Warren Spector's Soapbox Thread

[felipepepe]

So making games has developed into an existencial crysis... how post-modern.

 

[Infinitron]

So making games has developed into an existencial crysis... how post-modern.

Holy crap these people are degenerates: http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2013/04/a-letter-to-letter.html

mechanics are often boring / limit what authors can do with games.

 

[felipepepe]

Meh, just a retarded nodody that shouldn't be ever given voice again.

 

[Machocruz]

I'm kind of sick of 'geek candy' myself, in all media. At least Romero had something to say with his zombies. But sometimes it works. Silent Hill 2 is orders of magnitude more profound and relevant than Bioshock Insolent.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

So making games has developed into an existencial crysis... how post-modern.

Holy crap these people are degenerates: http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2013/04/a-letter-to-letter.html

mechanics are often boring / limit what authors can do with games.

The guy basically says that saying his "games" aren't actually games is a form of "well-intentioned oppression", and that criticism he doesn't like constitutes harassment. I don't even...

 

[felipepepe]

Silent Hill 2 is orders of magnitude more profound and relevant than Bioshock Insolent.

Gamespot on SH2:

Silent Hill 2 is a much prettier, somewhat smarter but less-compelling game than the original. Those who had hopes that the sequel would improve upon every aspect of Silent Hill will be disappointed, because it doesn't. But high expectations aside, you're still left with a sturdy game.

7.7

Ow how the times have changed...

 

[Machocruz]

Bioshock Infinite is a much prettier, somewhat dumber but less-compelling game than the original. Those who had hopes that this sequel would improve upon every aspect of Bioshock 1 and 2 will be disappointed, because it doesn't. But high expectations aside, you're still left with a sturdy game.

11.11/10

 

[Infinitron]

Spector responded to some people's comments: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...niche-medium-that-overcharges-for-its-product

Available technology doesn't allow more sophisticated character interaction. We need natural language processing and NPCs that exhibit body language to get banter that's not pre-scripted and truly responsive NPCs.

There's no question that, as software developers we are and always will be limited in what we can do by the technology we have available. Having said that, we've faced very few technical problems we couldn't solve (or at least fake our way around) once we put our collective minds to the task.

The problem with the technology argument is that it doesn't take into account how few of us even try to solve the problems of enhanced non-combat AI and more robust conversation systems. I'm not saying we WOULD succeed in solving the very real problems associated with more compelling non-combat AI and more compelling ways to interact with "smarter" characters. And I agree that those are two critical elements in getting to the kind of games and game stories I'd like to see. What I KNOW is that we won't solve those problems or make those games until and unless we choose to make them a priority.

We need our smartest people and our most forward-thinking publishers working on this stuff, not just on prettier pictures and higher frame rates (both of which we need, too, of course!)

Our existing tools lead to development of certain types of games more easily than others. Simulating the pull of a virtual trigger is easy and fun to repeat thousands of times, as required in any game. Making highly complex software is hard and focusing on technical problems, even in relatively simple games, inevitably results in minimized creative risk.

Easy is great. Easy reduces risk. Tackling hard problems is scary and a lot of work. We might fail. I get it.

But what's the penalty for failure in the game business? We don't go to war because a game fails. No one dies. Cancer doesn't go uncured.

The penalty for failure is that someone loses money. More seriously, people - maybe lots of people - lose their jobs. I'm happy to minimize the former but not the latter. I'm not arguing that everyone should go crazy and stop making the kinds of games that are proven successes. I'm arguing that SOME people should do so - those who can afford to take the risk.

I'd also argue that whatever constraints you are forced to work within, you can always sneak SOMETHING past the moneyed interests. It's possible to do One Crazy Thing even in the context of an otherwise completely conventional game.

We just have WANT to do it and not be content with the status quo.

The industry puts too much emphasis on a few individuals (executives, advertisers, etc.) and not enough on characters, programmers, QA, etc.

There's no question that a few high profile, semi-celebrities dominate the public discussion of games and game development. There's no question that lots of deserving team members get far less attention than they deserve.

The interesting thing is that few media outlets are interested in the "real" story behind a game's development - their readers and viewers, they say, want a simple story not an accurate one. I remember back in the Underworld and System Shock days, Doug Church and I wrote an account of how that game was made - i.e., that it didn't spring full formed from my fevered imagination! Guess what? We couldn't get anyone to run the story. It was a classic case of "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." (If you don't get that reference, go watch John Ford's film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance immediately...)

Are people intimidated by art - especially an art where they can "screw up" in a way they can't in traditional, non-interactive media?

This was a really interesting comment, one I hadn't considered. The closest I can come to answering this question is that there may be a real problem here.

The truth that dare not be spoken about games is that playing games is work. It's engaging work, to be sure, but work nonetheless. It ISN'T as easy to play a game as it is to plant yourself in a comfy chair and watch a movie or let a TV show wash over you, or listen to a favorite piece of music or even read a book.

The work aspect of games will, I suspect, always limit our audience to some extent. I've always said we're not a mainstream medium but, rather, a niche medium that overcharges for its product. Still, the growth of the gaming audience is apparent and to keep it going we have to broaden the range of our content.

Yes, some people will be intimidated by games and by more challenging games (challenging in the participatory sense, and the content presented, NOT in the skills-required-to-succeed sense). But we can't worry about the people who will never be won over by games. We have to try to reach those who CAN be won over but won't be until we stop insisting they jump and shoot to rescue a kidnapped princess.

 

[DragoFireheart]

So Skyway is really Warren Spector. Interesting.

 

[Infinitron]

Interview at RPS: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/14/warren-spector-on-life-after-mickey-going-no-weapons/

RPS: When people hear your name, they think Deus Ex. But that hasn’t been “you” for quite some time. What, specifically, made you want to leave that side of game development behind?

Spector: I left Ion Storm because it just felt like I didn’t fit at Eidos. Eidos took control of Ion Storm at one point, and they were making games like 25 to Life and On the Mic and Hitman 3 and Crash and Burn. I just didn’t want to make games like that. I was at a point where I thought it would be fun to do my own thing for a while, where I could either go out of business or do the games I wanted to do.

RPS: Since then, you’ve gone from being the authority on tough guys in trench coats to their most outspoken opponent. But, I mean, are you really over that stuff?

Spector: My geek credentials are in good order, you know? I love fantasy games and I love science fiction. I love real-world near-future kinds of stuff. But I wanted a change of pace. After Ultima Underworld and Ultima VII: Serpent Isle, I was so sick of fantasy. I “never wanted to do another fantasy game” at that point. So I started doing some science fiction stuff, which I liked. After a couple of Deus Ex games, I wanted to do something different again. People expect you to fit in a slot. A square peg only goes in a square hole. But I wanted to do something different.

RPS: Speaking of, um, the opposite of doing something different, a lot of industry pioneers are now launching Kickstarters and going back to their roots. As someone who’s fought so hard to push beyond a perceived “box,” what’s your take on that trend?

Spector: I certainly understand it. I look back on the games I’ve worked on and I have very fond memories of Deus Ex and System Shock and Underworld. Those are an important part of my life. Would I revisit them in the sense of, “Hey, let’s put some pretty graphics on an old game”? No.

Well, OK, if someone gave me the opportunity – I guess it would have to be EA – to go back and take some of the ideas behind an Underworld or a System Shock, I’d have to think pretty seriously about that, for sure.

RPS: During your talk, you said that we don’t really create worlds anymore. Just sets. I think that’s one of the things that a lot of people reviving classics with Kickstarters are trying to bring back: the sheer scope and possibility that came along with smaller productions and budgets.

Spector: Yeah, absolutely. We’ve put so much emphasis on graphics and on amazing sound… We have lost something. I don’t know that it was necessary to lose it, but we have. It’s so much easier to create that feeling that you’re in a world and make a world rich and interactive when you’re dealing with 2D graphics, or really simple 3D graphics. Doing an immersive simulation like we did back in the Ultima Underworld days with modern technology and modern hardware, it would cost $100 million. I really do understand why people are doing it. I’d like to see us try and do it in the context of modern tech and modern hardware. But that’s going to be tough to pull off.

RPS: In terms of bringing back some of that spirit or that experimentation, there’s also the indie scene. But during your talk, you also said you’re not sure if it’ll make any significant impact on more mainstream games.

Spector: It’s not really that I’m not sure it can. Maybe I misspoke. It hasn’t so far, and I don’t see any signs that it’s going to. I certainly hope it can. I hope it does start affecting some of the more mainstream games. It just hasn’t yet. And I’m not sure I see the path. I’m not sure I see the way it happens.

One other thing about worlds: I don’t want people to get the wrong impression. I’m probably going to be talking about that quite a bit, actually, for a while now. When people think about worlds, virtual worlds, they think about enormous, fully explorable, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, that stuff. I’ve never done that. I never wanted to do it. Well, that’s not true. Back in the Ultima days, that’s kind of what we did. But around the time of Underworld and System Shock and Deus Ex, I got a lot more interested in really deeply simulated smaller spaces. I’d rather do something that’s an inch wide and a mile deep than something that’s a mile wide and an inch deep. I want to create worlds, but by “worlds” I mean someplace where every object is interactable. The NPCs actually have something to do other than kill you. Every door can be opened and there’s a reason to open them. That’s what I mean by creating world. It’s not about size and scope, it’s about depth and interactivity.

 

[evdk]

Does not explain why he made a game that was inch wide and inch deep with a ventilation shaft tacked on nonsensically.

 

[Infinitron]

Spector: In Epic Mickey, it was a couple of things. It was the dynamically changeable environment. As far as I know there had never been and still has never been another game where you can dynamically remove and restore parts of the terrain, characters, objects, that sort of thing.

 

[felipepepe]

Even The Sims let me do that, so I won't even bring up Scribblenauts or other stuff like that...

 

[evdk]

Even The Sims let me do that, so I won't even bring up Scribblenauts or other stuff like that...

Now, now, that does not fit the self aggrandizing narrative. Spector's biggest act of world building is his own life story.

 

[Infinitron]

MINECRAFT ffs

Judging from the interview, I think he doesn't count non-AAA games as real games, which kinda contrasts with his rebellious anti-mainstream image

 

[evdk]

The Skyway parallel is really uncanny.

 

[tuluse]

Just make a 1st person sneaking game Warren. You can easily impose your "no weapons" rule.

MINECRAFT ffs

Judging from the interview, I think he doesn't count non-AAA games as real games, which kinda contrasts with his rebellious anti-mainstream image

He probably started production on Epic Mickey before Minecraft was a thing. So in this case, I think he can slide by. It doesn't change the fact that god games going all the way back let you modify terrain. I know Sim City would be a huge obvious early example. Maybe Populous would be the first, I never played it, just guessing here.

 

[Lancehead]

One other thing about worlds: I don’t want people to get the wrong impression. I’m probably going to be talking about that quite a bit, actually, for a while now. When people think about worlds, virtual worlds, they think about enormous, fully explorable, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, that stuff. I’ve never done that. I never wanted to do it. Well, that’s not true. Back in the Ultima days, that’s kind of what we did. But around the time of Underworld and System Shock and Deus Ex, I got a lot more interested in really deeply simulated smaller spaces. I’d rather do something that’s an inch wide and a mile deep than something that’s a mile wide and an inch deep. I want to create worlds, but by “worlds” I mean someplace where every object is interactable. The NPCs actually have something to do other than kill you. Every door can be opened and there’s a reason to open them. That’s what I mean by creating world. It’s not about size and scope, it’s about depth and interactivity.

Not much to disagree here, but TES is (at least pre-Oblivion) mile deep and mile long rich simulated world. Gothic series can be counted too.

 

[J1M]

Red Faction (2001).

I was going to ask why he never did any of these innovative things he likes to soap box about. Turns out he just doesn't know anything about the industry he works in and refuses to research it, so everything feel innovative.

 

[felipepepe]

Considering that God-Emperor Avellone never had played Arcanum and fails HORRIBLY! OMG, HOW BAD CAN YOU BE when trying, it wouldn't suprise me if Warren had a extremelly limited gaming repertoire, especially on anything non-AAA or released after the 2000s...

 

[Jedi Exile]

I'm starting to think that Mr. Spector is overrated.

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

Well, OK, if someone gave me the opportunity – I guess it would have to be EA – to go back and take some of the ideas behind an Underworld or a System Shock, I’d have to think pretty seriously about that, for sure.

Yes, Ea is certainly interested in new System Shock and Ultima Underworld. Please sign the contract here mister Warren.

 

[Arkadin]

The truth that dare not be spoken about games is that playing games is work. It's engaging work, to be sure, but work nonetheless. It ISN'T as easy to play a game as it is to plant yourself in a comfy chair and watch a movie or let a TV show wash over you, or listen to a favorite piece of music or even read a book.

The work aspect of games will, I suspect, always limit our audience to some extent. I've always said we're not a mainstream medium but, rather, a niche medium that overcharges for its product. Still, the growth of the gaming audience is apparent and to keep it going we have to broaden the range of our content.

What a colossal fag. "The problem is that games just require more work!" Right. Listening to music well is easy. Reading literature well is effortless. Fuck. These people need to stop defending their medium, being pretentious fucks, and just do their jobs.

 

[Jashiin]

I refuse to believe this guy has played more than a marginal role in the creation of deus ex. And if he did.. imagine how good it could have been without him.

 

[Infinitron]

I refuse to believe this guy has played more than a marginal role in the creation of deus ex. And if he did.. imagine how good it could have been without him.

Well remember that if it's not him that made Deus Ex great, it's the guy who made Dishonored.

It's true though that Harvey Smith describes himself as a guy who's against bullshit and all about gameplay: http://www.polygon.com/2012/9/28/3425300/the-mirror-men-of-arkane

Fitting in with his new coworkers becomes a full-time job for Smith. Aside from the young guys, the "crazy, no-perspective" kids who've never had a job, there is another breed of designer Smith bumps up against that leaves a lasting, negative impression.

"There were people in the mix that didn't like video games," Smith said. "Origin had become this place where there were not only the negative EA influences but also there were guys who had signed on because they were history buffs or part of an organization that dressed up like knights on the weekends. And that's great, those are great influences but in a particular way that hurt Origin because nobody was thinking about the gamers' experience."

There are some problems, though, that QA can't fix, and when Ultima VIII is released, it has a lot of them. One hundred, by Smith's counting..

Smith is so frustrated by the state of this game that he writes a list detailing the reasons why he didn't like it. All 100 of them.

"I literally said it was a slap in the face to Ultima fans and RPG fans," Harvey said. "And I sent it to my boss. I don't know why I did it, but it was the kind of thing I did back then."