Houser: gaming is storytelling "infant"

By Robert Purchese Published 28 January, 2009

"That gives us enormous pleasure."

Rockstar bigwig and Grand Theft Auto lead writer Dan Houser reckons that videogames are still storytelling infants and doesn't want the industry to grow up any time soon.

"I think the medium is still very young. It's not a baby, but it's still probably an infant. So everything is growing and evolving as we go along and we're still figuring out how to do stuff," Houser told the Telegraph.

"It's really fun at the moment because we're not in any Academy and the medium's not codified. There's no accepted way of doing anything so that gives us enormous pleasure because we can make it up as we go along.

"Movies and TV and books have become so structured in the way they have to approach things. Not working in that environment gives us enormous freedom," added Houser.

"I'd rather keep the freedom and not have the respect."

Grand Theft Auto IV presented players with a sprawling world that reacted to their decisions and felt alive. "You can't do that in a film or a book," he quipped.

GTAIV centred around the American dream of Eastern European immigrant Niko Bellic. But he'll be dropped as focal point for upcoming The Lost and Damned downloadable content, which arrives on 17th February for 1600 Microsoft Points (GBP 13.60 / EUR 19.20).

Instead, players will become Johnny Klebitz, a member of the Liberty City biker gang The Lost.

Catch up with our recent hands-on impressions of The Lost and Damned for our thoughts.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (38) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • kangarootoo #1 3 years ago

    Hmmmmm. Some might suggest that a bit more structure would make it easier for innovators to get their vision actually made and out there in the hands of gamers.

    Methinks this is another case of confusing the tool with the application. A decent set of practices and codes doesn't stifle innovation (not if they are genuinely decent). If anything they allow innovation to take place because they manage risk.

    "Making it up as you go along" means that the cost of f*ck-ups can often be higher, meaning less risk is taken (if you are sensible), meaning less innovation takes place.


    Everyso often the games industry looks at itself, sees its relative immaturity compared with other industries concerned with creative expression, and finds a way to say how that is a great thing. I'm afraid I don't buy it, and the sometime random quality of the games we see released every day perhaps agree with me.

    Best practise and due diligence and all those things are simply tools. If someone doesn't know how to properly use those tools I can imagine that might make said tools appear to be stifling (its probably easier to break a rock with a hammer than a drill, if you don't know how to turn the drill on). That doesn't mean the tools themselves are bad.


    I should add, none of this is commentary on Houser's abilities as a dev, it has just opened up a pet subject of mine.

  • Eraysor #2 3 years ago

    A little odd, considering GTAIV's cut scenes are trying as hard as they can to be a movie.
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/09 @ 23:41

  • kangarootoo #3 3 years ago

    "Grand Theft Auto IV presented players with a sprawling world that reacted to their decisions and felt alive. "You can't do that in a film or a book," he quipped."

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with the infancy of games. It occurs because games are interactive. If ever the industry matures to a point where its games are no longer interactive... it won't be a games industry anymore. It will be a move industry.

    Sheesh.

  • Hunam #4 3 years ago

    /insert obligatory Planescape: Torment comment about how game storytelling can surpass all other mediums when it want's too.

  • qoobah #5 3 years ago

    I reckon he's right, the quality of the storytelling in the so called "great story" games speaks for itself.

    As to whether it should or should not grow up... I dunno, as a gamer that values the story the most I'd really like to see improvement in that area even in industry story powerhouses, such as Bioware. On the other hand, I can see that not being limited by "generally accepted form" is a plus, allows for more variety. I think the bottom line will remain at whether the game offers good gameplay - after all thats why we all play games - to have fun.

    EDIT1: /insert obligatory Planescape: Torment comment about how game storytelling can surpass all other mediums when it want's too.

    I disagree. While I agree that PS:T is probably still the pinnacle of games storytelling, or very close to it, it still is a rather immature and simple story by broader (eg books) standard.


    EDIT2: Hmmmmm. Some might suggest that a bit more structure would make it easier for innovators to get their vision actually made and out there in the hands of gamers.

    Methinks this is another case of confusing the tool with the application. A decent set of practices and codes doesn't stifle innovation (not if they are genuinely decent). If anything they allow innovation to take place because they manage risk.

    "Making it up as you go along" means that the cost of f*ck-ups can often be higher, meaning less risk is taken (if you are sensible), meaning less innovation takes place.


    Everyso often the games industry looks at itself, sees its relative immaturity compared with other industries concerned with creative expression, and finds a way to say how that is a great thing. I'm afraid I don't buy it, and the sometime random quality of the games we see released every day perhaps agree with me.

    Best practise and due diligence and all those things are simply tools. If someone doesn't know how to properly use those tools I can imagine that might make said tools appear to be stifling (its probably easier to break a rock with a hammer than a drill, if you don't know how to turn the drill on). That doesn't mean the tools themselves are bad.


    I couldn't agree more with what you said. I kinda work in the innovation field and a bit in the game industry as well. Your words are spot on.
    Edited by 2 at 28/01/09 @ 16:28

  • kangarootoo #6 3 years ago

    "the quality of the storytelling in the so called "great story" games speaks for itself."

    But has that come about BECAUSE of the infancy of the games industry, or DESPITE it?

    I can probably find you a 95 year old pensioner that smokes 20 cigs a day, but are they still alive BECAUSE they smoke cigarettes?.... :)
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/09 @ 16:28

  • kangarootoo #7 3 years ago

    @qoobah

    Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the quality of "great story" games was good. Now I read your edits, I see you don't at all :)

  • qoobah #8 3 years ago

    Meh, I just edited my post as you replied :|

    "the quality of the storytelling in the so called "great story" games speaks for itself."

    But has that come about BECAUSE of the infancy of the games industry, or DESPITE it?

    I can probably find you a 95 year old pensioner that smokes 20 cigs a day, but are they still alive BECAUSE they smoke cigarettes?.... Statistics are nothing without good interpretation.

    I'd say that despite it, but I think there is a connection there. In the early days every game was an innovation in one field or the other. As technology galloped away and more photorealistic games became available the storytelling wasn't prime concern for a lot of developers, flashy things were.

    Now the difference between one and another flashy game are becoming less apparent, and your average gamer is used to and even EXPECTS to get top notch visuals and technical solutions. Developers have to focus on innovating in other fields - streamlining gameplay, gameplay innovation AND story. Take Gears of War 2, Fallout 3, Fable 2, Mass Effect, GTA IV, LBP - you name it. All of these games take good tech for granted and innovate in other fields. I just hope that in the near future more attention will be given to storytelling as innovation area.

    EDIT: hehe, yeah yet another edit and post in the same time. The "great story games" comment was supposed to be sarcastic but alas, it's hard to spot over teh interwebz. You get what I mean though;)
    Edited by 4 at 28/01/09 @ 16:48

  • kangarootoo #9 3 years ago

    Hehe, I understand you now (despite some prolonged edit tennis).

    Interesting what you say about technical innovation becoming the norm, so devs need to focus on other aspects of the games. Story writing is one of the few aspects of game development that is quite often NOT carried out by professionals.

    The art is put together by talented and professional artists. The game engine, network play and control system (to name a few) are built by proffesional software engineers, but the plot and script are often written up by whoever happens to take the chair. Sometimes the writer can have a background in such things, but more often than not that simply isn't the case.

    I recall reading an interview on here a while back where CliffyB was saying how writing a decent story is damn hard, and how he thinks they did a good job. My thread response at the time was something along the lines of "well it would seem hard if you don't really know what you are doing... much like open heart surgery or fixing your washing machine".

    If we want decent stories in our games, we need to hire proper writers to write our stories. It seems bloody obvious, but its not something that really gets budgeted for in enough titles. The big companies are learning (or can afford to learn), and GTAIV's dialogue was probably professionally written, but its absurd the number of games that have dialogue clearly written by one of the designers.

  • qoobah #10 3 years ago

    Yep, it's basically what you say. I remember that interview with CliffyB as well, and I kinda loled remembering it when playing GoW2. I'd say that for what it's trying to be (a macho, super-gory, "i'm so tough" comic book style narration) it's doing quite well (Riftworm level comes to mind), still, it's miles away from what is generally accepted as "good storytelling".

    That companies like Bioware, who are considered one of the best in making interactive stories hire semi-proffesional writers, that became professionals after they were hired (Drew Karpyshyn) speaks volumes, as does the overall quality of the said writers' work. Mass Effect is seen as "good storytelling" game only because the overall level of storytelling in games is so piss-poor.

    Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed Mass Effect, with it's cliche-ridden, saving-the-universe narrative, it was my favourite game of 2007 and probably of 2008 as well. The question that rose on ME forums shortly after launch was that maybe it's the medium characteristic that allows almost exclusively simple, easy on the mind stories? Maybe actually -good- narrative wouldn't work well with what games are and what gamers expect from their pasttime? Personally I don't think I agree, I'd rather say it's development houses being lazy and wanting to save money on writers to pay off the highly trained software professionals that build their flashes and bright lights. I certainly hope to see improvement in this area.
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/09 @ 17:14

  • kangarootoo #11 3 years ago

    @qoobah

    I actually rather liked the dialogue in Mass Effect. I do view plot and dialogue as slightly seperate entities, which combine to tell the story.

    The plot in Mass Effect WAS quite cliched, but then it was space opera so it very much fitted the bill, and there are plenty of scifi novels that have the same kind of journey at their heart. The dialogue in Mass Effect though, I thought was well written (and for the most part, well acted). Certainly the dialogue was on a par with anything I might expect from a sci-fi film or book.

    An opposite example of that might be MGS4. I only got a short way in before bailing out, but the dialogue I did hear was awfully written. Hideo might be a good director, but a script writer he is not. His main failing as I see it lies in the editing. The opening monologue repeats itself over and over, as if he thought of 5 ways to make each point and couldn't decide which to go with (or maybe he felt that maximum emotional effect would be achieved by piling emotive explanation on emotive explanation. Either way, the result was not good). It was just patronising.

    Anyway, enough MGS bashing.


    "I'd rather say it's development houses being lazy and wanting to save money on writers to pay off the highly trained software professionals that build their flashes and bright lights"

    I have a bit of a nervous tick when it comes to people calling devs and publishers lazy. Often it is simply a matter of economics. In this case, a publisher probably knows that spending extra on a decent script will make no difference to sales, because the gaming audience doesn't for the most part care about such things.

    Like I said, I wish more games had decent dialogue and plot, but I understand fully why they don't. If we going to call devs evil, lets at least call them the right kind of evil :)

  • teabagger #12 3 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Have to say I agree with that. My experience suggests that it's an excuse used by the inept as a justification for not setting down, and sticking to, a sensible production path.
    With specific regards to the storytelling aspect; most people in games are not script writers or authors and generally have little to no experience in cinematics. There is an increasing involvement from respected writers in game projects which is raising the quality. However, there are a number of high up people within a lot of studios that seem to think they can disregard the work of respected directors over the last hundred or so years of film making. This is really down to arrogance and lack of maturity on our part. The idea that, as a new media, the rules of storytelling and cinematics somehow don't apply to us is sadly not uncommon. Obviously this has a negative impact on the quality of storytelling within games.

  • kangarootoo #13 3 years ago

    @teabagger

    Its something that has bugged me for years now, where a CV will be dismissed on the basis that the condidate "has no games experience". Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes its an advantage. It entirely depends on the role being filled.

    I think also (unfortunately) the industry occasionally suffers from a kind of ivory tower complex, where we fear outsiders because they might show us how little we really know about making product to a consistent level of quality, to budget and on time (and I think you were hinting at the same thing). I guess occasionally, waffling about freedom of creativity is the refuge of those who don't know how to work in any other way.


    I'll shut up now, as I'm doing far too much waffling on of my own.

  • Sean.Aaron #14 3 years ago

    What a great thread; pity it's in a comments area and not the General Gaming part of the forum and won't get a wider audience (but then that might also be why the quality of discussion is so good...).

  • Entity #15 3 years ago

    "Our GTA story is shit. Now if only we could pull off a MGS then I wouldn't be making this statement!"

  • beckyh #16 3 years ago

    Games can be very different to books and films though. Books and films have a beginning, a middle and an end and tell a straight story with no deviation. Okay some games are linear and you get a straight story like a film. But other games have a beginning, a middle, an end and different branches in between - like GTA, Mass Effect or Fallout 3.

    Most games you would enjoy and complete you may sit back at the credits and think to yourself "that was a really good game, I really enjoyed playing that". For the most part your first thought is not going to be "that was a really enjoyable story". This is because the storyline will always be second to the actual gameplay. You can have a game with a terrible storyline or little story at all, but it may turn out to be the best game you have ever played. Indeed, not all games have stories to them, so gameplay will always come out on top.

    Those games which do attempt to tell a story though should have a decent storyline and not just one tacked on for effect. I would expect Alan Wake and I Am Alive to be have decent storylines because that is the way the developers are selling them to us.
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/09 @ 18:54

  • NonniR #17 3 years ago

    To be honest, I agree completely with this:

    ""I'd rather keep the freedom and not have the respect." "

  • qoobah #18 3 years ago

    @kangarotoo

    With regards to Mass Effect having good dialogue - I fully agree and like I said, I did enjoy it. I thoroughly enjoyed the story as well, even though it was cliched (but then what isn't in these postmodernistic times) and slightly average on the pacing front (that might be a gameplay design issue though). I'd just argue, that overall it's on par with average sci-fi stories, with moments bordering on really-bloody-good. All I wanna say is that average and occasionally very good isn't what games storytelling should settle for.

    As to the "lazy" part, I agree thats a poor choice of words. As you say, it's probably down to cost&time managment, and when things have to be cut it'd be the story, not the multiplayer tech, or game engine;) Having said that, it just shows where devs priorities lie - and on one hand it's understandable, since without solid tech the game simply won't fly. On the other hand, script and dialogue writing seems to take less time than the basic tech creation for any given game - game engine, tools etc. If writing a good script was important to a developer I think they could fit it in the time period where the tech is in pre-production anyway, and the whole design team seats on creative meetings, making concept art and concept gameplay, while waiting for the tools to arrive. A dedicated script design team could easily be working at concept art stage, for the script and dialogues to be ready to be integrated when development tools arrive.

    Thats wishful thinking though, and I'm beggining to get really smartass, I should stop now o_o Serious attention to story, gameplay design and innovation will probably be given only when games based solely on tech will stop being well received - and seeing the reception to Prince of Persia for example, we just might be getting there.

  • ps3owner #19 3 years ago

    Houser: gaming is storytelling "infant" - "That gives us enormous pleasure."

    "I don't know about you guys, but this headline is not very appropriate..." my inital response to the RSS feed wasn't filled with pleasure...

  • sneetch #20 3 years ago

    Holy crap, another excellent thread!

    I agree completely, kangarootoo and qoobah.

    @NonniR
    To be honest, I agree completely with this:

    ""I'd rather keep the freedom and not have the respect." "

    It sounds great but it's an empty statement: there's no point where you have to exchange "freedom" to get "respect". Improving on the plot or structure will not limit you in any way.

    "You can't do that in a film or a book."

    Except of course in those old adventure books, "Turn to page 172 if you want to pick up the bag".
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/09 @ 21:13

  • Jockie #21 3 years ago

    I think it's probably more of a question of the way in which developers choose to approach a game, as oppose to a cost cutting exercise. If a developer for instance, is making an RTS, story is never going to get a massive amount of attention, first and foremost, it's mechanics, to make a game the very best in terms of the actual gameplay as it can be. In the RTS genre it's simpler than most. You need a basic set-up (A war between one or two factions in the setting of your choice), you need a balanced game and then story can be tacked on afterwards with a few cutscenes between the levels (i won't comment on the bizarre C&C fmvs, because this post would end up too long). The exception being Blizzard games, because they seem to take a different approach than most devs of simply making quality ooze out of all the games orifices, warcraft 3 despite being a rts had a great story.

    Same to a degree with an FPS, you -can- have a story ala HL2 or ME, but generally the most well presented ones are those which can be done without breaking first person (Bioshock, halflife etc). On the flipside you get your unreal tournaments and your quakes, the story is not central to the concept of the game, yet they are still intensely popular games. A question of how the developers choose to approach the game. And in my experience the story-centric ones are probably the ones with less longevity, whereas some people will play UT/cs indefinately if you played Bioshock every night for a year people might think you were a bit mental. Stalker on the other hand had pretty bad dialogue, probably due to being a russian team and having to translate it into english, it's still a great game and the encounters and experiences that you have in the zone are a story of their own, without the need for talented writers.

    The genre in which story should really be central and where real writers are probably required is roleplaying games, because the story is central part of the game unless they are going for a full on action rpg. And here is where i mainly agree with the people above. They are often so bloody generic it boggles the mind, Bioware can write, Obsidian can write , Ken Levine can write. There are some real visionary storytellers within gaming who are comparable to film auteurs, (cliffyB isn't one...) but sometimes the other goals that are set out to be met come before writing, and often it doesnt really matter. I bet half the people who play gears of war play it for the action and so story just isnt the focus.

    For those of us who prefer a good story with our game there are options out there, but we can only hope the genre matures in these terms, but i'm not sure that gaming will neccessarily go down that road. Sociability (mmos) and User created content (LBP, Spore etc) seem to be the paths most companies are travelleing in terms of advancing gaming, and whilst it makes for an interesting phenomena, and to my mind completely differentiates gaming from other mediums, nothing beats a good story.

    Shit the bed, that post turned out to be long and rambly.

  • sneetch #22 3 years ago

    "It's really fun at the moment because we're not in any Academy and the medium's not codified"

    Actually, I just thought about this a bit more and I think the medium is hugely "codified" at the moment, if you think about it games use the same mechanics, elements and tropes again and again, they're the standard methods of forcing the player to do somthing: the amnesiac hero who "forgets" his abilities and has to relearn them, the rockfall/roadblock/quarantine/arbitrary barrier that prevents you from progressing to new areas until you finish certain segments in this one, being captured to strip you of your weapon, hell, even the freaking fire or radiation level is a standard in games.

    Also if you watch or rather listen to the Valve developer commentarys you'll see that they, at least, have standardised methods of designing levels, talking about arenas where you're attacked broken up by exploration and problem segments where you're not under attack. Their games play better because of it. They're more balanced and higher quality experiences for those standards.

    Maybe he meant something else by codified.

  • menschenfracht #23 3 years ago

    I sometimes think that a balanced game - with polished gameplay and a set of rules known to each side simply cannot allow to have much story to it. Think of tennis - how should a tennis videogame be made? I know only one example: http://ww w.ibras.dk/montypython/episode0... and I can't think of a way to make it a decent videogame .)

    The Polito form is dead, insect.

  • frankfurter209 #24 3 years ago

    "Our GTA story is shit. Now if only we could pull off a MGS then I wouldn't be making this statement!"

    You got it entirely backwards. MGS isn't doing shit for storytelling quality in games. GTA4, I'd argue, is the high water mark of the industry.

  • tomnol #25 3 years ago

    Where is the 'games should only be about fun, if you want a good story read a book' crowd of this morning?

  • Entity #26 3 years ago

    "You got it entirely backwards. MGS isn't doing shit for storytelling quality in games. GTA4, I'd argue, is the high water mark of the industry."

    One man's meat is another man's poison.

    I'm just a sarcastic bugger. Completed MGS4 two days ago (managed to avoid all spoilers) since I recently acquired the final key in this console battle (a PS3). Personally, I find the GTA story lacking in weight. Whereas that "Um" thing near the end of MGS4, really clicked with me for interactive purposes.

    Too lazy to do spoilers, not lazy when being pedantic.

  • kangarootoo #27 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    "Also if you watch or rather listen to the Valve developer commentarys you'll see that they, at least, have standardised methods of designing levels"

    Valve have a lot of create practices in place, and I hold them in high regard for that reason. Best practice is simply finding out what works and doing that, and finding out what doesn't work and not doing that anymore. Valve have really invested in exploring what does and doesn't work.

    If you haven't read "Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar", I totally recommend it (though copies are hard to find these days - used and new on Amazon marketplace from £130!). Its not ALL about level design, and is mostly an art book, but worth checking out if you like HL or are interested in how Valve do their thing.



    A lot of good posts here. I am done soapboxing (I can get a bit carried away, and risk sounding like a big fat know-it-all), but I'm still lurking and enjoying reading everyone's thoughts :)

  • Les #28 3 years ago

    "Methinks this is another case of confusing the tool with the application."

    +1

    Gaming itself might be in its infancy but that doesn’t mean that its stories don’t need to follow the general rules of story telling.

    IMO games are ill suited for story telling and the excessive focus on it currently is because of gaming's relative infancy. In their attempt to be taken seriously they look at Hollywood and popular fiction and try to copy them.

    But gaming will never be able to do stories as well as movies and books because of its interactivity. Interactivity is at odds with story for two reasons:
    1) A story is fixed, interactivity promises freedom. To be able to do some things freely within the boundaries set by the rules of the game, while the outcome (or outcomes in case of games with multiple endings) is fixed creates an internal conflict in the game world and detracts from the believability;
    2) Interactivity in the game world is always limited when compared to the real world which leads to an unconvincing setting which detracts from the power of the story.

    Emulating a fully convincing world is just not possible in a game and I doubt it ever will be. But IMO it’s the wrong thing to strive for. As games ask the player to perform actions within the boundaries of strict rules, those actions should be fun to perform. In that sense a game is ‘shallow’ but I think we gamers shouldn’t make a problem out of it in our attempt to defend our hobby. E.g. if football or chess were not fun to the people that play them, they simply wouldn’t play those games. Nobody ever complains that those games don’t tell a proper story, while they can be great inspiration for stories themselves.

    I’m a big fan of the Wii because it brought the fun back into games, as well as made it a social thing again (online play in my opinion is a terrible substitute for the physical presence of players). Core gamers look down on it but IMHO it brings gaming back on track and will do more for its general acceptance as a proper form of entertainment than any core game will ever do.

  • qoobah #29 3 years ago

    But gaming will never be able to do stories as well as movies and books because of its interactivity. Interactivity is at odds with story for two reasons:
    1) A story is fixed, interactivity promises freedom. To be able to do some things freely within the boundaries set by the rules of the game, while the outcome (or outcomes in case of games with multiple endings) is fixed creates an internal conflict in the game world and detracts from the believability;
    2) Interactivity in the game world is always limited when compared to the real world which leads to an unconvincing setting which detracts from the power of the story.

    I disagree with that. A story is fixed in the meaning of the word that it has beggining, middle and end, but I'd argue that it's the interactivity what gives game stories room to innovate and be a value in its own. A good story conveys emotion and thought, but I don't think it's proven that being able to change the outcome is going to ruin these values - if anything it might enchance them, since it's -you- who's making the calls and in a way, "responsible" for how the story ends. It all comes down to merging the gameplay and storytelling in an immersive way, so that it comes naturally - and I don't think that current game design principles allow for that just yet. I can't see where the conflict you're talking about is.

    As to boundries as obstacles to storytelling. I prefer more streamlined, confined gameplay, but that drives me with a powerful story - I didn't mind at all that I wasn't able to talk to every single NPC on the Citadel in Mass Effect, since I wouldn't want to do that anyway. Saying that limited interactivity is a flaw that leads to unconvicing setting is in my opinion unfounded in the sense that, after all, you ARE limited in real life as well, you can't do what you want, and yet there are -very- powerful stories being told here, the outcome isn't always entirely up to you and more often than not is a "fixed" one. I think it's a matter whether or not someone -wants- to be immersed, or prefers to see the obstacles. One can read a book and ponder the gramatical structures and launguage flops, or one can be completely "transported" to another world.

    Emulating a real world might not be possible, but neither films nor books don't do that, and yet they convey preaty neat stories.

    I agree with you, and a lot of other posters, in another thing though - all things considered, it's the gameplay thats the most important part of the game, and noone would seriously consider hiring professional writers to do a script for Wii Fit. It all comes down to whether or not the story is an important part of your product. And all my rambling through previous posts was trying to say is something like this: If you want a story in your game, then as you don't let Psychologists write the code for your game engine, don't let random people write your script. If you're doing somthing then do it proper.

  • kangarootoo #30 3 years ago

    @jstar

    Some programmers might be very good at writing stories, but then I know some designers who would actually make very competant game programmers. I guess the key is that you dont leave these things to chance in either case, and if you hire in a professional (or someone with a proven record in any event) you know that the job will get done well.

  • robg #31 3 years ago

    Houser's comments are strange: game storytelling is not only more infantile, it's also almost always a story along very similar lines. Books and film have explored far more expansively different ways of communicating; they aren't at all set, rigid forms of expression.

    Read...I dunno...Far from the Madding Crowd, then Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, then The Metamorphosis, then The Road, then VALIS, then The Call of the Wild, then Trainspotting, then Great Expectations, then I Am Legend and finish with Crime and Punishment. Do they seem the same to you, Houser?
    Edited by 1 at 29/01/09 @ 11:24

  • kangarootoo #32 3 years ago

    Can't. Help. Myself. :)


    Without focussing just on story telling, I think Hauser is suggesting that more mature industrys have more rules and boundaries in place, and that these rules and boundaries stifle creative freedom. Therefore he suggests that the games industry is a better place to be creative, because our infancy means we haven't yet learned to implement all of the rules and boundaries that other industries take for granted.


    My question would be, why do the other industries use said rules and boundaries if they are such a bad thing?

    To suggest that we are free to create because we haven't yet learned how to "do things properly" seems rather bizarre to me. I am of course making an assumption that these rules and boundaries are in fact acting in the name of "doing things properly", but to dispute that assumption is to surely suggest that as an industry gets more mature, it actually gets worse at its job, which seems evern MORE bizarre a thing to suggest.

    Now I understand that Hauser might in fact be saying that making games to budget and on time is not as fun as just going with whatever creative muse comes your way, but (predictably) I disagree here too, as in my limited experience there is nothing more likely to free up creativity than a structure which includes period of risk and exploration as part of its progress path. In my experience, not "doing things properly" means results in taking no risks and providing no innovation, because time and money are so tight that you know that you cannot afford not to get everything right first time.

    Maybe if I had ever worked on a game with the budget of the GTA series I would see things differently (but then I might also question whether GTA has really innovated since GTA3... ooooh, saucer of milk for me ;) ).

  • sneetch #33 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    If you haven't read "Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar", I totally recommend it (though copies are hard to find these days - used and new on Amazon marketplace from £130!). Its not ALL about level design, and is mostly an art book, but worth checking out if you like HL or are interested in how Valve do their thing.

    Nooooooooooo, don't tell me about books!

    /Attempts to avert eyes

    Ah, damn, too late, now I'm going to go on a long search for it, probably eventually find it, buy it for an exorbitant price and then place on the (very) large pile of books that I really, really, really need to read. ;(

    Edit: it says a lot about Valves practices and the quality of the resulting products that the biggest disappointment I felt with L4D was that only the first campaign had a developer commentary.
    Edited by 2 at 29/01/09 @ 12:30

  • kangarootoo #34 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    I had a bit of a search around after I mentioned it. They are well rare. Only 2 copies on eBay, both for £100. Even Amazon.com (US site) only has marketplace copies, starting at $120.

    Good luck in your search. I'd offer to flog you my copy, but I think I am going to hang onto it for a few years after what I've seen today :)

  • qoobah #35 3 years ago

    Oh well, here I go again, and again agreeing with kangarootoo;)

    Every serious software oriented company has some methodology in place, hell, to get a contract from US Army you have to have CMMI level 5 which basically means that everything about your company is predictable, stable, appraisable and standarised, from system documentation to toilet paper pattern;) I'm not a fan of total control as I'm not a blue-collar worker type myself. I do appreciate the gains that stem from levels of control and standarization though. Easier time/cost managment, lower risk to name just a few and if anything, they all boost creativity by offering a more stable environment to work in.

    In my limited experience a lot of devs work with SCRAM or other Agile methodologies, the whole GDC is commited to sharing business practices among game developers (ME2 team showcasing their methodology of level design being prime example) so I'm not quite sure if Houser actually talks about software production being infant and free-for-all. He might be referring to the medium being young, and not having established conventions. In both cases I think he's off the mark. If he talks about the former then all the previous posts talk about why we think he's wrong. If it's about the medium being in infancy and thus not having set stereotypes, then I guess that previous sneetch's posts sums up quite nicely why he's wrong in this departament as well.
    Edited by 1 at 29/01/09 @ 13:42

  • Les #36 3 years ago

    " A good story conveys emotion and thought, but I don't think it's proven that being able to change the outcome is going to ruin these values - if anything it might enchance them, since it's -you- who's making the calls and in a way, "responsible" for how the story ends."

    If the outcome can be influenced by the player, he/she will influence it in the way he/she prefers. By giving a player what he/she wants, the impact of it is severly reduced. E.g. Aeris's death (don't think this will be a spoiler for visitors of this site ;) ) in FF VII made an impact because you cared for the character and couldn't do anything about it. If the player could choose whether or not she'd live, the result of the choice would have limited emotional impact as the player will rationalise it in game terms instead of real world terms. Another example is the killing of the random people that walk the street in GTA and its clones. Yeah you choose but as it is a game and not real, emotional impact is small or non-existent.

    "Saying that limited interactivity is a flaw that leads to unconvicing setting is in my opinion unfounded in the sense that, after all, you ARE limited in real life as well, you can't do what you want, and yet there are -very- powerful stories being told here, the outcome isn't always entirely up to you and more often than not is a "fixed" one."

    Of course you are limited in real life but infinitely less limited than in a game. Life must adhere to nature's laws. The laws of a game are nowhere near as comprehensive and therefore lead to a constant reminder that what you're experiencing is not real. IMO that's not so much a problem for games that mainly try to be fun. I often refer to Uncharted as a game with a ridiculous story but the ridiculousness and the tongue-in-cheek style make it work within the imperfect game world. While something like BioShock with a very ambitious story but equally limited game world fails to convince.

    "I think it's a matter whether or not someone -wants- to be immersed, or prefers to see the obstacles."

    Of course you have to be open to be immersed, agree with that. But even with the best possible intentions in the world, it's hard to remain immersed in e.g Fallout 3 when the local sheriff gets killed in a bar and his body remains lying there for days with nobody noticing... But again, in a game with less serious intentions story-wise, such flaws are more forgiveable.

    "Emulating a real world might not be possible, but neither films nor books don't do that, and yet they convey preaty neat stories."

    They definitely try to emulate things that are either real (in the sense that they're possible given the laws of nature) or at least possible and consistent within their setting. But because of the lack of interactivity, they have a much more easy job. They have to emulate just one thing very well and not be bothered with the billions of billions of other permutations.


    Edited by 1 at 29/01/09 @ 15:42

  • cyber_nicco #37 3 years ago

    Kanga, qoobah, get a room for Christ's sake.

    :)

  • kangarootoo #38 3 years ago

    @cyber_nicco

    Dammit, who knows an emoticon for holding up a middle finger

    ;)