Game designer Chris Crawford gets his grump on

wow, shazam joystiq! Strawman is such a cool word....

How is his "interactive storytelling" not just recycling old ideas, just like he's complaining about? I seem to recall playing a lot of Zork as a kid...

There's another rebuttal too, in the form of a funny "interview" with Crawford:

http://www.citizenwii.com/2006/06/13/the-citizen-interview-with-chris-crawford/

Well, at least. I thought it was funny.

I would have to agree with his general concept. The industry is no where near "dead" as he claims, but I do see some of the points he illustrates. I do actually get a little queasy seeing another generic anime RPG, or FPS, or MMORPG etc. paint the pages in another ad in another computer magazine. All of them are pretty much the same, or hell even function the same

And if you do think about it, the big names in the game world that you remember, like Halflife, Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Starcraft, etc., are the ones that sport an existing genre, but have great, fun stories to go along with the gameplay. If Prey for example did not have what seems to be an interesting plot, in addition to a cool sense of gameplay, I don't think I would have been interested and would have chocked it up as another generic FPS with just some new twists


There is alot of the same crap out there, but they are simply the "roughs" that help you find the diamond better

This guy has been out of the industry for 14 years, who give a damn what he thinks (and no, spending those 14 years developing 'storytronics' doesn't make him relevant)

First of all, forgive my english.

For me, this is just Mr. Crawford throwing a tantrum. But, in some way, I understand what he's saying. In fact, not only videogames have been braindead for many years, but also cinema, literature, music and all forms of art. We're living an age of no-discovering, we're only recreating the near past for a profitable goal.

About that "interactive storytelling" thing, there's only a way to develop the concept: a MMO without Not Human Players. Without misions. Without a storyline. If we create a world and let the players be whatever they want to be, without limits, among the initial chaos will rise an order based on personal relationships and personal goals. But from my point of view, that's not a videogame. That's a alternative version of reality, but not a videogame. Videogames, like all kind of games, have goals, rules and (unfortunately) limits.

And, as we say in Spain: "No le busques tres pies al gato". Videogames have its limits, time to recognize it.

I would also like to point out that as the industry grows, new gamers join in. Complaining about a solidly designed FPS is overlooking the importance of games like this to newcomers to the market. We need the old, *established* guard to provide that solid base, from which innovative design is an offshoot. Don't underestimate the importance of a Halo 3, FF13, or GoW2. (And likewise, as Crawford is saying, don't lean solely on solid, possibly staid, franchises.)

This is also the guy that told Will Wright "The Sims" wouldn't work.

#2:
Zork wasn't interactive storytelling just because it showed text instead of graphics. Zork and Monkey Island are both the same kind of games, just that one has graphics and one has text, interactive storytelling is something altogether different, where the player make choices and "act", not solve puzzles.

And also, Chris is talking about interactive storytelling as aimed largely at people who don't play "ordinary" videogames.

God this is retarded, hasn't this "Interactive Story Telling" been in existence for a long time? I'm pretty sure lots of games I play currently have this in it, even thought they all have cut'n'paste control schemes. Legend of Zelda, Quake, Doom, Halo, Half Life, Elder Scrolls, and many, many, many other games have this stuff in it. He just gave it a more appropriate names. I myself personally believe this is a step in the wrong direction, because I personally enjoy the arcade style cut'n'paste games like Unreal Tournament, where its all about what you can do in how little time.

#10:
The only game you mention that even comes close are the Elder Scrolls games. The rest of the games are interactive, and they have stories, but they sure don't have an interactive story...
That being said, I love Quake and Half-Life...

As I understand it, Zork is just a story where you decide which verbs to use at which time, just like he describes in the interview. I still don't see a big difference. I wasn't referring to Zork because it was text-only, but because it relies on interacting with a story through the use of verb phrases, just as he describes.

He should probably check out Second Life. They've done pretty much everything he's talking about. And I don't think it took them 14 years either. It's also boring as hell.

Case Yorke U DA MAN! That link to the rebutle rant was funny and I agree with its sentiment. Anybody who was around during the gaming crash calling the video game industry of today, "without innovation and dead" should just be patted on the head given a little ball to chase around and left alone in their little white room. The videogame industry is in trouble, but that has mainly to do with the fans than it has to do with the companies.

#12:
Maybe it's not so well put forth in the interview, but I've read up on his "Storytronics" before, and it seems to me that game designers will create settings and actors and then just let they player loose in the world where they will interact with the other "actors" in an un-scripted way and everything will resolve more like a simulation. At least that's the idea as I understood it.
Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that you mentioned Zork just because it was text based.

That "rebuttal" completely missed his whole point.

Saying that the industry is "dead" does not mean that it will go away - their "rebuttal" says only "we are making tons of money and will never go away."

He meant "dead" in the sense that there are few new ideas entering the mix. I don't believe he ever told Will Wright that the Sims "wouldn't work," either - I believe his comments ran along the lines of "the games I make will have more to do with the heart than the bladder."

It's kind of obvious that C.Grant (and most other people) really just can't comprehend what Crawford's angle is, and has to criticize what he / they can't understand. Crawford's point is simply that games don't really engage the higher emotions and affections of human beings yet in a meaningful, non-scripted - interactive - way.

It's not that they don't have touching or dramatic moments, but c'mon - Aeris is going to die each and every time that you play FF7, peoples, in exactly the same way. The technology to make that fluid and responsive to the player's actions - i.e., maybe a different villain would arise based on your choices, and random characters with different personalities would join your party and be just as interesting to talk to as the static, scripted ones in other games - that technology is something that nobody is really tackling in the games industry. They're all too busy trying to make Lara Croft's assets bounce with more pixels than they could before.

Even the Wii is still not going to engage the heart and tell great, dynamic stories. It's going to be a lot of block-bopping and crap like that. Fun, but in a tiddlywinks sort of way - and I don't know about you, but tiddleywinks got old for me after first grade.

Parsifal,

His idea is cool, but I think it's been tried before crappily in sims like Second Life, as well as just online role-playing groups, in which people just make up stories as they go, which is more like collaborative fiction-writing than gaming. If he implements his ideas well, more power to him, but if he just has ideas and isn't able to make them reality, as his working on it for fourteen years might seem to indicate, than he has little room to talk. Also, there is definitely some good stuff in the gaming world, just not stuff that HE'S doing, and I think that's what's setting him off.

16:
I totally agree with every word you say.

It's funny how many people see the Wii as the end-all-be-all of innovation in the industry. Where Technology can't beat a new control scheme. Where That new controller trumps new technology, and the truth is it's only half true.

Technology is more then just fancey new graphics and such.... THe name of the game is immersion. And How you immerse your player. Now honestly, i have no more relevance in the industry then this guy.. maybe even less, but I am an ameture, wanna-be game designer. And the truth is, I have ideas of Innovative games that a machine like the Wii couldn't do.

SOme of the best games, are ones that can take what is familiar, and turn it on it's ear. God Of War and Prince Of Persia, are 3rd person action games. They are really no different from the millions of games before them.. But.. They incorperate something new, and exciting. Storytelling, Characters, New gameplay functions added to those already established. To become something even grater then those millions of 3rd person action games before it.

Technology can do much towards the interactivity of a game. Sure, the Wii-mote makes the actions more interactive, but with it's weaker technology, it makes the world around you much less interactive then a PS3 or Xbox 360 can make it. Let's say you take the example of Aeris dyeing. Now.... What if the villian can change... What if by your actions, you can, at some point, talk sephiroth out of his evil ways. What if something you do can cause Barrett to become angry, and bitter at how Aeris is doing nothing to bring down Shinra... Or Tifa becomes jealous of the closeness. Or Something completely out of left field. Where can you store all that, where can the CPU keep track of this different branching routine. Technically it can be scripted, but what if it can be done on AI. I had an idea for a Raceing game, that allows you, as the player, to build yourself as a celebrity. Your activities, the things you do, can generate what kinds of fans you have.. The more fans, the more money you make.

I mean, what could feel more rewarding and immersive. Flipping a remote upwards to jump on a mortorcycle, or be surrounded by cheers of fans that YOU earned.

How about an RPG like oblivian, or Fable, where you play for many hours, grow old.. and die.. And continue on as your own offspring. A Different character, who can either live up to his father's reputation, or go do something else.. Be haunted by it.. judged by it.

Or.. a GTA style Sandbox game, where you play an Assassian.. or even some kind of superhero, that must keep a secret identity. Take out witnesses, where a screw up may or may not mean the end of the game.. it would depend on the influence and popularity by the people witnessing.

These are things i've conceptualized in games, and realized that handleing the AI for this stuff wouldn't be easy. Every person, almost delt with on an individual basis by the system. An Xbox or Gamecybe couldn't handle it..

I always argue that Innovation is in the software. Innovation is how you use what is available to you. The fact that the Wii-mote exsists isn't what makes Wii games innovative. A crap game with a Wii controller, will not be more immersive or enjoyable then a good game with a standard controller.

The game industry IS going forward... and I know as a designer, I'm excited. Xbox Live Arcade, Steam, Virtual Console and Sony's Playstation Network offer possibilities to open up the console world to fresh blood. As technology becomes more powerful, it makes what we have now, easier. HL2 is great technology. And with Higher end video cards, It can be pushed in many ways beyond what source is doing now. While current technology may limit how many characters that are as detailed as Alyx, the more power the end-user has, the more characters can be on screen... the more sounds, the more complex the AI can be.While on the surface it's using "Outdated" tech, it can be taken further and further by faster technology.

I know a bit about Crawford's Storytron project:

It is, essentially, a way for a story to evolve according to the player's actions in directions not intented by the original designer.

You could consider it an answer to those games where you get a choice:
A. Help the innocent waif escape the evil empire.
B. Help the empire capture the waif.

But what if you know someone you could call to convince the Empire to give up their pursuit? Or if you had a forcefield that could block the empire's weapons? Or what if you could destroy the empire's forces yourself? What if wanted to say "Screw this," run off and go fishing? These might seem like stupid examples, but there are quite a few games that prompt exactly these kinds of questions, especially in places like the Final Fantasy series.

We've all played games where we've felt constricted by tree-based story structures with, shall we say, a lack of branches. With Storytron, one doesn't write a plot, instead one creates a world in which agents, including the player, have interests and means to implement them. The designer could either send them on a course that, but for the player's intervention, would only have one outcome, or he could even create free-form worlds in which players are left to make their own way. To my understanding, it's basically sandbox storytelling.

Ultimately, it is a direction that gaming will have to go, but Crawford's the only guy I know of who's trying it.

No calthear, what I don't "comprehend" is why this one singular metric that he's settled on is the only one used to measure innovation in gaming.

I'm not entirely sure what this guy is looking for but I want a game which mimics real life in the medieval ages. You make a character and it's entirely open ended. You can do whatever you want. Your character needs to eat, sleep, etc.. You can hook up with friends and do whatever with them, so yes it would be an MMO.

You can build a house for shelter, tame wild animals, kill animals, have a skill system MUCH like runescape, do whatever you want. People will naturally come together ( especially friends, communities ) and build towns. Once a town reaches a certain population you can build more advanced things, like forts and castles.

You can also train people who live in your town to work for the castle/army, Whatever, it's entirely open ended. Towns can attack neighboring towns if they have a dispute or take over land and kick people off, but those same people will probably join a rival town and express their hate in that town.

You dont have to make some stupid a_b_c choice pick-your-own-path book type game to express causality for your actions, just let people decide for themselves. Naturally occuring economy. Like I said, entirely open ended. However, there's probably 500 games out there like this that I don't know about.

This guy is a complete retard. I had a class from him at digipen.edu and he's so out of touch with what videogames are today. All he did was talk about his releases on the Atari back in the 80s and how he cheated on his wife. He has some kind of sick obsession with studying women's ass movement too... check his website for proof.

I can't figure out if this guy is completely insane or if he's some sort of genius.

Nice job on the cover. That ended up being the best part of all this.