The title of the talk was ‘Writing Games: Tall Tales of Triumph and Terror’ and it was held last Thursday at the Writers’ Guild of America, West headquarters in Los Angeles. It went alright, with some discussion of what it’s like to be a game writer, the new and growing position of game writers within the WGA (which allows game writers to join according to lower standards than film or television writers), and lots of nods to Uncharted 2 and Half-Life.

Everything pretty much went as I expected, but I found it very unfortunate that we did not see a discussion of the art or craft of game writing. We only really heard about the differences in work environment and technicalities. For example, it was generally agreed that game development involves far less clearly defined roles than filmmaking, so a writer can expect to play some role in game design and should expect the game designer to play a role in writing. A script writer should also expect his usual 125 page script to shoot up to around 800 pages for a game, since games are longer and a player may only experience a fraction of a game’s writing in a single play through. We did not, however, hear about anyone’s ideas on game writing, how a game is structured, approach, how they use the game to convey meaning or feelings. At one point it was mentioned that while in film it is said that a writer should ‘show’ and not ‘tell,’ in games a writer should ‘do’ and not ‘tell,’ but that was the extent of artistic discussion.

I stood up for the Q and A at the end and asked about the difference between games with mute protagonists and those with talkative protagonists, citing Half-Life and Uncharted and asking how each writer felt about the different approaches to game writing. This, I thought, was a question they could bite into. Surely one of these guys struggled at one time or another with the contradiction of a game’s protagonist being both a unique character and being played by the player, or at the very least, thought it was interesting, thought something could be done with that. Right? One of the writers reiterated that Uncharted 2 and Half-Life were both great games and simply said sometimes you go the one direction with a mute, and other times you go with the yapper. Nobody else had anything to say. So that was my shot. Oh well.

Anyway, I had a good time, especially talking to some of the writers over cokes. I even met a flash developer by the name of Tamar Curry. Seemed like a cool dude.

This is my second IGDA meeting and I recommend checking them out, especially if you want to meet some local LA game developers. Students and indie devs show up in addition to folks from some of the larger companies, so it’s a good bunch.

-Christopher J. Rock

• First-Person Shooter. Check.
• Post Apocalyptic World. Check.
• RPG Elements. Check.

I had held off from getting an Xbox until Halo 3 came out. There was all the drama with the Red Ring of Death and there were lots of rumors of a new motherboard with less problems, coincidentally around the time of Halo 3′s release. After playing through Halo 3 I ended up getting a Wii and Super Mario Galaxy — mostly using my Xbox for XBLA games ( Braid, Rez, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Banjo Kazooie, etc.) Last Fall I decided to get caught up with Xbox retail games, and borrowed a bunch from Ricky.

Bioshock

Bioshock was high on my list. It was mega-hyped, looked pretty cool, and one of the prettiest games out at the time. There were a lot of demo videos leading up to its release, demonstrating the variety of ways you could interact with the enemies and environment to get through situations. Using electricity to deactivate machines, using fire to make enemies run for water, making the Big Daddies fight on your side, and the like. It looked exciting and I had to see what the game was about since it was one of the best examples of our game technology.

So I played it. And got into it. Maybe too into it. I enjoyed the feeling of being lost in this underwater city in Bioshock but it stressed me the hell out. I got tired of hearing voices in the halls and guys jumping out at me shooting around every corner. After spending a day at work, coming home and playing this aggravating game didn’t make me feel and better. I quit while I was ahead and moved on.

Okay, another game I wanted to play was Fallout 3. It looked cool, I had friends that were Fallout fans and I never played PC games so I never got around to playing it. A friend at Zenimax Online had copies laying around so he sent me one. God bless his heart.

Fallout 3

So I dug Fallout 3. Immersive world. Maybe too immersive… Constantly stressed because you’ll get randomly attacked by gangs and giant creatures while wandering from town to town. And you have no bullets, you can only buy a limited amount in shops at any given time. And you don’t even have much money, you can sell some bottle caps I guess. I get that this is the future, and everything’s scary and resources are limited but why they hell do I want live in this stressful world after I spent a day at work??? Ahhh!!!

Borderlands

My friends got Borderlands and were having a ton of fun online, killing stuff. Now Borderlands was a fun game for me. It had a similar setting to Fallout but it was lively and comedic. It played like Halo. Don’t have to worry too much about ammo and weapons, as they’re freely available. You aren’t even penalized too much for dying — you just respawn at a checkpoint and can buy more items without even leaving the mission. It plays like Halo-meets-Diablo, how can you go wrong? Well, the wrongness this time actually had to do with my internet sucking. My Xbox-wifi adapter sucks and can’t keep a stable connection. Which resulted in my dropping out from the game all of the time or not being able to tell if my shots are connecting when playing online. Without the online play to amplify the enjoyment of the game I started to see what the game for what it was — kinda pointless.

The story is pretty non-existant. And the gameplay is basically shoot stuff to get better weapons to shoot bigger stuff to get bigger weapons. In the time that I played I didn’t see enough diversity in the gameplay to make me feel like I was missing anything if I stopped playing. So I stopped.

And after quitting 3 top-notch cutting edge AAA games I began to wonder why didn’t they keep my interest. I think it has to do with them all being about running around and shooting things. And that’s pretty much it. You might have to find some items along the way but your progress is determined by how well you can run around and shoot. You don’t have to be clever about it. And then there’s the RPG elements. Which I feel are tacked onto the FPS gameplay just to give the illusion that the game has more depth than it really is.

Although I’m not a fan of FPS games, I don’t hate all of them. I love the Halo games for instance. But I love them because they take that they’re a first-person-shooter very seriously. Halo is tactical and your progress depends on your strategy of approaching the enemy. The enemies are aware of their environments and react depending on how you approach them. You can try to ambush and die. Then sneak up and die. Then snipe and die. Then try and run everyone over and maybe you make it to the next checkpoint.

In Halo, you don’t have to wonder if you can afford health or weapon upgrades in a vending machine when you reach an enemy you can’t take down. Nor do you need to count up how many bullets you have remaining between 14 guns, and check how much damage your guns have, and how much weight you’re carrying. You don’t have to fiddle with some skills tree and worry about that headshot only doing 4 damage because your level isn’t quite high enough. Ahhh!!!!

Do you know what game I bought and actually beat?

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

I rushed through it and had a lot of fun. In quick sessions. And when I died, I didn’t get stressed. I had more fun overcoming the challenge. And it didn’t have RPG features to needlessly complicate it. And it didn’t take me over 20 hours to finish. And I got to play it with my friends.

Lost Odyssey

Besides Mario, I’ve been hooked on Lost Odyssey, my current obsession. I probably sound like a hypocrite, with the game being an old-school style Japanese RPG that we’ve seen a million times before, but I’m a sucker for these things. It feels like a Final Fantasy game but it breaks enough gameplay conventions that it’s not. It’s difficult and doesn’t have some overly complex skill system. It’s far from perfect but has some great things going for it. I think the gameplay is top-notch and overall I’ve enjoyed it much more than Final Fantasy 10 and 12.

Rage from id

I don’t think we’ve seen the last of The Same Game as id’s Rage is coming soon. While the graphics are off the chain, as usual, it looks to be the familiar FPS RPG hybrid.

Chris and I attended the IGDA LA Chapter’s July meeting for a panel discussion titled “Running a Small Development Studio: Perils, Pitfalls & Promise.” I was interested in checking out the event because it was a relevant topic and I’ve yet to attend any of the LA Chapter meetings. I’ve been an IGDA member on 2 separate occasions but failed to see value in the membership since there were never any meetings. This year they’ve restarted and are having meetings the 2nd Thursday of every month.

The talk was excellent. The speakers gave a good idea of some of the challenges of getting a company started and keeping it rolling.

The speakers were:

John Beck CEO, WayForward Technologies (A Boy and His Blob, Where the Wild Things Are, Space Chimps)

Jenova Chen Creative Director, thatgamecompany (Flower, flOw, Cloud, Journey)

Tian Mu CEO, Co-Founder, Naked Sky Entertainment, Inc. (Star Trek DAC, RoboBlitz, RoboHordes)

Jesse Vigil Founder, Partner, Psychic Bunny (Codename Games, Lead Balloon)

After the talk, it transformed into a mixer. It was good chit-chatting with some of the homies and the regulars. Met and re-met a couple people we saw at the USC Global Game Jam. I had a good chat with the homies Nite and Deon, who worked on Lulu Cao’s thesis project, SomeDay.

This IGDA-LA event is every 2nd Thursday. It hasn’t been updated for a while, but you can try the website for info about the next one. If they keep having meetings of this caliber, I’ll have to renew my membership.

Oh yeah, baby. I came up. Won this wonderful game at the raffle.

Two guys playing with the Kinect at E3 2010

That’s right. Sokay is at E3 and nobody else will give you the breaking story on the games YOU want to play! Anyway, I’ll let you know how it went. For me, Nintendo was the show, so I’ll start with the other guys.

X-Box 360 Central

Microsoft had a lot of Kinect going on, lots of games that look like the same stuff they’ve been putting out for years, and some X-Box 360 Slims laying around (which I’ve got my eye on). Kinect looked pretty cool, but I wasn’t blown away by anything. You can read about Microsoft elsewhere.

Sony’s attractions I must check on again tomorrow before I can give a fair assessment of their presentation. They had a lot going on for the new Castlevania and Marvel vs. Capcom games, but they weren’t really worth mentioning (another 3rd person beat ‘em up and the MvC franchise goes 3D–sorry if you love those games, but it’s not exactly groundbreaking). However I did try out the PS3 Move controller with the new Socom game and was very satisfied.

I don’t find the Wii controller very good with shooting games; one’s aim always has to be offset a little to be accurate, but there’s no way to correct it with calibration. It’s unfair to make a comparison after just one game with the Move given my extensive experience with the wiimote, but I thought the Move felt a bit more on-target. I’ve always been a mouse and keyboard man when it comes to any sort of FPS experience, and I hate the wiimote as a replacement, but the Move wand did very well. I also found it to have a wider range of motion while manipulating the on-screen cursor. I assume this is because even as you point the wand away from the television, it’s still within view of the camera and therefore position data can still be used by the game. But I only got to play one game and that kind of stuff can be subtle, so it’s hard to tell if I was just imagining things. It’s also difficult to tell how much of the differences between Move and the Wii is purely algorithmic rather than being rooted in the hardware.

As for SOCOM, the game seemed pretty good, but again, nothing particularly new (other than the Move compatibility). SOCOM’s controls felt nice, which is saying a lot because I’ve found the controls on most of these run/cover/shoot 3rd person shooters to be so terrible I have no idea how they become popular, Kane and Lynch 2 is one such game.

I wasn’t particularly interested in the first Kane and Lynch, but the sequel caught my eye because of the “video camera” look it achieved. I’ve long thought that a lot of computer generated effects look ironically realistic when viewed through a video camera (I remember recording Gran Turismo 3 once). The modern audience is accustomed to reality through a video camera, but the devices are incapable of delivering very much data, which makes simulating reality through these machines relatively easy (See Cloverfield). Kane and Lynch 2 takes advantage of this and while many surfaces still appear too smooth or shiny for reality, and the visual defects don’t match the game’s HD resolution, it does attain something unique with its graininess, steep gamma curve, occasional auto-focus error, video quality lens flares (versus those of epic 35mm lenses) and camera shake as if it is handheld by an operator struggling to keep up with the action (even if it’s a little annoying now and then). However, the rest of the game was uninteresting.

Finally, Nintendo. I had already spent part of this morning hearing about the “bombs” Nintendo was dropping at E3 from Bryson (and rousing his loyal defense of the Zelda series when I speculated on flaws in the new motion based control scheme–unfortunately, I was unable to verify its performance today). When I first arrived at the expo, I was disappointed by the small selection offered by Nintendo. Some wiiware and sequels to games I didn’t really care about, but then I realized there was another Nintendo presentation in the next hall and that’s where all the action was. By the time I got there, things were just about wrapping up. I took a look at Donkey Kong Country Returns and Zelda: Skyward Sword, both of which look promising. But there was no time to play because as soon as I got near the place a woman brushed me aside and bellowed “5 more people to see the 3DS, ONLY 5 MORE PEOPLE!!” I made myself one of those 5.

Notice the glimmering gradient

Nintendo had glass cases containing very pretty 3DS models adjacent to a very long line which led to a tightly secured platform containing 200 girls tied to Nintendo 3DS demos (some of whom were literally attached to the machines). There was actually a set of eyes dedicated to watching every single demo up there. The demos weren’t much and most were only videos showing off the 3D effect, but it was worth seeing.

For those that haven’t heard, the 3DS has 1 screen which displays images in 3D (without requiring glasses) in addition to the lower touch-screen present in the current models, 2 rear cameras for capturing 3D images, and other upgrades I won’t go into like a PSP style analog slider and a faster processor. What you may not have heard is that the 3D effect can be controlled with a little dial on the right side of the 3DS. Push the dial all the way down and the image is plain 2D. Push the dial all the way up and it’s really hard to focus on the screen (because of how REAL it is). I usually preferred only a slight 3D effect. If you pushed it up too high the image could be a bit disorienting and I noticed what I’ll call ‘illusionary artifacts,’ meaning that I didn’t see artifacts in the image itself, but I could see them as a part of the optical illusion.

Foreground: 3DS Models in glass, Background: The demo platform.

I played a 3D pong game which was nearly identical to an old shockwave game. One demo took a photo of the my face, mapped it over a 3D model, stuck a helmet over it and had me shooting balls at my own head. Both the pong and ball shooting games took advantage of the rear cameras to use reality as their backdrop. I was aware that the 3DS had TWO cameras on the rear and was therefore capable of capturing 3D video, but the demos didn’t seem to use that effect. I asked the nearest girl (who was glued to my DS) and she insisted that yes, the 2 cameras were displaying a 3D image (and slid the 3D dial up and down while everything in the game EXCEPT the camera image warped in and out). I could’ve sworn she was lying to me, but after she said Xevious3D used the 2 cameras too (even though Xevious didn’t display anything from the cameras) I was pretty sure she was just confused.

Ridiculous staffing at the Nintendo 3DS Demos

Xevious3D was a bad experience because it was difficult to focus on flying and grounded enemies simultaneously. And Nintendogs in 3D was basically the same as Nintendogs in 2D, however they did allow the puppies to approach and lick the screen if you held it up to your face.

I watched video demos for a long list of classic games, Mario Kart and others, but the only really special one was Kid Icarus. If this E3 has anything to say about it, Kid Icarus will be THE game on the early 3DS. Not only does it look generally impressive, but where it seemed most games would treat the 3D effect as a gimmick (like most movies), Kid Icarus appeared to use it very well. What I saw were dynamically deep images of well composed shots that allowed the eye to settle on a focal point and enjoy the game. For a long time I’ve been wondering how long it will take developers to understand 3D, get over its weakness and use it well as a part of gameplay, not just another graphical effect. If that little video demo means anything, Kid Icarus will be a step in the right direction.

I’ve got development work to do before the Indiecade deadline passes me up, and life in the real world so I can’t be killing my hours going to trade shows and telling you people about it, but I’ll do my best.

-Christopher J. Rock

I’d have liked to see Santiago take Ebert down a notch with a strong argument, but she came off as many of the ‘game school generation’ do: all talk and born to sell out (e.g. using marketability as evidence of artistry). I assume this is because graduates would rather not alienate the industry or general populace with their ideas, but the need to maintain a friendly facade dilutes the message too much for my taste. For that reason, I’d also have liked to see Ebert take Santiago down a notch, until he stopped making sense.

One of Ebert’s key failings is that his actual views on art remain a mystery and for that reason, I hope to convey my perspective through my discussion of Santiago and Ebert. I welcome attack.

I agree with Santiago’s saying that games “already are art.” And I more or less fall in line with her concession to Ebert’s infamous statement:

“To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”
-Roger Ebert

But I’m not impressed by her conservative declaration that Chess cannot be considered a work of art, saying that “We must draw a line.” In my view, the status of art is binary. Games either are or are not art. I argue that they are art, but as a whole, I wouldn’t call them very good art. Perhaps Santiago would support my distinction because she bases her definition in part on Robert McKee’s description of good writing–not art writing, but good. And with popular video game development over 30 years old, I do not buy the argument that games as an art form are in their infancy. Film was invented in 1895 and by 1925 the world was full of masterful and respected filmmakers practicing their art solely as an art and their work is studied to this day.

Ebert rightly attacks Santiago’s description of ancient art as “chicken scratches,” however I’m not sure why he discusses the cave paintings of Chauvet-Pont-D’Arc because Santiago displayed a completely different example of ancient art that appears to be Native American (though I don’t recognize it off-hand). And while Ebert fails to appreciate Santiago’s examples of gaming artistry; Waco, Braid and Flower; they are the same examples given in countless other art-game arguments that also failed to persuade the least of sophisticants and I would happily expand upon Ebert’s criticisms if prompted. I am again left with no side to take when Ebert becomes distracted by Santiago’s screenshot of George Melies’ A Voyage to the Moon (1902) because I’m more apt to compare the average video game to Thomas Edison’s Electrocuting an Elephant (1903). Ebert’s criticisms are entirely appropriate, but at each attempt to formulate his own idea, it becomes clear that this debate isn’t going very far.

His meandering struggle to imply a philosophy led me to believe Ebert’s thoughts are far too disorganized for him to be taken seriously as any kind of theorist, especially in regards to games. This may go without saying considering his famous distaste for film theory and more importantly, that his judgment of the entire video game medium comes without having played a one of them.

Ebert cites famous approaches to art, suckerpunching Santiago’s attempts to define it until at one point he seems to consider the act of defining art a pointless endeavor, saying

“But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one.”
-Roger Ebert on defining the word ‘art’

I was very disappointed by this because ever since Ebert’s initial decree that games are not and never will be art, I was curious about what complex and deep understanding of the arts led him to that conclusion. Without providing any reasons for his statement, it appeared that he preferred to attack the work of others without ever making his own ideas vulnerable–like some kinda lousy critic! Not so, because throughout the entirety of a discussion inherently linked to the definition of art, Ebert managed a single related concept:

“My notion is that it grows better the more it improves or alters nature through an passage through what we might call the artist’s soul, or vision.”
-Roger Ebert enlightening no one

I couldn’t help but notice the hint of hypocrisy passing flatulently between Ebert’s words,

“Kellee Santiago has arrived at this point lacking a convincing definition of art.”
-Roger Ebert clearly meaning to address himself

Ebert does state that a difference between games and art is that you can win a game. Ah, what a school of thinkers to join, the ‘art is the thing you can’t win’ guys. He goes on to make one obvious point against his definition of art as ‘a thing one cannot win’ in saying

“Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film.”
-Roger Ebert implying that if games are art, they must be some other kind of art (?)

I have to admit, he’s gone over my head here. When the video game came about, everyone seemed to agree it was a new, patentable invention worthy of an original name and place within our culture, but apparently that’s when Ebert diverged from the mainstream. Is he conceding that our so-called ‘video games’ ARE art, with the caveat that they’re actually some digital offsping of dancing and books? Is he confusing games with the ipad? Frankly, I don’t care to find out, but in case his claims are anything more than totally ridiculous, I’ve cited a few ‘Loser Games’ at the end of this post, each of which leads one to question the concept of victory and each of which is clearly a game.

Ebert does end on a high note, condescending as it may be:

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, “I’m studying a great form of art?” Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

If I was unconcerned with the perception of games as art, I wouldn’t have written this post, but I don’t think we need to be pleading to anyone. We don’t need a friendly facade or to win over outdated critics. If you believe in games as art, the criticism of likeminded peers has to be feedback enough because catering to an audience uninterested in one’s art will only lead one to create bad art. I believe what we need is a higher standard for ourselves, our ideas, and our games. Today’s game development community is all too accomadating, especially among independent developers. Kellee Santiago is doing a good job screaming out the message and I hope she can bring together some talented people, but Ebert is right about one thing: video games as art suck. Everyone seems to agree with this when we discuss games in general, but no one has the guts to point out examples and criticize them. How else will progress be made?

Things are developing, but it’s not because of universities, publishers or markets. Just as in any art, it’s thanks to the artists who invest themselves independently of any of those influences, out of personal desire.

Ebert says that we won’t live to see games respected as an art form. I say give it 10 to 20 years and pretentious developers will have us wishing he was right. I say games are art, and yes, that makes me happy.

-Christopher J. Rock

Loser Games
If Ebert were ever to actually play a game, he might be aware of how questionable the claim of ‘winning’ one really is as opposed to ‘finishing’ it, as one does a film or novel.

I had contacted Anders Gustafsson, creator of Gateway II, and he gave me a preview of the first chapter of his latest game — The Dream Machine by Cockroach Inc.

I had played the demo before and while it was presented well, I didn’t know what to think of it. It was so short that it felt like it was over before it ever began. But after playing through the first chapter, I can now rest my worries. I can’t wait to play the rest!

First off the game is well written. While Gateway had some dialogue, its story was mostly told visually through the animation of the characters. In The Dream Machine, the characters have some great dialogue, which I find believable. The game start with your character, Victor, just moving into an apartment with his girlfriend. You get a good feel for their relationship through their talking. The game has dialogue branches which allow you to respond in a more serious or joking manner if you wish. It helped me to believe in the characters — okay, Game Creator, you’ve got my attention.

A Turnaround from their ‘Character Generation’ blog post

The game’s unique art style kept me guessing. Is this clay? Or 3d? Or photographs? The visuals in the game are great. From their blog posts, it seems they are a mixture of figure, 3d, and composite images. So I guess I was right with all guesses, haha. I dig that the art has a handmade feel to it, a good change from most things being super clean, super digital.

It hit me maybe about an hour in. The sound is friggin incredible. And I think that’s when you know when it’s good. When it creeps in on you, and before you know it, you’re under its grasp. You really just don’t get sound at this quality very often with web games. The sound adds to the eeriness of the experience, reminds me of a Resident Evil game. How you always have that feeling that something’s… not… quite… right…

Oh yeah, I forgot about the gameplay! The game seems to be along the lines of your standard adventure game. Chapter 1 is mostly finding items and finding where they go, scavenger hunt style, with a logic puzzle or two to break things up. It didn’t really have those environmental “move here then move there” puzzles of the Gateway games. I felt that Chapter 1 was mostly an introduction to the characters and their world.

I don’t think the gameplay is innovative, and that’s probably a good thing. I think there’s a lot of pressure to be innovative and break rules and conventions but often the result is something broken and not enjoyable. Or something that’s claiming to be innovative while just replicating features some game made 10 or 20 years ago. If innovation is something that drives you to play a game, I’d say innovation is something that comes from the heart. In games like these where you can feel the love put into it.

I’ve been inspired by what I’ve seen of the game. And look forward to seeing more of it. The guys at Cockroach Inc. are still hard at work at it so the results may vary, haha.

Links:

• Play The Dream Machine
• The Dream Machine development blog
• The Dream Machine Facebook group

I read about Indiecade accepting submissions for the 2010 game festival on Gamasutra. If  you read this blog, you might know that we went to last year’s Indiecade and had a good time. I told Chris and he’s down for action! He wants to submit his upcoming game. I think it’s unannounced…

I see this as a threat. He may be my friend, something of an ally, but I will never let him make me look like a chump by outclassing me at Indiecade. Never!

So I now announce that we are at War.

This ain’t no East Coast/West Coast thing. We’re both representing Los Angeles, no problem there. Nobody’s getting killed. This war is more of an arbitrary goal to provoke motivation, sorta like Obama’s car MPG requirements for 2016.

Chris’ game is looking great. It’s a physics based puzzle game, he’s doing all the art and coding as well. In addition, there will be some procedurally generated music. This guy is nuts, but it works. A demo for it is coming soon.

I’ve been forever working on my Donut game. It’s looking great but I’ve been neglecting it because I’ve been doing long hours on a game I’m doing for my day job. And I’ve been working on an update to the Sokay.net site. When things get back on track, I’m gonna knock it out.

I also found this great GameSetWatch interview where the creative director Oliver Lejade discusses how the game came to be. From starting off as a PC tech demo, to becoming an innovative title making extraordinary use of the DS’s capabilities. Here’s a quote on why they had a hard time selling the game to distributers.

You’re saying, “Oh, this is a game about little girls, pink ponies, and you know that little girls are going to buy this,” it’s X number of units are going to go, it’s an easy sell. But when you come in with an original game, that they don’t have any clear reference to the gameplay of something that has been done recently, that has no license, then it’s a very hard sell. And if you have only five minutes? I can’t explain Soul Bubbles in five minutes. It’s not doable — and I made the game.

You can read the interview here:

• Q&A: Mekensleep’s Lejade – The Extended Soul Bubbles Interview

One of the things that he discussed is that many reviewers gave the game a low score in spite of how great the game was otherwise. They said it was too easy, as the game offers hint bubbles to help you out if you get stuck. The developers wanted casual gamers, which are the majority of DS audience, to be able to enjoy the game and make it to the end. So everyone could enjoy it. The point that the developer makes is that the clues are only user initiated, so if you don’t activate the help you don’t get any. Which allows the more hardcore gamers to figure it out themselves.

I found that developer video page on a GameFAQs.com forum post, where someone posted this in response…

“Thanks for posting that. I was curious about the game from an article in NP, but then they gave it a low review. I was not going to buy it until I came here and saw that video. I just picked it up from Toys R Us and brought it home. I’ll post more after I’ve played it.”

It definitely sold me on the game, I’ll have to hunt down a copy of it. The art looks fantastic and the effects looks great too. I’ll reserve my judgment till I play it, which may be a while as I work through a mountain of Xbox games, but it’s apparent that it’s well beyond the shovelware the DS is known for. I’m glad they took the risk and are able to continue making DS games.

• Soul Bubbles Official Website
• Soul Bubbles: A classic game ill treated by expert reviewers (and I’m late to the discussion of course, haha)
• Soul Bubbles review by Games Weasel

‘Why’ is step one in any other art form, but Hecker is right. We don’t hear that question too much in games. It is my opinion that the earmark of great art is the purpose behind every choice involved in its creation. Even if that purpose is ambiguous at best, there must be justification for artistic decisions. But Hecker did a good enough job of making this point, so I’m going to say something that may be to the contrary.

I believe that many indie developers have already challenged themselves with ‘Why’ for some time, but there are other challenges. As Hecker points out, the way to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of games is not yet understood. This may explain why our ‘art games’ tend to be overly-abstract, even inaccessible, and still relatively shallow. Developers are forced into extreme formalism just to get over the steep learning curve.

I’m a formalist. I love formalism. But there’s more to art than form and frankly, I’m sick of abstract games. I want some damn content up in here. That’s why I call for developers to ask why less. As it stands, game developers are asking why for the wrong reasons. They’re asking why something is fun or entertaining, which leads to shallow, uninteresting answers. If they ask why in search of something deeper, that’s great, but I’ll set my expectations lower. We’ll get quicker results if we skip the whole why and go for an intuitive form of expression. I’m calling for something closer to improv. Stop looking both ways, and just cross.

When you forget about what other people think and just plop down what you gotta plop down, whether you like it or not, your work reflects who you are. Put yourself under pressure. Tie a gun to the back of your head and make sure that if you don’t finish a game–a good game–within the next 2 weeks, a bullet will go through your head. The definition of ‘good game’ will transform during those two weeks into two priorities: (1) What you can program quickly and (2) whatever comes to mind. The first priority depends on how good of a developer you are (which may be the flaw in this approach for many), but the second is what guarantees that your work will be artistically interesting.

Say you see a man with a unique wardrobe. That wardrobe can tell you a great deal about this man that he didn’t mean to communicate, like what he does for fun, what he’s up to now, the kind of work he does or how much he gets paid. You ask him where he got his shirt and he replies with 30 words. Out of those 30 words you might get an accent that tells you his place of origin. You might discern his political views or religious beliefs. You might discover he’s a racist, a reverse-racist, or that he’s just sensitive about the subject. You can learn any number of things from signals that are not designed at all to communicate the messages you are receiving. The man’s individual signature exists in every choice he makes–including the subconscious ones. If he is a game developer, his games will reflect his personality.

However, our expression can be stifled. As a staunch supporter of introspection and a sober, conscientious approach to art, I know there are times when action is more important than philosophy. We need games that don’t hold back and I believe unleashing our ideas is the way to make them.

Stream of consciousness game development. Maybe that’s impossible, but by working fast and flowing, we can get something close. Developers can focus on self-expression and proliferate. Games even be as short and simple as casual games, but the mechanics should have a context that makes them meaningful (which requires asking why, yes, but answer fast and start coding).

I would love nothing more than to see developers engaged in real philosophical argument about their medium, but right now that sounds like forcing sixth graders to study the Renaissance before you let them paint. Yes, they need to hear about Da Vinci, and yes, it will make them much better painters, but these kids don’t even know what they want to do when they grow up. Let them get their fingers wet, then assign some book reports.

There’s one problem with this plan. Games have been around a long time and developers aren’t discovering the same happy accidents that finger-painters do. That’s because of money. Hecker mentions that industry development is all about profits. So it’s up indies. What else is new.

Really, I agree with Hecker entirely, but I would hate to see indie developers slowing their productivity to find a ‘deep enough’ reason to make a game. Call me a devil’s advocate.

-Christopher J. Rock

This is a video of Kyle Gabler‘s keynote to Global Game Jam 2009. I’ve been meaning to post this since I first saw it. I found it super inspiring!

7.  Adjust Expectations – Don’t strive for the next AAA hit, limit your expectations to something reasonable.

6. Create a Low Barrier of Entry – Make sure its fun within the first 15 seconds. Title screen, concise instructions, and jump into gameplay! Please forget the drawn out backstory.

5. Feel Something – Feel music to inspire, have an emotional target.

4. Make the Toy First – Prototype the idea to see if it even works before commiting!

3. Audio! – Sound is super important, make sure it’s not slapped on last minute. Involve it in the design of the game.

2. Harmony – “Think of how you can achieve harmony economincally.” Make sure everything that you have (music, art, gameplay) fits together.

1. Never Fall in Love – Free yourself to experiment with new ideas and don’t get too attached!

I don’t necessary feel that these are laws of game design, but they are very helpful philosophies to be able to complete a game prototype in an accelerated timeframe. I tend to fall in love with every game idea I have, which is why I have so many illegitimate prototypes running through my project folders.