Media Molecule's Alex Evans Interview

Page 1 of 3. Page 2

Eurogamer: When you spoke at the Develop conference, you talked about constraints - how you've found that placing artificial constraints on what people can do in LittleBigPlanet actually leads to people making better levels and having more fun. That's a pretty hard idea to sell to players, though, isn't it?

Alex Evans: Yeah, and I don't think it's something that we necessarily sell to players. That message was really me talking to other developers. For us, it was really a learning curve - because it's not only a hard sell to players, it's a hard sell to us!

I constantly forget my own advice, which is that sometimes less really is more. I was talking to someone about this back at the office, and it's not about just cutting - if you just blindly cut, you end up with something where all you can make is rehashes of the same thing over and over again. You'd see a thousand levels that were the same.

"What we've tried to do with LittleBigPlanet is to set different constraints based on who you are."

It's about finding the sweet spot where you've cut enough that you're not faffing about, you're not distracting yourself with the fluff - you're getting down to the core of it. I think Apple, and generally consumer electronics, are really good at this. You know when they've got it right - you don't want to go and listen to your records, and have to worry about the equaliser and blah blah blah. You just want to play records, press play and it goes.

I think there's a total sweet spot there. The really skilful thing is getting different audiences who have slightly different sweet spots. What we've tried to do with LittleBigPlanet is to set different constraints based on who you are. If you're a player, we give you a different set of objects than if you go through the Create path.

So, hopefully, we don't need to sell the constraints message to players, except implicitly. We make their lives easier. The way I'd sell it to a player would be, we make your life easier - we make it easy to make good-looking s***. Some people come to me and they say, "I'm not creative - I haven't got a creative bone in my body". If they booted up 3D Studio Max, or Valve's Hammer, or one of those editors... You can do incredible things with those editors, but a lot of people just freeze. It's like Photoshop or Word, or a blank page in a typewriter - "F***, where do I begin!"

At the other end of the spectrum, we're trying to find a sweet spot. For example, we have this "Mash X" thing in the office - where we just ask, what happens if you mash the X button? We constantly ask ourselves that question. If you just boot the game and hammer X, where do you end up? If you go into the create mode and hammer X, what happens? Um, actually... You'll just jump up and down. But you see what I mean. It's making that process not be completely rubbish, and enjoyable.

"[Blair Witch Project] worked as a movie. If they'd had someone turn up and say, here's 20 million quid for a bit of CGI, it probably would have been a bit more rubbish."

The more I thought about it, the more it relates to things like fighting games. I've never made a fighting game, but I'm firmly in the button basher crowd. I'll pick up Street Fighter II or Tekken or something, and I'll just mash - and I'll love it. They've hit the sweet spot in those games, because for a button-masher, it feels awesome. Lovely, I'm doing special moves, don't know why, but - awesome!

Then, for someone whose sweet spot is way up from that, who's hardcore and learns all the moves, can come in and just cane it - wipe the floor with me. That game has successfully catered to two different sets of people. If we can do that with user-generated content, then we're done - that's the goal.

Eurogamer: The comparison with YouTube is all the more relevant, then - it gives you a tiny, constrained, low-quality video window, and while most of it is just talking heads or rubbish video, some people are using that medium to make great short films.

Alex Evans: Exactly - both can be catered for. I actually think that keeping the resolution down, keeping it under ten minutes, is a good thing. We were talking about Jaws and the Blair Witch Project, and I'm convinced that the budget of the Blair Witch Project influenced what they were able to show - i.e. nothing. It still worked as a movie. If they'd had someone turn up and say, here's 20 million quid for a bit of CGI, it probably would have been a bit more rubbish.

You're right, it's a hard sell if you present it as "you can do less" - but that's not how people look at it, really. They say, okay, this is what I'm working with, it's not a blank piece of paper - wicked, let's build on that.

To Page 2