Chris Crawford Interview

[Sharpfish]

Originally Posted by illume

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Anthony Flack

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Anthony Flack

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]

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]

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]

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

[whisperstorm]

When I look at Storytron vs. say Inform 7 - I get the feeling that Storytron is going to be the next Xanadu

[Escapist Games]

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]

Originally Posted by Sharpfish

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]

Originally Posted by Savant

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]

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]

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]

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

[Anthony Flack]

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

[Pyabo]

Originally Posted by Anthony Flack

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

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

[soniCron]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Savant

And, by extension, are you saying that you see zero evidence to the contrary?

No. I carefully chose "almost," to quantify that observation.

Originally Posted by Savant

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]

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]

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]

Oh, of course, no! I obviously agree that it's acceptable to output less-than innovative games. (Jeweltopia) But we've only just recently entered the realm of the "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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by KNau

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:

Originally Posted by Ron Gilbert

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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.