Archive for the ‘Game Design’ Category

Resident Evil 4 Wii edition

Sunday, July 1st, 2007

I picked up the Wii version of RE4 two days ago. I have only spent some 4 hours with the game so far, but I am extremely pleased with how the port turned out. It looks exactly like the GC version (which was beautiful), but plays much better. The Wiimote is spot on for aiming and shooting and although the controls are not as good as mouselook for look and aim it is definitely blowing two-stick controls to pieces.

The game’s controls really prove that the Wiimote has enough precision for shooting games (I can’t wait to play “Metroid Prime 3: Corruption”). And with this precision it also proves that it would be great for controlling games in other genres in a more intuitive way. I would, for instance, love to see “Pikmin 3” on the Wii.


A Life of videogaming

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

Yesterday I went downtown and finally bought myself a Wii. The night was spent with Wii Sports and Rayman: Raving Rabbids and today I am a bit sore in my arms – throwing cows in Rayman can be exhausting…

The Wii is the latest in a long string of videogaming computers and consoles that I have owned or had around. Currently I have a Wii, a PS2, a DS, a Gamecube and a Gameboy Advance at home. There have been others as well. Here is a timeline on my gaming history.

Texas Instruments TI-99/4A

My father broughts home one of those around 1981. I was about 9 and I was instantly hooked. Initially, we played TI Invaders (A “Space Invaders” clone) on the family black and white TV, but soon I picked up other games, such as:

Soon I wanted to do my own games, and did a few – in TI Basic.

Commodore 64

I never owned a C64, nor did my father buy one. I had friends that did have one, however, and we played tons and tons of games on that machine. A few gems that come to mind are:

Me and a friend wanted to make games for the machine, but we aimed too high and never finished anything.

Amiga 500

Bought around 1987, this was my first own computer. I sticked with it for the upcoming years and played lots and lots of games on it.

Games I especially remember from the Amiga period was:

Amiga 1200

I upgraded to the A1200 in 1993 and focused more on programming, but there was a lot of games played as well. A few of them were:

Nintendo 64

When I bought the N64 in 1998, it was because of the fantastic “Ocarina of Time”. Since then, gaming has changed a bit for me. It has moved away from the desktop and into the livingroom. Notable N64 games:

The PC

I bought a PC in 1999 and ran Linux on it from the start. I also kept a Windows installation for the occasional game, but most games were played from the sofa by this time.

Playstation 2

I bought the PS2 around 2001. The reason? Well, if you like games you can’t affort not to have one. There are just too many fantastic games out there for this little machine. Just to name a few:

Game Boy Advance

I bought the GBA around 2001 and played it a lot while commuting to Uppsala and my work at Starbreeze. It was also handy to bring along on vacations. On the GBA, I had the chance to pick up some classic Nintendo releases, for example:

Apple iBook

Bought in 2003 to replace my PC. I looked for a system that allowed me to run the stuff I ran under Linux and also allow me to run programs such as Photoshop. OS X was my choice and I have never regretted it. Not much games are played on my macs, but there are a few:

Gamecube

I bought the Gamecube in 2003, again because of the latest Zelda game. The machine has brought a string of great titles, for example:

iMac G5

This machine bought in 2005 is now my main workstation. I don’t do almost any gaming on it, though. Just the occasional interactive fiction or emulation.

Xbox 360

I was never even tempted to buy an Xbox, and when the 360 was released I never bothered too much. Starbreeze, however provided me with one in 2006 and I had it at home until I left the company in March 2007. I didn’t play very many games on the 360 and the following list is actually all the games I played on it (including one Xbox title).

Nintendo DS Lite

I really liked my GBA, but hated that the screen was not backlit. Then the DS came and it seemed nice, but looked like s**t. But the DS Lite was love at first sight and I bought one as soon as it was released in 2006. Now, I have not played very many original DS games, but mostly replayed a bunch of my old GBA titles.

Nintento Wii

Bought yesterday (May 9, 2007). I initially wanted to get one at launch with “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess”, but there was serious shortage of consoles and the game was available for the Gamecube. So I bought the GC version (I’m almost finished) and postponed the Wii purchase until now.

It is too soon to list any games for the Wii, but I suspect that I will use it as I have used my other machines – to play both new games and classics that was originally released for another older console. For one, I really want to play “Wind Waker” again.

[EDIT: Eventually, I bought a Xbox 360 and a couple of months ago, I purchased a Playstation 3. Half a year ago, I also got an iPod Touch.]


Towards a theory of game narrative

Thursday, November 30th, 2006

How can we tell more compelling and moving stories in games? This is a question that I guess many of us in the industry are thinking a lot about. There are a number of books out there that tell us all about story arcs, characterization and so forth. Most of these ideas come from the theater and movie writing and there has been attempts to transfer this knowledge into the domain of games. And whereas the skills of characterization, dialog and story structure are as crucial in games as in movies or theater, there are problems and differences that need to be addressed. There are technical problems that arise with the addition to player interaction, multiple choices and so forth and there are content problems that arise with branching story lines. Some of those issues, I have written about in the past, trying to point to means of keeping consistency, controlling damage and hiding the seams in a game. This article tries a more basic take on the fundamentals of game narrative.

Storytellers and processors

Humans are exceptional storytellers and story processors. If you reflect a minute on how much story you are exposed to during a single day you will probably end up on a quite high number. We read books, we watch TV-shows and movies. And we play games. In addition to that we tell a lot of stories, both to each other and to ourselves. Each time we tell a piece of gossip or an anecdote we create that information into a story, and we do that without really thinking about it. Also, our lives turn into stories in our heads as we live along (this is called the narrative paradigm). So everything we do and experience turn into stories, most of which never leave our head. Many clinicians even claim that creating a coherent story of a traumatic event and incorporating this into the self-representation is crucial for the successful treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. So storytelling is not only fundamental in our social behavior but probably also very important for our well-being.

So we are all a grand pack of storytellers that consume huge amounts of stories. Now, my knowledge in cognitive and neuropsychology is extremely limited, but I wonder what the differences are between the stories we consume and those we produce, and the reason I wonder is related to game narrative. It seems reasonable to believe that one function of our consumption of stories is to enhance our understanding of the world and the people around us. We can call those “external” stories since they are about other people. We also produce stories to project that understanding to other people (by retelling gossip and such), but we also produce stories as a means of self-reflection, to bring structure and sense to our lives. Those we can call “internal” stories because they are about ourselves. Interestingly, some people turn their internal stories into biographies and those turn into external stories when they reach the reader.

Internal game narrative

I have quite distinct memories of the game The Star of Africa that me and my brother and sisters played when we were kids. In this simple board game, the players are explorers who search the continent of Africa for precious gems; the ultimate goal is to find the huge African Star diamond and take it back to Cairo or Tangiers. I remember being sucked into the world of that game and it was thrilling to envision oneself traveling between countries. So as we played the game, I created a story about myself traveling in Africa.

“The Star of Africa” is by no means the only board game that have triggered my imagination and caused me to start making stories as I played along. It might even be that children playing such simple games as Ludo create stories as they go along – I really don’t know. What I do know though, is that when you play at least certain board games, stories are created in the minds of the players. Now, it seems reasonable to believe that playing a video game is not very different. When we run around in “Ratchet & Clank”, “Halo” or “Zelda”, I believe we produce internal stories out of the setting, the game play events and our actions.

External game narrative

When we think of game stories, we probably like to think of them quite similarly to stories in other media. Game stories contain the same elements as movies and books: a protagonist, a conflict and hopefully a few good characters that develop during the game. But it’s not just similarities. The most prominent difference is usually the scale of the story, which in games differ quite much from the ones in a typical movie. Game stories are longer and in some respects more complex than a two hour flick, which can be attributed to game play time.

The usual narrative tools available to tell stories in games are almost the same as in movies. Cinematic cutscenes are probably the most common, but games frequently bring the story into in-game events and conversations with NPC characters as well. Sometimes NPC communication becomes part of the game mechanics (see “Fahrenheit” for example, where dialog is time limited). But either way, the narrative in a game is almost always written by a writer and can thus be seen as a purely external story.

Now the big questions: what are the differences and similarities between internal and external stories? Can the two of them co-exist within the same frame? And is it possible for a player to merge the internal story she creates while exploring “Gears of War” and the one that is told to her in the cinematic cut-scenes?

The gap between internal and external narrative

I believe that there is a gap between the internal stories we make and the external ones we consume, and I believe that the boundaries between them are sensitive. I have a distinct feeling that the Link I’m controlling in “Zelda” is not quite the same Link as the one who appear in the cinematic sequences. I know in my head that they are the same character. He has the same name, the same clothes and moves the same – and he probably even smells the same. But I intuitively know that Link’s emotions are not the same when I control him as when the game controls him. And that feeling is quite close at hand, even though we try ignore it. When I control Link, his feelings and experiences are synonymous with mine. He is just a “shell” that I step into. I am the entity that takes possession of his body. In the narrative sequences something or someone else is taking my place and instantly the boundaries between the internal and external stories are exposed.

Now, even if the boundaries are exposed (as they are in most narrative games), perhaps there are means of eliminating the problem. Perhaps humans are perfectly capable of dealing with multiple “modes” of narrative within the same frame and they only need the right cues so they can join their experiences into one powerful narrative. It is perfectly possible that the problem is just a matter of learning – that players are becoming increasingly better at merging internal and external stories – and that it is just me who sucks at it and feels bad when my gaming experience is disrupted. But until someone finds out how these things really work in the minds of players, we can only guess. It would be possible to do experimental research and gather evidence that could help us draw better conclusions. Perhaps this information and research already exists, but I haven’t seen it.

To expose the gap – or not to?

During the production of “Riddick”, we tried to follow a narrative design where the Riddick who appeared in cutscenes did not act by himself. We failed at a few places in the game, but nevertheless I believe that the idea was sound: the game should not mess with the character on its own since the player is in control over him. At the time, I did not think of this in terms of internal or external stories, but the idea made sense anyhow. However, where the philosophy we followed in “Riddick” (and continues in “The Darkness”) is about player choices, the more generic idea of internal and external stories has even deeper consequences since it is about player narrative experience. Even if the design of “Riddick” tries to allow the player to stay “in character” mechanically, I believe the boundaries between the internal and external stories are exposed constantly. For example, we put Riddick on the screen in situations where the player was not in control (i.e. he figured in cinematics) and we put words in Riddick’s mouth in dialog sequences.

Could we then avoid exposing the gap altogether? I think so. In “Ratchet & Clank”, there are some cinematic sequences that begin with a sign saying “Meanwhile…” In those cinematics, the player character (Ratchet) is not present. We could have redesigned the narrative flow in “Riddick” in the same way by showing cinematics that explain the upcoming challenges. However, there is a problem with this approach. We deliberately wanted to keep Riddick in the camera view at all times in the game. The reason was that the player and the on-screen Riddick character should share the same knowledge. A “meanwhile…” sequence would give the player information that the on-screen character would not have. There are ways around this, of course.

Chances are that by now you do understand the problems I am talking about, but either think that I am wrong or that I am nitpicking. Who cares about all this phycho nonsense? Shouldn’t game stories be all about fun and exitement and first class cinematic experiences?

Yes, they should! I think it is important not to get lost in philosophical arguments about the player’s role and experience of narrative – at least if you’re into creating games. Also, I would trade a perfect example of problem free, but dull narrative against a vivid, fun and exciting game full of narrative flaws any day! But we are in the process of discovering narrative in a medium that we do not fully understand. Neither do we fully understand how the medium affects us and how we affect its affection to us! Just as other media has developed conventions and rules (the idea of the fourth wall, for example) over the years, we need rules and conventions that are efficient. Tailor-made tools that allow us to focus on the fun and thrilling aspects of narrative: story, structure, characterization and dialog. If we know that the stories we create land in one whole package in the minds and hearts of our gamers – our stories will rock them!


Bears of war

Monday, November 20th, 2006

Starbreeze concept artist and friend Mattias Snygg has written a review of Gears of War that really gets to the primal core of the game – sort of. I’m sure he’s gonna piss the heck out of a number of readers, but that’s what usually happens when you rip the veil from the eyes of the innocent and they get to squeeze the muscles of truth.

Now I’m eagerly waiting for “Dead or Alive: Arnold in Lace”. Thanks Mattias!


The split personality of Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy)

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

The game Fahrenheit is old news, I know. I played through the demo when the game was released and never got to playing through the full game. However, the last few days I have been home with the flu, lying in my couch unable to work. “What an excellent opportunity to get through one of those unplayed games,” I thought and dropped the Fahrenheit disc into my Playstation, took a sip of hot tea and grabbed the controller.

First of all I want to recommend the game to those of you who haven’t played it. It’s a well made, well told adventure story game (the developers prefer to call is “interactive film”). I really enjoyed it and was truly impressed with many parts and aspects. However, most good things have flaws – especially games. First of all, I was a bit put off with how the story unfolded. From the beginning, the storyline is tight and interesting. It moves on a personal level bringing me as a player close to the characters. Later on, however, it explodes into grandeur and “way too many elements and twists”. I think the turning point is somewhere around the awkward “Silence of the Lambs” reference. I still wonder why game stories seems to be destined to become overloaded with elements and themes. I mean, serial killers, the Mayan culture, secret orders, strange artifacts, secret military research, Armageddon and AI. Come on! Furthermore, I was not very keen on the “self awareness” game references. One of the characters repeatedly states that “it feels like I’m in a videogame” and it just kills the mood for me. This is a shame because Fahrenheit has shitloads of great mood and excellent story moments.

Story from Multiple Views

The game is told in a non-linear fashion with story branches here and there. Most of them seem to lead back onto the main track, but there is enough back-references to the choices you make to keep the illusion alive. However, one aspect of the non-linearity puzzled me.

Through the game, you alter between the various main characters of the game. The method of character switching is nothing new (see “Eternal Darkness”, for instance) but Fahrenheit does a thing that seemed very strange at first.

I first noticed it during a scene where Tyler Miles (one of the main characters) is questioning the waitress from the first murder scene. I moved through the dialog choices and was suddenly presented with an option to give her answer as well. Through the game, this happens a few times: the player is playing both sides of a conversation at the same time.

I thought about this and wondered what the design intention could have been.

Either the game is just moving its point of view rapidly, or something far more elaborate is going on. If the former is the intention, the designer might not have thought it was a difference between shifting character between chapters (as is the normal case in the game) and shifting characters arbitrarily. There are a few other sequences where the player is able to shift character in the middle of an action sequence, but in those cases it is by player choice. It is also clear in those sequences that you are playing two characters “at the same time”, so to speak.

The Tyler-Waitress scene it is different though. The player is given no hint that the game is shifting focus and is just presented with a “Yes” and “No” dialog option. It is up to the player to realize that the option does not belong with Tyler but with the waitress. This, as I though about it, was a quite serious design flaw.

However, as I continued to think about it, a more interesting conclusion appeared. I figured that perhaps the game is doing something much more intricate than just shifting focus?

Propelling the Storyline

“What if the one driving the story of the game is me?”

It might not seem that this question is getting us anywhere. Isn’t it so that the player in any game is driving the story? Well, in a way that is true. However, most games seem to give the player a somewhat different role. The fuction of the player is partially to drive the story forwards, but the role is different. In Fahrenheit, I initially felt that my role was that of Lucas Kane. Then perspective shifted and my role was that of Lucas Kane, Carla Valenti and Tyler Miles – alternating. Then more views were added and suddenly I lost my sense of having any role in the game – other than driving the story forwards. And there’s the key! Being the story-propellor can in itself be a player role. Quite an interesting realization. Suddenly I was sitting in the lap of the narrator, turning the pages. I was not part of the story – I was playing it like a toy.

Now, I don’t really believe that the designers of Fahrenheit intended that the player should have this role. If it indeed was a deliberate design choice I’d have to say it was a clever one, although the implementation and realization of the idea haltered. It could have been much clearer and stronger. If the player is given a story to toy with, I reckon there should be more options and buttons to push – but that’s just me. I’d also love to try out a scenario and then be able to backtrack and investigate a different route without disrupting the flow of the game (I can do this by selecting to replay chapters from the main menu, but it’s too clumsy).

All in all I think that Quantic Dream did a fantastic job with Fahrenheit. It is a great game that provides a fresh and bold take on narrative in games. It is not without flaws but contains enough interesting gameplay and storytelling to be a source of inspiration and learning for game designers and writers alike.