Gamasutra Interview with Gaider

[Annie Mitsoda]

To hell with citizen kane, we need a battleship potempkin first.

That's what the industry needs, a sergei eisenstein to study human perception and figure out the "rules" of interactive media. Why certain controls and certain camera positions, etc make us feel a certain way.
Gaming needs a god damn kuleshov effect!!!

Heh - I think you actually got the gist of what I was saying. I picked Orson Welles because that is everyone's sort of "go to" name for film, but absolutely you're right. I think there ARE games that take a unique perspective on the nature of what video games are versus film - some are successful, some are not - but at the same time, there's a discussion between whether or not something qualifies as a "game." Like - is Today I Die a game? Does it qualify? Is it even WORTH it to try and argue whether or not it does?? To me, no, it's about as pointless as gargling over whether something is "art" or not, but to others, the discussion has value.

Games get particularly spiky because there's an element to them found in no other medium - interactivity. Sure, sure, you can argue that you interact with books, you engage with art, etc, and that's valid. No forms of media work unless your mind interacts with them on some level. But there's some zen shit here - is a game really a game if it's not being played? You can leave a movie on and it goes without you. Books contain all their words and coherence. Games make their mark on you as you actively, physically, take part in how they're played. I've watched some games get played all the way through vs. played them myself, and the experience is definitely different.

There's a fact that games qualify as "play," and scientifically, we actually don't know a whole hell of a lot on how the brain processes that. We know it's important, that a lot of species do it, and... yeah. You may not give a wild ratfuck about ludology when playing a game, and there's no guarantee that someone who has a raging boner about ludology (Raph Koster) will make a good game when allowed to extert many of its principles (Star Wars Galaxies) but I still feel that in order to do something groundbreaking in games you need to at least think about the nature of human beings, play, and physically experiencing something at least a LITTLE bit.

...and RE: hiring people with a passion for games - most companies do try to do that. There sometimes is a bit of interalized "red-headed stepkid" for some people in the industry, however, that maybe someone who's worked in an "elder" entertainment industry can bring some new ideas/"legitimacy" to the team (hence a lot of producers coming from the film industry). And I've met developers who are total nerds for games who actually aren't super talented at making games - they see, they experience, but they can't innovate (or even reliably reproduce). I'll never EVER trust a designer who doesn't play at least some games, but artists and programmers I'll let slide if they're aware of the nature of the thing they're working for, which they usually are so that's cool.

And truth be told, again, RE: gaming industry folks - you think we're mature, well-adjusted people? AHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAAAAA! If that were true, what the fuck would I be doing here? :twisted:

 

[nomask7]

This is the Beyond, fool.

 

[bhlaab]

To hell with citizen kane, we need a battleship potempkin first.

That's what the industry needs, a sergei eisenstein to study human perception and figure out the "rules" of interactive media. Why certain controls and certain camera positions, etc make us feel a certain way.
Gaming needs a god damn kuleshov effect!!!

Heh - I think you actually got the gist of what I was saying. I picked Orson Welles because that is everyone's sort of "go to" name for film, but absolutely you're right. I think there ARE games that take a unique perspective on the nature of what video games are versus film - some are successful, some are not - but at the same time, there's a discussion between whether or not something qualifies as a "game." Like - is Today I Die a game? Does it qualify? Is it even WORTH it to try and argue whether or not it does?? To me, no, it's about as pointless as gargling over whether something is "art" or not, but to others, the discussion has value.

Games get particularly spiky because there's an element to them found in no other medium - interactivity. Sure, sure, you can argue that you interact with books, you engage with art, etc, and that's valid. No forms of media work unless your mind interacts with them on some level. But there's some zen shit here - is a game really a game if it's not being played? You can leave a movie on and it goes without you. Books contain all their words and coherence. Games make their mark on you as you actively, physically, take part in how they're played. I've watched some games get played all the way through vs. played them myself, and the experience is definitely different.

There's a fact that games qualify as "play," and scientifically, we actually don't know a whole hell of a lot on how the brain processes that. We know it's important, that a lot of species do it, and... yeah. You may not give a wild ratfuck about ludology when playing a game, and there's no guarantee that someone who has a raging boner about ludology (Raph Koster) will make a good game when allowed to extert many of its principles (Star Wars Galaxies) but I still feel that in order to do something groundbreaking in games you need to at least think about the nature of human beings, play, and physically experiencing something at least a LITTLE bit.

I think that by far the biggest hurdle is that a game has to be FUN. There's little room to explore inside that limitation. That's one reason why there can't ever be a video game version of Citizen Kane. It was a film about a man's life and how he became unstuck by his own successes. Not once did he pick up a gun, battle a ghost, or explore a misty cave. Video games have an extremely difficult time with the mundane and human.

 

[Gragt]

Citizen Kane is still fun, and the reason why it is hailed as one of the greatest movies is not because of the story but the way it tells the story. It "simply" took all that came before it and turned them into something new. In a way you can say despite being the product of many influences, it became the influencer.

You can see the same things in video games, even if it doesn't have a very long history. Take Thief for exemple, it managed to take many gameplay elements of the popular FPS genre and then turned them around to make a game where you should actually avoid to shoot people; it also had a nice way to tell the story, letting you eavesdrop on people or find some notes scattered around. Or what about X-COM, a that blended strategy and tactics? Not much of a story to be found there but it was a nice throwback to the classic tale of invading aliens.

Games do not need a deep narrative to be good, and it can even work against them if the developpers have no clue on what makes a good story, but it needs to be done right. Video games definitely have the opportunity of telling a good story and involve the player in it, something I believe RPGs or adventure games have a lot of potential to do, and that's certainly a great thing to look forward to, but telling a great story doesn't need to involve the mundane, though there might be something to explore there.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Games do not need a deep narrative to be good, and it can even work against them if the developpers have no clue on what makes a good story, but it needs to be done right.

Quoted for troof.

Also, and yes while I have written stuff for games, ABSOLUTELY do they not need a deep narrative to be good. Shadow of the Colossus just had a dead girl, a dude, a disembodied voice, a horse, and some hugenormous walking levels, and just by BEING they infused depth and meaning into a strange and wordless world. Katamari Damacy is fucking preposterous and doesn't try to do anything that makes a lick of sense - just tries its best to be silly and fun and SUCCEEDS.

My comparison of games to Citizen Kane extends to the following - a new conceptualization of the medium, a new understanding of it. And I do agree - many games reach that in their own way. Even though the "I SEE YOU LIKE TO PLAY... CASTLEVANIA!" that Psycho Mantis did in Metal Gear Solid was a cheap trick, and very meta, it was a skillful combo of blending the fake and the real. Like the game or hate it, what it did there was change its players' concept of how the game would relate to them.

And yes, absolutely - as the goal of games is to play, and play is primarily to be fun - I do think games have to be fun, and that is the ultimate goal.

TRUST ME I know more about "this movie shouldn't be a game" than you think, too. Boy howdy do I EVER.

 

[Shannow]

There are games with beautiful 3D graphics and believable animation, but BioWare is yet to make one.

This is pure nonsense. Rag about ME's inventory problems and whatnot, but to bitch about the animation and graphics is just disingenuous as hell. They did an excellent job in that regard.

No, they didn't
ME looks like KotOR with some high poly stuff strewn in between the low low low poly stuff. The environment and most non-armor clothing, eg, look like fucking crap. Don't know if it was just me, but I had to turn dynamic shadows off because they were casting grey pixilated blurs over faces in dialogue. ME tries to hide this with darkness and Bloom, but that doesn't really work. While many of the faces look good, many do not, and for some reason they're all being recycled...
And while most animations looked good to me, male Shepard runs like a little girly fag and that burns itself into memory.

As for innovation in games: I'd really like to see them get their shit together before innovation. Take ToEE, the best D&D based engine ever. Visually and gameplay wise. Instead of improving it with small tweaks and ironing out bugs they made NWN(2)... yuck! Standing on the shoulders of giants and the modern gaming industry doesn't even reach 2 foot hight.

 

[circ]

LOL WUT? What is this metaphysical psychobabble. There's a good game in NWN 2 somewhere to name an example. I also like how it got an RPGotY award for story was it, when in its then state it wasn't even completable. There is no need for new conceptualization or new understanding, just fix the following - camera, interface, textures, bloom overload, dumb story and so on. I can't believe people at Obsidian played NWN 2 and thought 'Hey, I'm liking this shit I'm seeing.' Someone honestly thought that font for one didn't stand out like a pink turd on someones white marble floor? Someone actually thought a single spell effect looked rad? Seriously, that shield spell that looks like a transparent EPCOT center, what is that? Why implement a real time combat system when it barely looks better than the twitchy garbage that was in NWN 1?

Goddamn, work on what you have, don't start inventing a new concept just yet.

 

[circ]

Buncha shit.

Agree on everything.

 

[bhlaab]

Games do not need a deep narrative to be good, and it can even work against them if the developpers have no clue on what makes a good story, but it needs to be done right.

Quoted for troof.

Also, and yes while I have written stuff for games, ABSOLUTELY do they not need a deep narrative to be good. Shadow of the Colossus just had a dead girl, a dude, a disembodied voice, a horse, and some hugenormous walking levels, and just by BEING they infused depth and meaning into a strange and wordless world. Katamari Damacy is fucking preposterous and doesn't try to do anything that makes a lick of sense - just tries its best to be silly and fun and SUCCEEDS.

My comparison of games to Citizen Kane extends to the following - a new conceptualization of the medium, a new understanding of it. And I do agree - many games reach that in their own way. Even though the "I SEE YOU LIKE TO PLAY... CASTLEVANIA!" that Psycho Mantis did in Metal Gear Solid was a cheap trick, and very meta, it was a skillful combo of blending the fake and the real. Like the game or hate it, what it did there was change its players' concept of how the game would relate to them.

And yes, absolutely - as the goal of games is to play, and play is primarily to be fun - I do think games have to be fun, and that is the ultimate goal.

TRUST ME I know more about "this movie shouldn't be a game" than you think, too. Boy howdy do I EVER.

I think Metal Gear Solid 3 is one of the few games to really "Get it right"

 

[Imbecile]

I think Metal Gear Solid 3 is one of the few games to really "Get it right"

How did it do that?

The problem isn't that games are not like films. In some ways they are. The problem is that some games are like books, art, film, sport, solitaire, procrastination, meditation, education or communication. Thats a lot of target audiences - which one do you pick?

Or do you just end up falling between an awful lot of stools.

 

[Volourn]

"Why implement a real time combat system when it barely looks better than the twitchy garbage that was in NWN 1?"

You obviously did not play NWN. It's one thing to think the combat isn't good (even thoguh I disagree); but it's completely intellectually dishonest to make the false claim that the combat is twitchy. LMAO

 

[Nightblade]

Not to mention: Think about the various people with a passion for games that you know. Now I don't know about you but just off the top of my head a few words come to mind: aspergers, unbathed, unstable, spends all day looking at anime porn instead of working, 4chan jokes being shouted across the room...

lol.. ok, Look at Josh Sawyer though, he seems ..fairly sane(?)
Unfortunately they cancel every damn game he works on.

Devs should realize their own limitations, especially when it comes to writing, where maturity and life-experience is so important. Bungie's "Myth II - The Soulblighter" is a good example. A very good storyline inspired by Glen Cook's "Black Company" -novels. And the artwork and storyteller voiceacting was inspiring. A mature writer wouldn't need to emphasize how mature he is.. lol. Gaider amuses me.

Imho, you can expect good stuff from a company where individuals know their place, and they're humble enough to realize their own limitations. And of coz, you need a good whipcracker to tell the dogs to stfu if they get outta line.

N.

 

[circ]

"Why implement a real time combat system when it barely looks better than the twitchy garbage that was in NWN 1?"

You obviously did not play NWN. It's one thing to think the combat isn't good (even thoguh I disagree); but it's completely intellectually dishonest to make the false claim that the combat is twitchy. LMAO

I should have used another word. Sadly, I don't know the word for it. But you know how your character took these ballet steps when positioning him/herself in combat? That's my idea of twitchy combat. Having a pretty much lego figure move, pretty much like a lego figure, and with these weird pauses as if it's trying to decide if it wants to be real time or turn based, fucked it up for me. Among other things.

 

[bhlaab]

I think Metal Gear Solid 3 is one of the few games to really "Get it right"

How did it do that?

I think it's a good example of how we should expect a linear, unchanging interactive narrative to unfold.
Don't get me wrong, it definitely overdoes the cutscenes. That's not what I mean. I'm talking more about the little things.

For example, one thing that impressed me in MGS3 was at the end when Snake has to execute the boss. Instead of handling it in a cutscene the game pulls out and makes it clear that the player is in control, except if you try to do anything besides pull the trigger nothing happens.

Again, I'm not saying this is particularly deep stuff or that I started crying tears of red wine at the scene. I'm just saying that it's a very interesting way to handle something like that.

 

[Volourn]

"But you know how your character took these ballet steps when positioning him/herself in combat? That's my idea of twitchy combat."

But,t hat's what twitchy combat usually means when people say 'twitchy'; but hey changing defintions cna be cool. And, that's not sarcasm. It's true.

That said, NWN's combat is more 'real to life' since in combat/figthing people aren't glued to certain spots. Participants tend to move around. Kinda like sex that way.

You simply don't have the common sense to understand how the combat actually works. You must hate the IE combat system, too.

 

[circ]

Real to life? Are you high? Real life movement is fluid, it is not wooden or seemingly orchestrated by very bad first grade puppeteers. You said I hadn't played NWN 1. Now I'm starting to wonder if you have.

 

[Volourn]

Perhaps I should have said it's more 'real to life' than other games. Which does not mean EXACTLY AS REAL LIFE. Dumbazz.