Interview with Chris Crawford at Gamasutra.
I must admit that I admire the conviction of Chris Crawford’s statements, but there is a worrying edge to them, as in:
GS: How do you feel that the creative spark has gone out of the industry?
CC: Well basically, new ideas don’t go anywhere. So the industry is just rehashing the same stuff over and over. During the 80s there was a lot of experimentation, a lot of new ideas being tried (many of them really bad) but there was at least experimentation. Now we don’t see any experimentation whatsoever.
I would personally say that a lot of new ideas are popping up – in rhythm games, open-ended simulations, MMOs, alternative interfaces, the Icos, etc… So what about the Wii?
GS: Continuing with the Nintendo theme, do you feel that the Wii in is a step in the right direction as far as innovation? Or do you think it’s going to be the same old stuff only with a fancy new controller?
CC: More likely, the latter. I’m not a fortune teller. I don’t know what they’ll do. But I think that it is reasonable to expect that an industry that hasn’t produced any innovation in at least a decade is unlikely to change its spots.
Perhaps being open to new directions and surprises can be a good thing?
So what does Crawford propose with the new StoryTron?
CC: It’s interactive storytelling. [Now that’s new! – JJ.]
GS: And what does that mean to the common person?CC: It’s a story you get to participate in as the protagonist. You’re the hero…and you let the story go. It’s not at all like a regular story. It’s not as if you’re just following the footsteps of the hero in a standard movie. Interactive storytelling has a more meandering feel to it. You don’t charge down a plot line towards the end, you meander through a social environment. The key thing is that it’s about people, not things. Social interaction, not mechanical interaction. The primary thing you do an interactive storytelling is talk to other people. What a concept! Most gamers react to that concept with some disdain: ?all you do is sit around and talk? That?s no fun,? and it isn?t any fun for many gamers. But that’s the kind of thing that most people spend most of their time doing.
I don’t think I can count the number of times I have heard such a description of a new game or game project. How about Omikron: Nomad Soul?
The game is entirely in 3D real time. Players can visit the immense city of Omikron, with its hundreds of passers-by, air-cushion vehicles, its day/night cycles and its random weather. Behind each door in the city lies a real decor. The player can thus go for a drink in a bar, buy a book in a bookshop, look for medication in a pharmacy or go to watch a strip tease show.
He can also go back to his apartment to watch hologram television.In Omikron-The Nomad Soul, the player can explore the universe, dialog with the characters, interact with the environment, fight with hands/feet, use weapons, make and cast spells, drive air-cushion vehicles and reincarnate.
To Crawford’s credit, his two main points about verbs and people, not things, really are strong points. Now show me the money!
Hmmm, no innovation in 10 years. How about EyeToy. That was something different. What about rythym games? Not nearly as exciting, but what about better camera’s for 3D games? How about open ended games like Morrowind and GTA3? How about the Halo control scheme so that FPS’s were fun to play on consoles?
It’s easy just to look at the number of sequals coming out and say that innovation is dead. I fully disagree. I just think gamers don’t neccessarily embrace innovation (how much crying was done when Mario had a waterpack on his back?)
I think gaming has made some huge leaps lately, to say there is no innovation is not even a stretch, it’s just wrong.
I disagree about the EyeToy. I remember being in elementary school and going to the local science center and playing a virtual game with my body as controller, via a camera. It is just that the technology has gotten small enough that we can do it without the costly setup. The games? They are still the same. Bat at the stuff on screen, or some other simon-says simple game. Allowing the use of the EyeToy to load images into a game is neat though.
I would argue that the ideas posed by the touch interface of the DS have been innovative. While the interface ideas have been around for a while, nowhere in games have they been implemented in such distinct and usable ways. Especially in games such as Kirby’s Canvas Adventure, Nintendogs, and Brain Age. This is innovative gaming at its best.
There are huge differences between Omikron and Storytron, primarily the latter is in turn-based 2D (theres actually no spatial movement) and is based entirely on a linguistic interface. These are both weakenesses and its unique strength. I think if Crawford had tried making a drama game, like a refinement of Siboot, instead of a grand sweeping solution of an engine, he’d have had something a long time ago and it would have catalyzed more progress. His angst about Storytronics being distinct from game design may have something to do with the path he chose to take.
It does seem that Chris Crawford thinks that “innovation” means “more like movies”, rather than “more like music” or “more like painting”, so that may explain part of his attitude.
I agree with Patrick that there is a strong point in having a purely linguistic model of the world (drama doesn’t need physical space), but from playing with Erasmatron (Shattertown Sky?), I felt that the main problem was that the game did not establish the individual scenes at all, and consequently felt very jumpy and disconnected.
I like your Omikron example. The quote from the website suggests that the game scope is tremendous. But in terms of game content, the game is rather empty. True, one can wonder in a city where it rains occasionally. True, there are strippers in clubs, and it is possible to explore a few appartment buildings. But what for? how does it tie in to the main game? What is the purpose of this? in other words, were players really interested to play in an environment that may be detailed and complex, but that doesn’t offer gameplay? I wasn’t. For this reason, I’m a bit skeptical of a game mode based on a more complex interface, but with less traditionnal game content. I’m curious, too.