I want to take some time out from working on “Marian” and getting ready for the “Aquaria” soundtrack release to talk a bit about what indie games can be, and how they are made.
What are Games?
We all believe we know what games are, although our definitions probably vary greatly. I would argue that “games” are a new form of multimedia, that combine existing mediums with the new element of interaction. They’re not specifically only about interaction, they’re also not specifically about their individual components. What is truly interesting to me about games is how all the different components work together as a unified whole.
This definition of games opens up interesting possibility, for example: making a game that has limited interaction for a specific purpose, or creating a game that has no visuals or no audio but still works as a whole.
Instead of picking apart games and ranking them based on their individual components, let’s think about games as whole. Let’s look at the connections between the different mediums.
This (rather lengthy) Rant is Continued after the Break…
Are Games Art?
Yes. That is my opinion, and if you disagree with me that’s great. However, I think there is far more value in choosing to consider games to be art than choosing not to call them art.
Isn’t that Pretentious?
I don’t see the word “art” as a pretentious label. In my opinion, “art” is something that all humans do in some form or another. Your friend might make up a tune on the piano once in a while, and it might not sound that great, but I’d argue that it is still art. I think I’m firmly in the camp of Scott McCloud and David Byrne – creators who are able to see art in unusual places.
People may squabble about what is “good art” and what is “bad art”, but in my opinion “art” is a “good” thing whether or not it has certain aesthetic qualities that are admired by others. The scaled ranking of it is not as important as the truth that was put into it at conception.
Truth in Art
Art is able to open doors in people’s minds that would in other circumstances stay shut. Part of what makes art work is the truth (or untruth) that the creator infuses into the piece when it is created. There is a distinct flavour to work that has been created by an artist who has taken a piece of themselves and put it in the work. That flavour is distinctly lacking in a lot of mainstream games.
It is still possible to create a mainstream game that has that flavour, take for example the beloved “Shadow of the Colossus”. However, its a lot easier to taste these flavours in the indie games scene.
Why the Indie Game Scene?
The Indie Game scene, when it works, encourages the unique expression of very differing individuals. This freedom and encouragement to be oneself, and to explore one’s own creative voice is what allows these auteur-driven flavours to rise to public awareness. The promise of the indie games scene, is a buffet of delicious, unique tastes that anyone can sample for $20 or less. (in most cases)
There is also a promise of less competition. Since most developers are following their passions, they aren’t all trying to mimic the latest trend – therefore they rarely step on each other’s toes, and if they do tend to make games that are similar, they’re often still different enough that an intelligent consumer would not be confused between the two.
The reality is a bit different, as developers are forced to conform slightly to the Microsofts, Sonys and NIntendos of the world in order to get distribution deals to stay alive. Right now the indie scene is a hot item – but that may soon fade. Whether or not the indie scene grows to become more accepted and integrated into the mainstream, or fades back into obscurity, I still think it will have value as a place where creators can be themselves.
When the indie community doesn’t work is when the group mentality turns away from celebrating the new and the unique and transforms into gatekeeping or outright bashing of differing game concepts. I’ve seen this happen on forums, real life conversations, mailing lists – some developers think that their approach is the only right way to make a game, and they ram their opinions down the throat of others regardless of whether there might be merits to considering an alternate viewpoint or not.
We’re also at the point where “indie” may transform from meaning “an open, positive scene where unique expression is encouraged” to meaning a corporate mandated “label” that gets applied to products to help sell them to a niche audience. (witness the recent rebranding of XBLA Community Games to XBLA Indie)
I believe that if “indie” does become just a label, as it has in many respects for indie music and indie film, that the Technicolor dreamcoat of creators, fans and frankly love that we see in the scene right now will disperse. I think the only way to keep the scene as a positive force is to ensure that the “powers” that influence it are kept decentralized. If those in the scene are always open to newcomers and willing to step aside to allow the indie pie to be shared, we may see this strange and wondrous beast last longer than its predecessors. However, if “indie” becomes a label, I fear we will see the creativity evaporate, the fans disillusioned and the spark that makes what we have right now “a pretty cool thing” will be lost. The word “indie” will atrophy and become as meaningless in the context of innovation in games as “action adventure” or “sports title”.
Mechanics vs. Story
This leads me to my main point, which is how do we make games. Do we make games because of some inner desire to share an experience? Or do we make them because we are fascinated with the intricacies of game structure?
Imagine the difference between sitting down at your piano or with your guitar and randomly playing a tune that you invent on the spot. Whether or not its good, you can often feel a “flow” to what you’re doing… there’s some sense that there’s a direction in which you’re moving, some might employ a bit of poetry and describe it as a “muse”. Phil Fish remarked to me once that he regretted that video games don’t have the equivalent of a “live performance” – there’s no “jamming on stage” with game creation.
I find that a lot of developers engineer more than they write. I believe this comes partially from the large amount of game developers who also happen to be, in some part, computer scientists. Now I have nothing against computer scientists, I am one, and I have a great respect for my peers. But there is a certain flavour to games that have been built with game structure, mechanics and in some cases even the game engine in mind over games that have been built around other ideas.
Take for example, Braid. The game was a hit (in both indie and mainstream terms), and it managed to gain a lot of attention through its innovative use of its time-rewinding mechanic. The game is entirely based around time manipulation, and it creates some clever puzzles around these mechanics. The way that the game was created was by prototyping a series of different gameplay mechanics, until those that were considered good enough to base a game around emerged.
On the other hand we have The Graveyard, a game that has little to no gameplay, and it based more around a very short story concept: an old lady sits on a bench, in the graveyard.
What can we say about both of these games? In my personal opinion, Braid fails to hold my interest for long periods of time because it is almost purely driven by mechanics and engineered design. (for example, specific puzzles arose from analyzing the game system and still feel like elements of a game system) In the case of The Graveyard, the game fails to hold my interest because it is mostly driven by a very short and forced narrative.
I would like to talk a bit about how I’d like to see each game done differently. I’m not presuming to say that this would make the games objectively better, and I’m not presuming the arrogance to suggest that you should agree with my subjective opinion. (In fact, I would love to hear your opinions about what you like to see emphasized in games – feel free to opine as such in the comments) What is provided here is for your own consideration, to open up a discussion about what we like to see in games.
How would I do Braid differently? I would like to see the storyline and world tied more directly into the game and for the game to allow for more organic exploration of its world and mechanics. Rather than everything being based around a series of puzzles, I would prefer to have more of a sense of “this is a place that could actually exist somewhere”. As it is, the game’s ecosystem seems to me to be a collection of video game references mixed with environments created mainly around the mechanics. The gameplay itself is fairly impeccable when taken on its own, but without the larger context of an integrated game world or a character or a more meaningful or unique consistency, I find myself less involved.
In the case of The Graveyard, I would like to see the a version of the game that focused on the experience of being old. Maybe the game would be about how time slows down, and how the elderly may notice details that younger people do not. The graveyard could be something that people could explore. They could enter a first person view to simply look up at the sky and see birds passing overhead. They could pick flowers and move them to a grave. The character of the old lady could react differently upon seeing other graves.
I’m reminded of taking trips to visit my grampa’s grave with my Baba. There is a poignant, yet subtle and interesting theme to play with there. With a more open-ended, exploration-based gameplay structure, the game could encourage players to recall memories like this one and read their own meaning into the game. In fact, focusing art assets towards developing a myriad of small details that are not normally experienced in most games would set this game apart even further and prove the point quite handily that games can explore other themes in compelling ways without having to feature the violent destruction of opposing forces.
The game could still come to a similar conclusion, that death is (eventually) inevitable and one must eventually “sit on the bench” for the cycle of life to continue. But if you were allowed to actually “live” a bit in the game first, this point would hit me a lot more effectively. If the interactive nature of the game was explored more fully while still following the same basic concept, I think the game would become something that I would love to come back to experience multiple times.
Now you may prefer Braid the way it is, and I’m sure a lot of people would – and that’s great. You may also be a big fan of The Graveyard, and I completely respect that. I also have a lot of respect for the creators of Braid and The Graveyard, and I admire their tenacity for following their creative vision and bringing it to fruition.
In fact, I’d prefer that they didn’t do things as I suggested, because I like experiencing different creative voices through indie games. The above is simply a personal opinion and provided here to illustrate a point.
What is Your Point?
My point is simply about what I’m most interested in, and that is exploring the area between mechanics-based games and story/concept-based games. I have a story that I want to tell with “Marian”, but I want to tell it by employing game mechanics that further the storytelling rather than fight with it. I want the elements of the game to support each other so that the end result is more compelling than each piece taken on its own.
I’m not professing to be an expert on this by any means (“Aquaria” illustrates some things that work well and some things that really don’t work), but it is something I care about deeply and I hope I’m able to achieve something that moves me forward in terms of integrating the different mediums of a game into a cohesive experience. I may also completely fail, but I’m not really afraid of that. If I fail, I feel like my failure will at least be of some value to myself and other developers who want to explore this path.
And to Wrap it Up, You Would Say…?
We should all explore our own creative voice. Don’t be intimidated by those who try to silence you because you may be attempting something outside of the accepted “norm”. Don’t be a dick about what you do either. We’re all in this scene together, and we have to peacefully coexist or it will not last.
And I want to see this scene sustained as a positive force. I want to see even more creative ideas. I want to see ideas that nobody is even dreaming about right now.
Let’s make that happen, and let’s keep indie – indie.
Thank you for your time!
(now i will shut up and get back to working on games)
alex wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I think you’ve messes up the path and the graveyard, which are two different games.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 5:17 pm
^ Yep, and I feel really stupid about it. Its fixed now.
Brian Crick wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I totally agree about wanting to explore games as interactions between different mediums. Specifically, creating contrast between gameplay and the other presentational elements of a game, the way the movie Good Morning Vietnam plays the relatively happy song What a Wonderful World over images of warfare. I’m trying to do this in my own stuff, and I hope you’re exploring that too.
I can’t wait to see Marian!
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Ah, counterpoint…
An interesting exercise would be to try to imagine what the equivalent of that counterpoint would be for say… visuals relating to gameplay. Or vice versa…
Ian wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I disagree about Braid, to a certain extent, I thought that Braid had a very strong story (although somewhat abstract) that was tied into the game’s mechanic (most of the game seems to be about looking back and reflecting on life and choices made). In my opinion, the abstract puzzles you were solving was parallel to looking back in to your memory and assembling the memories (in a puzzle) to form an idea of what actually happened. It added a LOT to the game experience and made it one of my favorite games.
That’s my interpretation, at least. With games like braid, however, it seems like you need to actually sit down and commit your entire attention to the story to enjoy it fully. It would be interesting to try to put the story at the forefront without big dialog sequences. I think obtained some success with the narrative and style of Aquaria.
It does kind of suck how a lot of games are being labelled as “Indie” these days. I think however, that since there is not really any one definition that covers what an “Indie” game is, it’s more important that the Indie community keeps promoting innovation and individual vision, and stays strong. On a side note, I played a game on XBL’s Indie games called “night of doom” which could have easily been made in Unity in 10 minutes. Skeletons with no animation move towards you, as you shoot colored spheres at them. Oh, you also have a health bar. Seriously.
Anyways, good luck with Marian, I’m looking forward to how you apply the ideas of incorporating story and gameplay in practice.
-Ian
alastair wrote a Comment on November 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm
“for more organic exploration of its world and mechanics” I do not understand what ‘organic exploration’ is, what is the difference between inorganic and organic exploration?
I don’t understand this either: “but without the larger context of an integrated game world or a character or a more meaningful or unique consistency, I find myself less involved.” It did seem to have a world, and a character (which is us), if you don’t feel involved then maybe puzzle platformers just aren’t for you?
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 12:38 am
Alastair: I didn’t feel that Braid’s world was particularly unique or inspired, it felt like it was built purely around the gameplay mechanics. (and references to enemies in other games like Mario) While the art is gorgeous and the mechanics are well thought-out, I never felt like Braid’s world was particularly engrossing.
Organic exploration means … exploring an area that feels more “real”. Braid’s world felt pretty contrived, it was obvious that certain areas were set up to be purely puzzles. This makes sense, as the game was focused mostly on exploring the gameplay mechanics. Essentially, the level design was mainly serving the desires of the mechanics.
One of the most interesting areas to me is the level select house, but there’s nothing to really be done there. Its set up to be a pure level select interface, with no focus given to anything else that might make it an interesting area to hang out in. I realize this wasn’t the focus of the developer, but that’s my point.
I personally like games that have solid mechanics, but also have areas that are just interesting to explore on their own. Maybe you don’t even gain anything tangible in game mechanics terms by exploring them. I’m cool with that.
I’m not trying to posit that that makes Braid a lesser game in any way, it just makes it less interesting to me given my personal tastes. Your tastes clearly differ, and that’s cool.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 12:52 am
Ian: The way I look at its a game that has a story and it has gameplay, and the two rarely seem to intersect. This seems like a very conscious design choice – almost as if the game thinks that it would be wrong to try to merge the two. Instead they’re kept as separate and optional as possible, which has the effect of making them seem fairly unlinked. (to me)
The benefit that approach has, is to not annoy players. And if you’re designing a game that you want to be accessible and fun, that’s a very good choice to make. Like you say, its a bad idea to bog the game down with too much upfront dialogue, because that will likely turn a player off.
However, I believe its possible to create meaningful story contexts that showcase different gameplay situations that are very strongly linked, and yet still unobtrusive to the player’s enjoyment. It doesn’t even have to require any kind of dialogue, and it can be quite subtle in some cases.
Further still, I believe that annoying the player isn’t always a bad design choice, if used very carefully and selectively. (I know Petri and others disagree with me on this, and I respect their opinions too)
In any case, my point is not to undermine Braid’s quality, (not that I could) but just to say that for me it didn’t create a meaningful impact from the story/immersion side. From the gameplay and art side, it most definitely it did. I still remember being totally blown away by the cleverness of the game system when I first played it.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 12:57 am
Ian: What about The Graveyard though? : )
Colin Northway wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:29 am
I find your thoughts on game design extremely useful. I think I’m game story colour-blind. Very rarely do I notice the story or world a game is taking place in. This puts me in a big hole in terms of game design. I need your posts and presentations to help pull me out of the hole into the light of emotional impact.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:55 am
^ this terrifies me, haha
Michael Samyn wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 5:04 am
If I understand it correctly, Alec, you feel that story (or content or theme or emotion) comes first, and any interaction or play structure is designed to express that content?
Because that’s the opposite of most videogames. Most games choose their stories because they fit a certain game mechanic. This is why we have so many war games: because it’s easy to express game rules in war stories (not because all game developers are blood thirsty aggressors
).
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:23 am
I guess what I’m saying is that the approach I’m trying is to think of both. In the case of Marian, there was the idea of the character, then the idea of a story, then the idea of what gameplay would make sense for those situations. But its not a linear process, new gameplay may be discovered that could change the story (for the better) or a music track could be written that creates an idea for gameplay… etc…
I’d agree that a lot of games are made mainly around mechanics, and that those mechanics often involve violence. That’s not to say that violence isn’t a valid topic that could be explored in interesting ways, but it isn’t really examined very often. Its also easier to create games that are fun if you focus mainly on mechanics – and hitting things in games has been proven to be pretty fun for a lot of people.
On the other hand, there are also really bad games made around existing stories, for example most movie-licensed games. The game has to follow the plot of the movie, often the gameplay is slight or underdeveloped and broken up in a disjointed way between pre-written cutscenes. That’s not a great thing either.
But I guess I’m of the mind that a game with a ton of cutscenes or a game with absolutely no story should still be able to be 100% awesome. Just because one component is emphasized or de-emphasized, its still possible for the whole to add up to more than the sum of its parts.
But its probably rare. : P
Ian wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 9:13 am
The graveyard wasn’t very fun to do speed runs in. It’s basically the worst racing game ever.
Aside from that, I mean, maybe they’re trying to make a point, that you can’t turn back (sort of a journey of life thing), but… I dunno, it seems to me there wasn’t enough interactiveness for it to be a “game”. I don’t know what defines a game, but the graveyard in my opinion would be better off considered as an “interactive short film” or something. Basically it’s a film, you just choose how long it takes to get to the end. In fact, it might be cooler if there were stuff to do and find in the graveyard. And I’m not talking about cherries and 1-ups, but just subtle things that hint at plot. But again, obviously the game is meant to be very very straightforward and makes whatever artistic statement it’s trying to make (or not trying to make) as uncomplicated as possible.
Eh. Needed more achievements.
Chrissy wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 11:12 am
Achievement Unlocked: Heartless; you paid 5 dollars so you could watch a grandma die (maybe).
But yeah, I think that the intertwining of game elements is critical and that many games today focus on one aspect at the expense of others. I don’t really know how I feel about Braid in particular…. it captured me, but I do tend to build my own story bridges and expand upon details in my mind (whether in movies, games, books…) to sort of color in vague or implied or limited storylines, the result of which is that I come away with the impression that everything is “better” or “more developed” than it probably actually is. I suppose in that sense Braid was good for my imagination, as I was imagining possible story threads and meanings throughout. I think what I came away with from that game is much more general an idea than a plot (i.e. I do not think the princess necessarily represents what Jon Blow tells you it does). I respect the game’s ability to let me do that, but I also would have appreciated a more integrated or hinted-at storyline throughout (maybe would have made me like it more).
I love hearing Alec’s views on stories in games, because I think he is fairly unique in the approach and in the degree to which he considers these elements in the construction of his games, and I believe that his games flourish for it.
Colin Northway wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“^ this terrifies me, haha”
And I don’t understand why I don’t see story in games. I _love_ movies. I spend way too much time watching movies, which are all story, character, and visual experience. But I rarely notice any of these things in games.
I think there is a chance that _my_ story is more important to me than the author’s story. The spontaneous things that happen to me and that I do. What stories do you tell people when you tell other people about something that happened in a game? Do you tell them the author’s plot or do you tell them about when you set off the giant rock trap and lured a shopkeeper into it’s path so you could steal all his stuff?
Alex Churchill wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I think the division between story and gameplay is bridged most effectively by some games in a couple of genres you haven’t mentioned: visual novels and interactive fiction (text adventures).
Pure visual novels are all about the story: often due to the history of the genre that’s a romance story, which character will end up with who. But they obtain the most identification between player and protagonist of any genre I can think of, because (when done well) it feels like the choices you’re making are really affecting the character’s life.
I’m almost more interested in so-called “hybrid visual novels”, though: these are games with gameplay in a more traditional genre such as RPG, TBT or shoot-’em-up, but with significant story-driven sections interspersed with the gameplay. While the division between the two styles can sound unnatural, it’s actually very common to have the plot cutscenes in pre-3D RPGs such as Final Fantasy etc to be done in visual novel style. But true hybrid VNs go beyond that and do things like allow choices made in the game to affect the plot of the visual novel sections as well as vice versa – and at that point, you’ve got truly compelling involvement of the player. (This was one of my goals when writing my VN-with-slight-RPG-sections Elven Relations.)
You don’t have to have much by way of VN content to achieve this, of course. The awesome free Metroidvania game Iji lets the player make significant choices through the way you play the game, that has effects both large and small on the plot and the comments of other characters. And that kind of variation is the biggest source of replay value I know of.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm
16: I think I agree to a point, games are definitely “story generators”. (some more than others)
But I still find myself drawn to games where this is more authorial intent, rather than a series of events that you could weave into a story. I mean, setting a trap for the shopkeeper in Spelunky makes for a great story, but a lot of Spelunky games aren’t that interesting as far as stories are concerned.
e.g. “One day I decided to go spelunking. I fell into a pit. A snake bit me. I threw a rock at it but missed. Then I missed a jump and died.”
A lot of RPGs also end up creating stories like:
“I grew up in a small town, and received a quest from the old man. I left the town for the first time since my childhood. I fought a level one goblin. I walked a bit further. I fought a level one goblin. I walked a bit further. I fought two level one goblins.”
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm
17: Dynamic plots are certainly interesting and are awesome when they’re done right – but I don’t think they’re necessarily the be all and end all of stories in games. They’re a great direction to go in, but they’re not the only direction.
I felt like Phoenix Wright was kind of a VN? The was a very story-dominated game, and I really enjoyed it. Even though the gameplay was severely limited and the story was always linear, it still managed to draw me in more than the average “lawyer tv show” does. I’m not really sure why that is…
Jacob C wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“Indie”, when thought of as a genre of music or film, is contradictory in itself. That would mean a group of musical artists, for example, fall under the same supported category of music and share identifiable similarities. That is completely counter independent. The idea that any two “independent” bands could fall under the exact same category suggests that they are not in fact independent, and do not in fact challenge musical borders. It’s pretty much the same “alternative rock” debate of the 90s. Is it grunge? Who knows! I never understood, if it is “alternative” what is it an alternative to? If it is “indie”, from what is it declaring independence?
I personally consider “independent artists” to be any self-made, self published, or otherwise self motivated and independent thinkers who create. In this regard, there could be indie scientists, and indie carpenters, etc, and every so often you get a small group of people whose creative visions synchronize, or collaborate. These people share a common goal, and although they may disagree, these disagreements, emotional in nature, only serve to augment the process, and shape the end product into something truly special.
Recently I had the chance to play ACE Team’s “Zeno Clash” from beginning to end. I think this is a perfect example for a group sharing a creative vision. From my understanding during the development process it started off as an open world known as Zenozoik. Over time, the developers shrank this world, and the game now features a focused story, taking the player along a defined, polished path. The end product was a surreal journey unlike any other.
Derek wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Alec, are there any indie games out there right now that you feel do a good job of interweaving story with game mechanics?
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm
21: In my Storytelling talk I discussed Aquaria a little bit. I think Aquaria has a couple moments where the story and gameplay work well together, for example the Veil. It also has moments that don’t work as well, for example Li. (he could have been a lot more endearing, more like Ico for example)
I also talked about certain moments of Final Fantasy 6, like the breaking of the world, feeding Cid fish, etc.
I don’t know that there are many games that attempt to do this, though. And I don’t think I’ve really played a game that has gotten it totally right. Even FF6 which is a game that I think mixes gameplay story really well at times is full of random battles, save points and other elements that make it annoying to play through.
Actually now that I come to think of it, Cactus’ games feel really well integrated. Some of them have bits of story that flow in and out of the gameplay and improve the whole.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm
To continue my “Spelunky” thread for a minute, I think “story generator” games are awesome too. “Dwarf Fortress” is another good example. I think Spelunky is more focused towards immediate mechanics, whereas Dwarf Fortress is more of a simulation. Both can generate really interesting events that make for good stories.
I guess what I’m interested is something more in the middle between story generators and a pre-written story. Not too many games do that kind of thing well. (probably because its really tricky to get it right?)
alastair wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm
This topic ‘On narrative Delusions’ might be interesting to read (from Alex/icycalm’s site):
http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2579
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 7:57 pm
^ Not really a fan of “discussions” that use the term “idiot” to classify other viewpoints. Sorry!
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 8:08 pm
And actually to continue from what I was saying in 22, I think that while I don’t think I’ve played a game that really hits what I feel is the ideal balance between the two, I still think games tend to succeed way more than they don’t.
I suppose its an opinion to choose whether to look at a game as one whole versus a bunch of little pieces that happen to be on the same disc, but I don’t really understand the opposing viewpoint. I mean you could look at books as a whole bunch of letters that just -happen- to be on the same page, but how interesting is that?
Derek wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Yeah, no, I totally agree! I ask because I couldn’t really think of any examples myself, other than Aquaria. (Btw, even though the interactions with Li were limited, I always found him pretty endearing… like a dog that sometimes pooped on the carpet and annoyed you but also loved you unconditionally and was always available for hugs.
Storytelling is hard, making good game mechanics is hard… and I feel like integrating them is extremely hard, because they can intrude on each other in a lot of ways. It’s awesome that you are pursuing this idea.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm
27: Cool, thanks for the encouragement!
Actually there are some playthroughs of Aquaria on youtube that feature players yelling at Li. Pretty awesome! But yeah, I agree that some elements of his character worked in spite of the flaws.
I’m definitely not assuming that I’m going to achieve exactly what I’d like to see, ’cause who knows… but I might as well try, right?
Hiro wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 1:04 am
Haha
While I’m a bit of a fan of art-games like Alec likes, I think I’d like to point out that not every game is an art-game. For example, more arcadey games (wait thats a bad example..how about something like DoTA/HoN? xD )
Its like…like a game of soccer. In soccer theres no ‘story’ or ‘world’ for you to explore or do whatever in; in a game like DoTA or HoN theres a challenge or task, opposition and teamwork.
I guess really I’m more comparing multiplayer games with single player games with that analogy, but the idea kiiiinda fits in with a single-player game thats not about story… XD
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 1:12 am
^ well I’d argue that all games are or incorporate art in some form. Even if they’re not trying. It would be really hard for them not to, I think… And even if they’re soccer – there is some art to how the rules play out.
But its hard to find a game that’s just pure “soccer” recently. Maybe “Tetris” is a good example. Its a super fun game, with a great rule set and that’s it. It sold a bajillion copies because everyone loves to play it. Its a game that I love to play, but it doesn’t stick with me emotionally like some other games have.
Games that are more pure rule sets are great. I’m just saying my personal taste generally favors games that have more going on than -just- rule sets. I still love the heck out of playing great game mechanics and completely ignoring story, too. I’m not trying to argue that stories should be an essential part of every game. (although they probably already are in a sense – they all tell stories in their own way)
Clayton Grey wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 1:34 am
While agree with your sentiment, you first state “how they are made”, and you are missing a critical component which is finance. You’re making games professionally and making money, and I congratulate you on your success. That’s not to say you can’t do great work on a shoestring, this has been accomplished many times over. But that being said, such affairs tend to lack the depth and sophistication inherent in what you describe here. It doesn’t have to drive the underlying ideas, but it does make the extensive work involved in producing a higher caliber of work possible. Braid is a good example of this; the less discussed $180,000 dollars used to finance the game isn’t something people proactively discuss in their musings on the game.
I don’t like Braid much for similar reasons to what you identify – but without that capital the game wouldn’t have found the success it did – because the game is, frankly, unoriginal. It’s the plot and style of Super Mario Bros. with a time rewind mechanic. It’s not original, BUT the evocative and expressive quality of representation used gets people in the door. The gameplay is good enough, because it’s reliably consistent. Braid is a good game in the indie scene in that it is not a bad one with the level of visual polish to get the publishing attention you need to demand a voice in the marketplace and with the press.
It’s a hard business to find success on your own. You all are very lucky to have financially enabled ability to craft your own visions in the way that you are. What makes “indie – indie” is a fiscal distinction more than a qualitative one. It means decoupled from the traditional publishing model. It’s well and good to muse on the games and art debate. And while indie games have more freedom to explore those roads, there is nothing inherently indie about games as art. None the less indies have been charge with the responsibility of innovation, and it is a responsibility we should take seriously.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 2:32 am
A lot of us use “indie game developers” as a term that really means “passionate and creative game developers”… whether there is a budget or not, its not really that important. You can make amazing things with twigs or with the royal navy, the scale doesn’t really count in my opinion.
I don’t mind starving a bit to be able to make the things that I want to create. Whether or not other people like them is really up to them to figure out!
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 2:35 am
To the “all well and good to talk about games and art” – I wouldn’t be here if not for the “art” part. And really, I don’t see the “art part” as having any inherent pretension or aloofness or anything – its the pure joy of making something that means something to yourself and other people, its a mystery, its something beautiful and crazy and we shouldn’t pretend to really understand it, but at the same time we should be able to acknowledge that its there.
felix wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 6:43 am
Good piece Alec! I especially agree on the importance of keeping the (indie) games field open and varied. It’s important that creators try to build different kind of games to broaden the way we can be experience this medium. In that sense, I was especially shocked about the commenters on the IndieGames blog that were very vocally thrashing The Graveyard: http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2009/11/the_graveyard_for_free_lugaru.html. Not nice to read!
On another note, we are currently also trying to build a game starting from a theme/a meaning, rather than having a nice gamemechanic as a starting point to buil upon (which is how I used to start gameprojects). I find that it’s a really hard design challenge: to start with something you want to tell, or some meaning you want to transport through gameplay. There’s also very little design tools that can help on this process – I guess that’s because it’s also something only few people have done succesfully yet. So I would be very interested to know how your design process works. How do you build gameplay that brings players into this emotional space you want them to experience?
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 6:48 am
34: Thanks for the feedback Felix, I’ll think about that and maybe write another entry about it eventually.
Yeah, its stupid when certain games get bashed just for being different. Another comment thread that upset me was the one about Edmund on the TIGSource front page. (not worth recalling other than an example about how low some people will stoop) I could see commenting on something negatively if its an opinion or a critique based on the merits/flaws of a game that’s presented in some kind of reasonable way, but the outright aggression in some cases is upsetting.
On the other hand, its most likely that those being the stupidest are not worth responding/listening to.
Ian wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 10:27 am
@31, did you actually play all the way through braid? It sounds from your comment like you just played the first level (or the demo). The beauty of the gameplay in braid is how a really simple mechanic can be used to solve complex problems. Similar to portal, you have very few options control-wise, but there are always really clever solutions to any problem.
And hopefully you understand that the story was not a case of “I’m lazy, I’m just going to copy the plot of super mario bros and hope no one notices.” There is a story, (more than one!) although you do have to pay a lot of attention to the story/books to enjoy it fully.
Anyways, I would say the originality in the game comes from how well the time mechanics are used, ie not just coming back to life if you fall, but used to do stuff you didn’t think was possible like bringing guys back to life so you can jump on their heads twice.
I don’t think you have to make a game so abstract that parts of it couldn’t be compared to another game, if you want to be considered original.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm
36: Excellent points!
GregWS wrote a Comment on November 16, 2009 at 3:57 am
I think the comment about games often being Engineered as opposed to Written is really spot-on, and for those paying attention, I’d say it’s always noticeable. In the end, the route taken is going to be what the game is “about”, so either it will be about it’s narrative/setting/characters/themes/etc. or it will be about it’s mechanics.
That said, I think most excellent games have that solid narrative base, with mechanics built on top that are in some way relevant to that narrative. The scan visor as a mechanic in Metroid Prime is interesting because it fundamentally changes the way that Samus/you experience Tallon IV; without it, the alien world would be forever alien, and likely remain more sinister. Instead, as you scan the world you start to understand it, maybe even sympathize with it in a strange sense. That beetle that is attacking you isn’t just an enemy, it’s “X”. I think the visor also serves as a bracketing element in the sense that it really does shout to the player “look around you! this world you’re in is important!”, and that serves to highlight the game’s narrative, which is fundamentally about the history of the setting, Tallon IV.
I think Knytt Stories is another interesting game where the narrative is about the setting, and the mechanics are simply a way to engage with that setting. Walking, running, jumping, climbing, and gliding down on your umbrella all allow you to experience the world differently. The world of a KS level where all you can do is walk and mini-jump will be experienced very differently from one where you can boundlessly and freely explore the landscape.
I know you mentioned Phoenix Wright Alec, but how many traditional adventure games have you played? (and although it probably doesn’t need to be said, Phoenix Wright isn’t technically a traditional one anyway) I ask because I basically grew up on them (mostly the Space Quest and Monkey Island series), and I think they come incredibly close to perfection when speaking of stories in games. The entire experience is 100% plot driven, as anything you do has some direct plot significance; you’re never engaging in gameplay mechanics that let the story more forward, but are very separated from it. I suppose the question though is how to create this kind of ideal story-gameplay relationship outside of the very clearly defined genre of the traditional adventure game. And heck, maybe the story-gameplay relationship in those games isn’t ideal, and nostalgia is just making me think it is!
Anyway, great post Alec, always nice when these nuanced discussions come up!
Alex Churchill wrote a Comment on November 16, 2009 at 2:16 pm
To Alec in 19: Absolutely. Branching stories are a good way to get players into the game, but they’re not the only way. Telling a kickass story also works
And yes, Phoenix Wright is a good example of a visual novel.
27 & 28: I really liked Li; from time to time I’d switch Naija back to normal form and just let her and Li have a little cuddle in some particularly romantic setting
I don’t see what’s to get irritated with. I mean, it’s not like he interferes with your progress through the game, though he doesn’t help much either.
Dynamic *generation* of story for games is a very interesting prospect, but I’ve not seen anything that’s anywhere near working yet. So for the moment, for the best stories, they have to be crafted by an author.
The Monkey Islands are an interesting example of story and gameplay interaction. They’re awesome games, and there are times when the puzzles are very plot-driven, although there are times when they’re not and the disconnect between the game mechanics and the flavour gets frustrating. “Any of those ten items in your inventory would do to bash that hanging thing; which one did the developers want me to use?”. But yes, point-and-click adventures are worth remembering along with IF as another genre that can lend itself to story-driven gameplay more than most.
GregWS wrote a Comment on November 16, 2009 at 5:36 pm
@Alex: yeah, I suppose I meant to say that ‘well-designed’ adventure games don’t have gameplay/puzzles that are irrelevant to the plot. The solutions to certain puzzles can get really arbitrary in even the best games of the genre, haha.
Derek wrote a Comment on November 16, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Hey, I just thought of a couple indie games that I think integrate story and play really well – Machinarium and Hammerfight. In both games, the story is always a joy to unravel and is an incentive to play rather than an intrusion.
Funny I didn’t think of them since they both came out pretty recently.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 16, 2009 at 11:39 pm
That’s a good point. I haven’t played the new/release version of Hammerfight yet, I’ll have to give it a “whirl”. HOHO PUNS
GregWS wrote a Comment on November 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Yeah, Machinarium was one of the first things that came to mind, doubly so in the context of adventure games, but I haven’t finished it yet so I didn’t want to talk about it (same goes for Braid).
Hammerfight sounds interesting; just noticed it on the frontpage now.
R.M. 'Auros' Harman wrote a Comment on November 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for the rec on Machinarium — demo looks really cool, even just in Flash inside a browser…
I think your point about the integration of story and mechanics is really good. It’s something I’ve definitely thought about, and that got talked about somewhat in reviews I wrote or edited of games when I was the lead editor in the reviews dep’t at StrangeHorizons.com (a reasonably well-regarded online ‘zine; we were nominated for the Best Website Hugo in ’02, and a lot of the stories published the ‘zine have been nominated for or won major awards — Hugo, Nebula, Tiptree, inclusion in the Dozois or Datlow/Windling “Year’s Best” collections, etc). I’m not sure we ever put it so succinctly, though, as a statement about games in general. Though upon reflection, I think I _did_ say something very similar in a review I wrote at Amazon, about some adventure game. Possibly Zork Nemesis. Adventures in the Sierra mold or the Myst-like Interactive Movie mold are particularly sensitive to conflict between the storyline and the mechanics. Myst itself actually isn’t all that great in this regard — a lot of the “find the code for the lock” puzzles on the main island feel ridiculously contrived. If you released it today, it would likely be considered fairly humdrum; it’s considered a classic because it was breaking new ground, or at least new to most players. (There were a couple of similar titles before it, including Cyan’s own “The Manhole”.)
Unrelatedly — the site tells me that registration is currently not allowed, so I can’t create a profile for quickly providing my comment metadata in future… Is there a reason for that?
R.M. 'Auros' Harman wrote a Comment on November 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Oh, and I should add, before any Myst-fans jump down my throat, that I think Cyan learned from its mistakes — Riven still stands as one of the best interactive movie games ever. And Exile, while not as good as Riven, was still superb. (I actually haven’t played IV and V yet; I bought them about two years ago, intending to play them with my then-gf, now-fiancee, but we’ve never gotten around to it; we always seem to have other things to do when we’re together, and mostly only play games when one of us is out of the house and the other one’s kicking around at home at loose ends.)
Kaworu Nagisa wrote a Comment on November 18, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’ve really enjoyed the post. I adore your peaceful spirit and positive attitude. I might be wrong as I’m just judging basing on what I read (after all, that’s how much I know you) but in my opinion it takes a dreamer to believe that people should support each other and create the environment in which creative ideas (both good and bad) can be appreciated to the fullest, instead of being criticized as different or, well, too different. And I can agree with that. Mistakes lead to solutions. Which, in creative arts, creates little space for actual mistakes.
Surprisingly, I do not wait so much for Marian as I look forward for some small, little games you could create. Hopefully, one day, you will. Maybe it’s because one big project can just fail or succeed, while dozen of projects have a this chance for each and every one of them. And this seems much more exciting to me. At least for today.
Good luck!
Kriss wrote a Comment on November 22, 2009 at 6:13 am
You do know, in your deepest heart that the graveyard isn’t an actual game?
Why call it a game?
Why not call it an opera, or a painting, or a piece of pottery?
The creators don’t even care if you call it a game, they don’t even *want* to make a game and show very little respect for the medium outside of its ability to promote their work.
Yes, game is a very overloaded term but it seems obvious that the reason it and their other work is presented as a game is due to the gullibility of the gamer press and the need for people such as yourself to answer the “games as art” question.
A question that is neither about art or games but more a quest for journalistic validation.
Personally I just find it all incredibly offensive.
Anyway don’t kid yourself, Indie has always been a meaningless label and one that will not scale. Just take heart in the knowledge that more games are being made by more people than ever before. These are good times to be creative.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 22, 2009 at 7:23 am
Hmm, so am I correct in assuming that you’re asserting that I’m mainly trying to seek so-called “journalistic validation” by sharing my thoughts on this matter?
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 22, 2009 at 7:53 am
I believe “The Graveyard” is a game. It may be a very simple game when analyzed purely from the perspective of mechanics, but just because a game has a very narrow ruleset, it doesn’t follow that it is not a “game”.
I also don’t think that a creator has to create a work with a specific label in mind to have it be categorized as one thing or another by other people. Whether those other people are right or wrong is a matter of debate, but once a work is released, everyone is free to discuss their opinions of it. The creator effectively gives up the right to control what is thought of their work when it is released.
Whether a creator has respect for a community or their own work or the pope or Cheezits also does not have any bearing on how their work as its own entity is classified.
And in this case in particular, “The Graveyard” has been released as a game, has been reviewed as a game, and is considered by many to be a game. The debate over whether or not it is a good game does not correlate to whether or not it is in fact “a” game. I have not yet seen a reasoned argument about why it is not a game, simply agressive attacks towards it that claim it is not a game as if stating that was a witty insult.
And yes, maybe you would feel more comfortable if we used a term other than “game” to describe certain games that you do not happen to enjoy, but this is the term we have to work with. I don’t mind that it has come to mean more than chess or soccer, but this is a fact that we all accept when we make and play video games. We put art and stories and music into our games. It may be of varying ratios, but we all do it. Very few of us are making computer games that are purely, only mechanics. (see “The Marriage” for one of the closest examples to pure mechanic with very little in-game context [I am of course not including the extensive out-of-game mechanics applied by the author])
I’m also terribly confused about why you would find a creator talking about his particular views on art “offensive”, especially if you are referring to my views. As stated, I have a very open view of art and I consider many things to be art. Games simply fall under that. It is not a question to me in the slightest, its simply a fact. Whether or not a particular game is “good art” on the other hand, is something I would consider to be terribly subjective, and not something that is likely to ever reach an objective conclusion through debate.
I find it, quite frankly, ridiculous that some people are offended by the notion of games being art. Its a waste of energy to feel agression or offense towards people who share a different viewpoint than yourself.
What would be a useful application of that energy would be explaining – in a positive light, what you think is important to explore in this medium. That way others would have a chance to experience your views as an alternative to whatever views you find so inappropriate.
The other benefit of this approach is that you open the door to allowing common understanding and the exchange and synthesis of ideas, which is a quite valuable result to an interaction with a fellow human.
Lorne wrote a Comment on November 22, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I’ve been thinking about this sort of thing recently as well and I reached a relatively similar conclusion.
I figured that if movies can be broken down into audio and visual components that videogames are just an added layer of interaction.
And that all you needed to do to make videogames with meaning would be to have the elements mix together in interesting ways or – like The Marriage – just make one or more of the elements vague.
However I don’t really feel that this is the way that games should be evolving because interactivity is still so undeveloped compared to the other two components. Video has loads of different camera angles and editing tricks and filters etc. Audio is even more developed, just look at all the different genres that exist.
I think that the interactivity definitely has to be more evolved because at the moment most of the interactions in games are just collisions. Once we get past this though I think we’ll see some really great works of art that are uniquely games.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 22, 2009 at 7:33 pm
50: I agree with you for the most part, but I think you’re a bit confused about what I’m saying. I’m not saying games should evolve to become uniformly story-driven games or that games need to evolve in any specific direction.
I’d rather see games evolve in all directions. Whether or not something has more story or more interaction, I think there’s still a good chance that it can be a valuable experience.
So yes, more games with more interesting interaction, more games with more interesting story integration, more games with strange/unique art styles. More of all of that would be good, I think.
Lorne wrote a Comment on November 23, 2009 at 4:45 am
^ Yea, there definitely should be variation in the way videogames evolve. I suppose I was just saying that I’m not sure how games would manage new forms story integration with the mechanics that are around at the moment.
Although, I guess if someone worked on a new way to present the story in a game they would probably come up with their own mechanics.
And there are examples of games that use preexisting mechanics to do some cool stuff, The Unfinished Swan is one of my favorite.
I also like your point about truth in art. It reminds me of “real people music”. I can’t wait till people start making the game equivalent of this:
http://www.swanfungus.com/2009/06/jr-and-his-soulettes-psychodelic-sounds.html
This whole discussion is really cool too, compared to the “games as art” discussions of just a year ago it looks like the indie scene is getting somewhere.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on November 23, 2009 at 5:12 am
^ I see what you’re saying now, that’s a good point.
And that album is pretty amazing, wow.