entertainment. :o

However, you're right on target with games not being able to compete with film and television. Books are an ideal example of an active medium that isn't nearly as popular (unfortunately.) But even games aren't as publicly adopted as books...

Anthony Flack

07-02-2006, 09:04 AM

And, pointless? *laughs* Some of the most popular things in the world are pointless!

Yes. But that was just one of the factors. One reason why some people might prefer to avoid playing games in favour of, say... building a boat, or renovating their house. It doesn't bother me that they're pointless. It's just one reason why some people don't want to spend their time playing games - especially busy people. You can laugh, but it's true.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I get the impression you're stuck in this old world of shoot-em-ups and twitch titles, and seem to be resisting the potential future of interactive entertainment.

Yeah, I haven't moved on to holodecks and virtual reality yet. Perhaps, in some future time, playing videogames will be able to offer you all the fun of going out, meeting your friends, playing sport, going hiking, etc etc. But you can do all of those things already. No computers required.

I really do question why on earth we would want videogames (or interactive digital entertainment) to become so pervasive. Whether you make twitch games or interactive stories or virtual nightclubs, your own audience is only going to be a small segment of the population no matter what you do, so you target your audience and stick to that. And if other people would rather be doing something else with their time, I say good for them. People can still live quite happily without computer entertainment, and I like that.

Personally, I think everyone should take up a musical instrument. But I don't think it's going to happen...