Interview Developers are not Shakespeare, should not write books

[Spectacle]

Shakespeare didn't write books though, he wrote plays. His works are meant to be performed, not read.

Come to think of it, the play is probably the traditional storytelling medium that is closest to computer games...

 

[Bluebottle]

Shakespeare didn't write books though, he wrote plays. His works are meant to be performed, not read.

Come to think of it, the play is probably the traditional storytelling medium that is closest to computer games...

Replace play with pantomime and you're getting warmer. They rely heavily on audience participation, are based on the same stories churned out year after year, and are aimed at a similar mental level.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Shakespeare is responsible for dumbing modern theatre down.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, not directly copying other media is good.

Trying to ignore other media while making games is just retarded. There are so many techniques in every other media that have been developed since hundreds of years, it would be more than silly not to implement them into games if they fit. I talk about things like camera movement, perspective, story development, character development (story-wise), arrangement, etc.

That's probably not what the Blizzard guy was trying to say, but I somehow fear that many will misunderstand that as "ignore other media, invent everything anew, games rock!".

 

[kingcomrade]

i did download some diablo books few month ago

did not read them yet.

My sister bought me one (along with a Starcraft book) for a Christmas many years ago. They are, as you can expect, not good. The Starcraft book was worse, at one point the author was describing a fleet by just listing units from the game and their abilities. I read all of the Diablo one, which was not good but not horrendous, but I couldn't get past 30 pages in the Starcraft one.

 

[Eldritch]

I'd definitely read a Vampire:The Masquerade/Dark Ages book written by Brian Mitsoda. Especially if it includes the Friggin' Chicken commercial guy in some form.

 

[Kingston]

Well, that quote was slightly out of context.

'm as guilty of this as anyone else. We're so fortunate and privileged to work in a medium that is not only an art, but a revolutionary interactive form of entertainment. It's unfortunate to see so many games try to be what they're not, including our game at times. Of course we should embrace the concept of story... art, literature, film, song, they've all embraced story as well. But they all tell it in their own unique way.

I feel like we need to deliver our story in a way that is uniquely video game. We need to engage our audience by letting them be the hero or the villain or the victim. [Art, film, literature], they're tools. But we need to engage our players in sort of an inspiring experience, and the sooner we accept that we are not Shakespeare, Scorsese, Tolstoy or the Beatles, the better off we are.

So he's basically saying video games shouldn't try to mimic other genres of entertainment. Games shouldn't try to be movies, shouldn't try to be books etc. They need to be their own thing. He says art, film and literature are tools that should be used in games, but they shouldn't be the sole purpose of the game. Which I agree on. Games should focus on interactivity, as it is the strength of the medium.

You could see as him disapproving of cutscenes, dialogues on which you have no input, choices without consequences etc.

 

[Pliskin]

There's an old saying in fiction writing: Show, Don't Tell.

It's quadrupley true for video games. The player shouldn't have to wade through tomes of exposition, or sit through hours of cut-scenes. The player should be experiencing the game directly, and any story should be made by the player himself as he progresses through the game.

Fer instance, I knew Bioshock was fail for me the first time I was frozen in place and forced to watch a little sister do her thing --- when what I wanted to do was jump down from the rafters (if you've played the game, you know where this is), and drop kick her across the room. My getting directly involved in that scene would have had the same effect as the scripted cut-scene: I'd learn not to fuck with the little abominations. One way is through gameplay, the other is through developer "wannabe screenwriter look at my mad litteratchur skillz-itis".

Which one is more appropriate to a game?

 

[obediah]

I do agree that gobs of shitty writing or boring backstory are terrible in games. When I was 9, a few thousands words about the rise of man and decline of elves in your generic fantasy world would have been well spent, but now it's *blah* *blah* *click* *click*. Just like a halotard trying to get through Torment.

But I would suggest that replacing 10,000 poorly written words on a generic fantasy motif with 500 poorly written and poorly voiced spoken words and some play acting on the same generic fantasy motif is not the only solution to this problem. You can make a Michael Bay movie better by taking out the 90 minutes of shitty story, leaving a 15 minute CGI orgasm. You can also make a Michael Bay movie better by replacing the 90 minutes of shitty story with 180 minutes of well conceived, written, filmed, and acted story.

The first is a better business proposition, which is really the heart of the matter. Kaplan is trying to connect with his audience and justify his stance, but it really boils down to "Words cost money to write, and if anything hurt sales/retention".

 

[Volourn]

Since when does every writer have to be Shakespeare? that's fuckin' retarded.

 

[Gragt]

There's an old saying in fiction writing: Show, Don't Tell.

In the case of written fiction, that's almost a cliché repeated ad nauseam in litterary workshops. Showing is easier for the novice but telling holds a lot of potential — and a good writer masters both.

Beside, isn't a game not about showing or telling but playing?

 

[Davaris]

>Beside, isn't a game not about showing or telling but playing?

I would think telling would be the equivalent of linear computer games, where no matter what the player does, the game always turns out the same. Show would be multi-path games, where the game world changes depending on the player's actions.

 

[Volourn]

"I would think telling would be the equivalent of linear computer games, where no matter what the player does, the game always turns out the same. Show would be multi-path games, where the game world changes depending on the player's actions."

You dumb.

Showing vs telling is not equivelant to linear vs multi path.

Tool.

 

[Davaris]

>Showing vs telling is not equivelant to linear vs multi path.

Proof!

 

[Gay-Lussac]

Shakespeare didn't write books though, he wrote plays.

I think you're mistaking books for novels.

 

[obediah]

"I would think telling would be the equivalent of linear computer games, where no matter what the player does, the game always turns out the same. Show would be multi-path games, where the game world changes depending on the player's actions."

You dumb.

Showing vs telling is not equivelant to linear vs multi path.

Tool.

Wow, we've fallen to the point where Volly is schooling people now?

Show vs tell comes down one of two ways:

1:

show imparts a narrative by engaging the recipients eyes
tell imparts a narrative by engaging the recipients ears

2:

show imparts a narrative through action and demonstration
tell imparts a narrative through language

Remember show an tell? Where some kids would 'tell' and bore you with a story, where other kids would 'show' and the entire class would act out a choose-your-own-adventure game? Yeah, me neither. Rich kids brought n stuff to show, and poor kids didn't have anything so they had to tell about the time they got to try milk before the expiry date.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Since when does every writer have to be Shakespeare? that's fuckin' retarded.

Hyperbole is a concept alien to you.

 

[Azarkon]

His name in EQ was Tigole. He was a Halfling Rogue. Stabby stabby.

 

[Davaris]

Wiki on Show, don't tell:

". . . instead of stating a situation flat out, you want to let the reader discover what you're trying to say by watching a character in action and by listening to his dialogue."

My logic:

To tell a story: Joe did this, Joe did that, blah, blah, blah... It is boring because there are are no complex interactions, or conflicts for the reader to observe. I think this is just like a linear game, because no matter what the player does, the game world does not change. In effect a linear game is *telling* a story.

To show in a book: let the players learn about the story through its characters' motivations, actions and reactions. In a game with choices and consequences, the player learns about the game world, by how its inhabitants react (based on their motivations) to his actions. So there is no telling occurring, because the story changes depending on our actions. In effect the game world is *showing* us how it works, by how it reacts to our actions.


So,
Show vs Tell (in books) -> Choices and Consequences vs Rail Road (in games). :D

 

[obediah]

Wiki on Show, don't tell:

". . . instead of stating a situation flat out, you want to let the reader discover what you're trying to say by watching a character in action and by listening to his dialogue."

My logic:

Interesting choice of word - 'logic'. You're actually going to try to defend that analogy? In this situation I would have gone with "Jesus fucking christ, you pedantic mother fucking assburgler dickheads. You know what I meant, let's move on. Bitches" Another popular choice would have been "Jeez, I was obviously kidding. Who could screw up an analogy that bad?"

To tell a story: Joe did this, Joe did that, blah, blah, blah... It is boring because there are are no complex interactions, or conflicts for the reader to observe. I think this is just like a linear game, because no matter what the player does, the game world does not change. In effect a linear game is *telling* a story.

To show in a book: let the players learn about the story through its characters' motivations, actions and reactions. In a game with choices and consequences, the player learns about the game world, by how its inhabitants react (based on their motivations) to his actions. So there is no telling occurring, because the story changes depending on our actions. In effect the game world is *showing* us how it works, by how it reacts to our actions.

I'm not sure how to formally disprove a bad analogy. But the clear distinction between your analogues is that the recipient is an active participant in how the story unfolds in the second case. This distinction doesn't exist between showing or telling in books.

So,
Show vs Tell (in books) -> Choices and Consequences vs Rail Road (in games). :D

Do you remember those standardized tests when we were kids. There was always a section on analogies, with questions like:

shoe is to foot as hat is to ___ :

a) running
b) shame
c) head
d) blue

I have always assumed that those questions were freebies to make sure every school got some money. After this discussion, I'm not so sure.

 

[kingcomrade]

whats the difference between tactics vs strategy

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Strategy = big picture (war)
tactics = achieving short term objective (battle)

*flexes nerd guns*

 

[obediah]

Strategy = big picture (war)
tactics = achieving short term objective (battle)

*flexes nerd guns*

It's a trap!

Attempting to engage KC on this topic was a tactical failure - unless of course it's part of a larger strategy.

 

[Azrael the cat]

If you are not Shakespeare you should not write books. Period.[/quote


And if you ARE Shakespeare, you'll be writing stage-plays and the occasional sonnet.

So books should not exist, unless they somehow pop into existence without an author.

 

[poocolator]

i did download some diablo books few month ago

did not read them yet.

My sister bought me one (along with a Starcraft book) for a Christmas many years ago. They are, as you can expect, not good. The Starcraft book was worse, at one point the author was describing a fleet by just listing units from the game and their abilities. I read all of the Diablo one, which was not good but not horrendous, but I couldn't get past 30 pages in the Starcraft one.

This is what I don't understand (and what I was afraid of, never having read a game-to-novel book). You see, I thought people wrote novels because they wanted to write them in a creative way, telling a personal tale, not to create a bizarre run-through of a typical, in-game Starcraft battle (but in text). What the hell would be the point? You can have a lot of fun and write a good book taking place in the Diablo/Starcraft universe, without even including battles and physical combat. You could write about political intrigue, for one. Or you could talk about the strife a homosexual SCV-operator has to go through on a daily basis, suffering the mockery of his peers...