Joystiq interview: Radical prez Kelly Zmak on Prototype

Radical Entertainment president Kelly Zmak donned zombie makeup (and cowboy duds?) at the last-hurrah-before-launch event for Prototype (besides E3, of course) in Las Vegas on Tuesday night. Surprisingly, it's the first time we've ever seen the head of a company appear as a member of the undead -- or whatever it is that's happening to folks in the game.

We took our chances, closing in on Zmak with a microphone -- well within range of his open sores -- to get his answers on all things Prototype. Continue on after the break for the full interview, and then join us in petitioning Radical to release "Tank Battle" (not to be confused with Battle Tanks). As for us, we've got to go rinse off ...
How long has Prototype been in development?

Basically since the time of start concept to finish -- almost three years.

How big was your team during the peak part of the work?

We had 120 people, all based in Vancouver.

Are you completely done with the game?

We just wrapped, really. We were in the final stages and now we are doing all that stuff that happens after we pretty much finish our game. But June 9 is really solid because we're not worried about missing our date.

Was the concept developed internally or did somebody come to you guys and pitch this?

Internal idea. A small group of guys came to me. You have got to be crazy to do an original IP. So it really was this idea that came up grassroots. We sold management. We sold the internal studio. We sold everybody involved from a stockholder's standpoint. That turned out well for us. It was really one of those love/hate relationships where you regret what you ask for and you get what you actually deliver.

Did you develop your own engine for this?

Yes, although it wasn't designed for Prototype. It was part of a larger effort to create open world, sandbox, third-person action-adventure games. That is something we have had an actual piece in for a while, from Simpson's: Hit and Run, Scarface, Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, Crash. So we had a lot of experience in that. What we wanted to do was capitalize on our strength and really push that to the next level.

So Prototype was the first game that happened to come along for that engine?

Yes.

Do you have a name for the game engine?

We call it Titanium for a sort of internal name or moniker, but it was really just an extension of what we had done in the past.

What was the hardest part of the game to nail?

"The best camera is the one no one ever sees."

You know, in the end it comes down to control. But with that being said, the camera is critical to the way the game feels. We have really been a believer that if you play it and believe it, you've won. No one comments on the camera or they compliment the camera. And between those two pieces, picking up the controller and saying, "Wow ..." It's a subconscious thing. It is not something you go click and this works. It feels right from the beginning, from the time you pick up the controller. And then the camera is a big piece because in the open world environment, either it works or it doesn't. The best camera is the one no one ever sees.

So the levels we've been playing here tonight, how far into the game is that?

You are really about ... less than a third into the game, where they have introduced all of the main concepts: disguise, consumption, the boss battles, where the brawlers come in, the gifting of the powers -- because there are several points in the game, although only a few, where you are gifted with powers. The rest of the characters come through the store where you upgrade your character. So you are less than a third into the game at that point, but we have introduced all of the basic mechanics; the moves, all of the combat mechanics, the disguise mechanics, the conspiracy, the web of entry; all of those elements are introduced at that point.

How long is the final game?

If you just follow the main story path, about 12 hours. With all of the side missions and everything associated, about 30-plus hours.

inFamous comes out soon, and it reflects a very similar concept to Prototype in that you control a super-powered protagonist in a mature, sandbox game. Is this just one of those coincidental, Deep Impact / Armageddon things that happens every now and again?

"We never relied on Sucker Punch or inFamous to fail for us to be successful."

Great ideas always seem to happen in clusters. It's amazing. Like with movies; when a drama comes out, three dramas come out. When a comedy comes out, three comedies come out. So I don't know what it is about our industry, but we seem to be following the same trend. The truth is, inFamous, from what I have seen, is a very different game.

We attempted to create our own vision, and the truth is we never relied on Sucker Punch or inFamous to fail for us to be successful. That's foolhardy, right? We needed to create a great game.

In the beginning of the game, you get to play as Alex with all of his powers. Then, you go back to a point where Alex is almost powerless. When and why did you decide to implement this sort of tease?

It was actually a fairly late decision in the design process to allow them this uber experience where they get to do all these cool things and then strip them away, take them back in time and put them on the morgue slab. But it was based off this idea that the player needs to understand where they can go from where they are. So it is a very classic story telling element. It actually came late in the process, during the last eight months to a year in development.

It was a hard decision, because the original concept was that you start at the beginning and you build up. What we found through our play testing was that they didn't get it. They didn't understand. Our goal from the beginning was that Alex was the most powerful character; the most awesome fighting character in a video game. But you started out kind of as a, "Eh ... almost." So by giving them a taste and then actually bringing them back, we actually told them where you could go. And it worked out very well for us.

We tested it through focus testing, player feedback, and all those things. As much as we like to believe we can plan it all in advance, we really are an industry of what works. So we rely on that feedback. We rely on instincts and the gut. You either hit it or you don't. There is no formula; we have never figured that out. So it was one of those things where as we started to move through this process, we were remarkably fortunate to be on the money; to hit it. I think that is the one thing that will shine through; people will pick up the controller and go, "Wow. This is a blast. It is fun to play."

Do you have plans for DLC?

We made the decision not to support multiplayer about a year ago. With DLC, we have the option to do it, but it has never been a focus. It has never been the primary driver. Our focus has always been, "How do we create this experience to be the experience," so that they never feel like we left something out or we stripped something away.

I think that is a hard road. I think that is a tough divide in our industry. I don't think it is going to go away anytime soon and I think we will always struggle with it. We will make mistakes, and we will do it right and we will do it wrong. But the truth is I think we did it right this time.

So, did you explore multiplayer and then decide, "This isn't for us?"

"I was playing multiplayer tank battles in downtown New York a year ago. It was an absolute blast."

Oh yeah. I was playing multiplayer tank battles in downtown New York a year ago. It was an absolute blast.

You mean, tank vs. tank?

Oh yeah. Tank vs. tank; tank vs. helicopter; helicopter vs. helicopter. I am telling you. It was awesome. It was absolutely rock solid ... but in a limited view, not in the game. That is where we stepped back and thought, you know what? We are going to deliver this and the players are going to go, "They didn't make it happen." That doesn't work, right? Today's consumer expects excellence, not mediocrity. Even if it is fun in that five minutes, it has to be fun in the five hours, inside the scope of the story, so we pulled it.

So does that mean we are going to see Radical's "Tank Battle" as a separate release five months from now?

Oh, I would love it.

Well, based on your enthusiasm, we want to play it.

The success of the franchise is based off the success of the first product, and we have always known that. The consumer gets to make that choice. If we are successful, I truly believe there will be more. If we are not, it will be like every other new idea that has started and stopped. It may have been good enough, but not good enough.

We noticed that a player can skip the "web of intrigue" moments. If you are skipping through them, are you missing a lot of the back story?

You are missing story, but you are not really missing the gameplay. That is really where we made a decision. The story is important for those who care about the story. It is not important for those who don't.

So we have allowed those players who are like, "We don't care about it," to skip it and run through the game, but also those, "Wow. This is ... I don't get it," and they can watch them and fill in the blanks. They go in and they collect these web of intrigues, these peoples' memories. They get to go through and they can do that. And there is a lot, over 120 nodes that exist there.

That is really the exciting part. What we tried to do is appeal to all of these different types of players. But we have always believed we are an action player; we are an action game. And we have never tried to penalize the player for that action oriented approach.

The powers upgrade system is cost-based, which feels unnatural. You wouldn't force Spider-Man to "buy" web-shooting in a game. In Prototype, you are gathering orbs and spending them to upgrade ... Did you explore an alternative? Perhaps an experience where Alex's powers develop organically within the game's reality?

Every development team struggles with these ideas and concepts. The original concept back three years ago was that you went through this progression. When does a designer punish a player for what they are doing? That is an interesting concept. It's where, "When do we give the player the ability to choose? When do we give them the power to go into this?"

I can tell you that it was hotly debated, hotly debated. We actually chose, about a year and a half ago or two years ago, to allow the player to go into the upgrade store because we felt it was the greatest flexibility for the way the player wanted to play the game. That is where, through our focus testing and all of the aspects, we found that they liked it.

"We don't want the player to feel punished by what the designer chose."

So we have this great storytelling medium, but we're a game! And it's an interactive game. That means, more than anything, the player chooses. It would be so much easier if we were just doing a movie! So much easier if we didn't give them any options! But that is not necessarily fun, right? So the choice to do the fun was based off that choice; was based off that option, and not without heartache; not without this pain of, "Do we direct them or do we dictate them, or do we allow them to choose?"

And it is interesting; this is one of those few questions ... this is one of those areas that I have not been asked often about. And yet we internally struggled with it for a year and a half or two years because we didn't want to dictate. We don't want the player to feel punished by what the designer chose. But at the same time, okay. We have to choose. So it was the medium. It was the even ground. To be honest, I felt it really worked, because I play as a parkour; I'm the running guy. So as the sprints, jumps, all the movement and locomotion goes, the first thing I do is upgrade.

Same here. Especially the glide.

The glide move! It's like "Yeaaaah!" as soon as you do it, right? But there is a whole set of offensive weapons that some of my guys, they just skip the whole locomotion. "All I want to do is take down a tank. I want to get a chopper. I want to fly the vehicles that are available to me."

To watch Dave, my CTO, play the game and watch me play the game, it was like, "Huh. I get it. I understand why we did it." I don't necessarily think it was the easiest decision, but man, it was the right one.

You said it would be easier if you were doing a movie, have any studios come knocking or shown interest in a film version of Prototype?

It is a great concept, so yes. There has been interest. But we make games, not movies. So we have never been distracted by that concept. The success of our game will determine the success of everything else. You can see great, successful games that have still yet to been made a movie. So, If it happens, great.

Developers sometimes solidify those movie connections themselves. You employed actor Barry Pepper, for example. We couldn't hear the audio in the club, but does he voice the main character throughout the game?

Yes. It's interesting, when you make a movie it is 120 minutes or whatever the duration is. When you make a game it is hours of audio. You have the voice recording. You have the audio recording. You have got the mixing. You have got the sound and you have got the music. And it's an art in itself. That in itself is this whole big process.

So when you sit through this game and when you play through this game, our hope is you don't feel like you have lost anything through the audio. And that is a huge challenge, but I think every studio faces it today.

How soon in the process did you guys get Pepper for the voice?

Very early. Again, the studio has gone through a lot of change. We were acquired through Vivendi, through Activision and through that whole chain. So we were well into development when the acquisition happened in last August. So for us it was no real change to the operation.

We went through some major changes from a studio standpoint, but for the product Prototype, there really wasn't a change. We thought: let's deliver. Let's do what we need to do and let's make it a great game.

What are you guys going to be showing at E3? Pretty much what we were playing here?

Just Prototype. We are showing the product. Everybody gets the hands-on; consumer, press -- everybody who is there. There will be more than what we have shown at this event. But the truth is, what we have shown is the bulk of what is available, and then it grows from there.

Are you guys taking a break, or is Radical already working on something else?

We are already diving into our next project. We have two games and lots to do, we're moving ahead. No boredom allowed. You know development. Guys are taking a break. They are relaxing a little bit and spending time with their families, but the truth is game development is one of those crazy businesses. It starts an art. Our job is to keep it from going to stupid. It is good.

Have you said anything about these next two projects?

Nope. Unannounced.

Platforms?

Unannounced.

Back to Prototype then. One last question: We obviously don't know how the game ends, but was it developed with an eye toward creating a franchise?

We always designed it to be a long term project from the beginning, because you can't start an IP on a one-up, but the one-up is what allows you to do the franchise.