Chris Crawford Interview

[impossible]

http://gamasutra.com/features/20060612/murdey_01.shtml

GS: When you say new ideas don't go anywhere, what kind of new ideas do you mean? Have you seen any that maybe popped up and fell flat?

CC: I haven't even seen any new ideas pop up. The industry is so completely inbred that the people working in it aren’t even capable of coming up with new ideas anymore. I was appalled, for example, at the recent GDC. I looked over the games at the Independent Games Festival and they all looked completely derivative to me. Just copies of the same ideas being recycled. I didn't see anything I’d call innovative, and this was from people not even interested in doing anything…in making money. It was just straight amateurs trying to be innovative and even they couldn't be innovative.

[GameGlyph]

Now, I know alot of people idolize Crawford and I can assure you that I respect him, doesn't he seem a little too pessimistic nowadays?

Reading this interview just annoys me. Crawford slams basically every aspect of the industry. Im sorry, but until I see action on his part to change this, he can cry and complain all he wants...To me, he has gone from someone that I looked up to as far as game design goes to someone that needs to do something to change what he doesnt like, or shut up.

[/counter rant]

[GBGames]

I haven't heard much about Storytron recently so I won't count it, but doesn't Crawford's high visibility mean that when he says something, people will take notice? When he points out a problem, it means a lot more than one of us pointing out that same problem. Gamasutra isn't going to publish the quote above if it wasn't Crawford.

Not that it means anything that it did come from Crawford. I don't like it when people take Carmack's words as gospel, either. Still, I think that it isn't as if Crawford is doing nothing. Of course, other than his past games and articles, I don't know what he has done.

[Savant]

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

[DangerCode]

From the article ...

He took some time to speak with Gamasutra on the concepts behind it and his project, Storytronics, which is now 14 years in the making.

14 years is a long time. I don't think it's fair to complain about the 'derivitive' games at IGF if it takes you 14 years (and counting) to make something 'unique'.

I think his standards are a little out of whack and it doesn't sound like he enjoys video games anymore.

[Spaceman Spiff]

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]

Originally Posted by Savant

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]

"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

[TimS]

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]

Originally Posted by TimS

. . .spend less time doing interviews. . .

That's what they call marketing.

[Christian]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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

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

[Savant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cliffski

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.

[Christian]

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]

"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]

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]

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

[DangerCode]

Originally Posted by Christian

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.



(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]

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]

Originally Posted by DangerCode

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by mahlzeit

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.