All things considered, it’s a good time to be a writer.
Sure there are thousands of eager aspiring scribes competing with us for a tiny handful of jobs. Sure we are forced to wade through a mire of misinformation, shoddy writing advice books and dodgy companies, not to mention our frequent struggles with crippling self-doubt.
And yet, in spite of all this, I’ve seen things that give me hope.
Fahrenheit, for example. Known as Indigo Prophecy in the U.S., it represents a major leap forward in the way we think about videogames. Videogame critics - a horribly ineffective bunch at the best of times - hardly know what to make of it, but it has received attention from other critical arenas. It’s been plastered with labels like ‘interactive drama’ and ‘unique immersive experience’. I only know what I saw.
There were three of us sitting around the TV, watching enthralled as my friend played through the game. It was his second run through, so he had the controls pretty much figured out. A new scene started, and the main character was walking through a lonely cemetery to meet his brother at the site of their parents’ graves. His face was haggard from a night of sleepless worry. A light snow fell around him, frosting the tops of solemn gravestones and mausoleums. The screen separated into a De Palma-style splitscreen, one frame tracking around him, another in wide shot panning across the cemetery, and another close on the character’s face. I was caught in the moment. I was watching a film.
Then the character stopped, turned around, went back the way he’d come. My friend said, “Dammit, I’ve gone the wrong way”, and I realised for the first time that he had been controlling the scene.
That realisation is something I have rarely ever experienced in a videogame, because the average game does not strive towards cinema or story. Fahrenheit is something different, a ‘cinema simulator’ if you will. The only other games I can possibly compare it to are Shenmue (Dreamcast) and Shenmue 2 (Xbox), which were part of an incredibly ambitious but now discontinued saga that was supposed to be released in eight installments and chronicle several years of the main character’s life. The ahead-of-its-time Shenmue series utilised the same techniques of scene framing and reflexive action sequence controls that Fahrenheit has now incorporated.
So why is this so exciting for writers? Because videogames are now more than 25 years old, and fast approaching that point in the history of a medium when it breaks free from the bonds of novelty and asserts itself as a meaningful artform. Today, the typical videogame development team consists mostly of programmers and graphic artists; the lack of professional writers is one reason game plots and dialogue are, in the majority, awful. Some developers, chiefly those specialising in computer RPGs, have built their reputations on the fact that they employ real writers, and can therefore churn out a fairly engaging story.
In this fascinating diary, Fahrenheit’s lead developer David Cage reveals something of how he wrote the script:
Writing the full game design document took me about a year to complete. The final script is about 2000 pages and integrates absolutely everything; story, characters, gameplay, structure, branching dialogs, horrible sketches, maps and storyboards (I am terrible at drawing), instructions to remember for acting and directing, indications about music and sounds and much more. With the experience of another very complex game (Omikron), I have established some rules for my game designs in order to put all the possible information in there while keeping them clear (I hope). This document was the master document for the whole production. It was truly our “bible”, the absolute reference for everything.
That’s 2000 pages, ladies and gentlemen. That’s the equivalent of writing 20 feature film scripts, while keeping track of every branching twist and turn the player might possibly take. That’s some serious writing.
The videogame industry is already bigger than Hollywood. Maybe some day, teams of writers will work alongside engineers and artists to create interactive cinema unlike anything we can imagine. When you tell someone you’re a screenwriter, they may just have to ask: “Film, TV or game?”
BLOGKEEPING: My apologies for the lack of updates, Gentle Readers. I’ve been having some problems. All I can say is: Don’t sign up with Ozemail. They may be the shittiest ISP in all of human, nay universal, history.
I solemnly swear to update lots more once my internet actually starts working again. Here are just a few of the mind-expanding, life-affirming topics I’ll be posting about in the next few weeks:
Why I love ’80s fantasy films.
The importance of Robert E. Howard’s Conan.
The genius of Grant Morrison’s Animal Man.
And the next installment in the wildly popular Xander-Recommends-A-Book series: Bullfinch’s Mythology.
In fact, why don’t you all tell me what you want me to post next? Get thee hence to the comments section and debate about it! Debate for my amusement!
No offense but the video game industry only make more money than films if you ignore video sales/rentals and TV licensing. Count those and the film industry makes far more than double. Theatrical revenues are only a small part of the film industry.
Comment by JJ — January 6, 2006 @ 5:01 am
Well, I went and double-checked the facts and you’re technically correct with regards to American annual videogame sales versus American annual film-related revenue.
Of course, I could be pedantic and point out that I wrote ‘bigger than’ rather than ‘makes more money than’, and point to the massive rise in home console ownership versus the decline in cinema ticket sales.
I also wrote ‘videogame industry’ instead of ‘American videogame industry’. I wonder how close the figures are if you factor in Japan and Europe?
Anyway, I think it’s still a valid point.
Comment by Xander — January 6, 2006 @ 7:47 am
“That realisation is something I have rarely ever experienced in a videogame, because the average game does not strive towards cinema or story.”
I’d argue that use of words like ’striving’ in the above context are actually DANGEROUS to Games an artform. Why should games ’strive’ towards Story or CInema? We don’t talking about painting striving to be photography, or architecture striving to be dancing…
Games are a separate medium. Something like Tetris is an amazing game and, certainly, I feel its a masterpiece of the genre - yet it doesn’t bother with story… or writing…
In Australia, the Games Industry makes more money than our Film Industry… hell, its actually self-sustaining.
Comment by Stu Willis — January 6, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Thousands of aspiring scribes for a handful of jobs? Same with specs. According to Hollywood Reporter, issue Dec. 23-25, 77 specs were purchased in 2005. If WGA registers 30,000 or so and we don’t know how many unregistered are floating around and how many registered from prior years are being passed around and how many of those 30,000 are actually being pitched… well, the number is probably too staggering for my pea brain.
Comment by MBatchellor — January 6, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
Stu, I’m not sure why you would use a word like ‘dangerous’, especially in all capitals, but your argument is a bit odd.
I think almost everyone (who plays games) realises that all games fit along a scale with narrative at one end and purely ludic gameplay at the other. Tetris is a ludic novelty; Knights of the Old Republic 2 is an interactive fictional universe. They’re both videogames.
I happen to believe the future of videogames lies towards the narrative end of the scale, simply because we’ve exhausted almost all possibilities on the ludic end.
Comment by Xander — January 6, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
I think Stu’s concern is that games shouldn’t move toward a narrative approach — that if they aer ever going to come into their own as a sort of art, they’ll need to do so in a unique way, one that’s centered in their interactivity.
In tabletop roleplaying games the great stories and memorable moments occur largely by accident. What we get are emergent narratives. Great games can facilitate this by creating an environment conducive to exciting reversals and build-ups, but they can’t do that by hard-wiring in a plot or narrative because that’s antithetical to the end-user control over the narrative that makes gaming a unique new medium.
Comment by Steve Peterson — January 7, 2006 @ 4:32 am
“Games are a separate medium. Something like Tetris is an amazing game and, certainly, I feel its a masterpiece of the genre - yet it doesn’t bother with story… or writing…”
I think this might come down to personal preferences as to what you find important in a computer game.
Personally, never got into Tetris, or any of those games, because personally, I found them boring. There I’ve said it, my soul has been cleansed, I did not like Tetris!
I enjoy my FPS and driving/flying games.
With the driving/flying ones, I just want more and more interesting tracks/areas, and realistic/arcade options (arcade for drunken nights).
Some people love the run ‘n gun style FPS, but I prefer that the game has as much story as possible, because then the characters become that much more important to me, which is exactly what we strive for in script writing, making the characters important. The more immersive the game, the more I enjoy. In saying that RPG and MMORPG don’t do it for me either.
Films have different forms, drama, comedy, thriller, horror, etc even documentary, why can’t computer games be this way as well? Some being more story driven than others? The market will tell you if you are getting it right. If they can come up with some unique delivery method that does not involve cranial implants or rectal probes, hey, I’m all ears.
One thing I can see happening with regards to immersion in games, is where you load your own photo into the game and your face is on the main character…it will only be a matter of time.
Why will this happen?
So we can replace Hugh’s face in Playboy?
No, in my mind it actually comes back to film. How many (mainly adventure/action for me, I will give you that) films did you watch growing up thinking, “man I wish I was doing that”.
Computer games give you that ability…simple as that. The better the story, the more you will feel like you are in that “movie”, hopefully with more story, will come better programming and AI, so you feel as though you have more influence on the outcome of the game.
Just my 2 cents.
cheers
Dave
Comment by Dave — January 9, 2006 @ 4:37 am
I flog this whenever I can, cause I’m an narcisstic psycho, but here’s a paper I wrote (a while ago now!) on Deus Ex and the emergent field of ludology:
Encompising Computer Games
Stu, I’m not sure why you would use a word like ‘dangerous’, especially in all capitals, but your argument is a bit odd.
Because it invites comparisons with literary genres, rather than it being a self-contained artform.
ie If you say that games should strive towards cinema then you invite comparisons with cinema, obviously. That means that otherwise fantastic games that have narrative elements (e.g. KOTOR, Deus Ex, Marathon) are unfairly criticised for their values as *narrative* when, in the end, their intrinsic purpose is to be a game. Narrative is one element that can make games effective - certainly its a key aspect of the reward system in games like KOTOR - but its not an essential aspect of the art form.
It’d be like criticising the music in cinema for not being quite up to the standard of Shostakovich, Stravinsky, or Ravel. Music in cinema serves a different purpose than in does in a concert hall, and thats why John Williams and his ilk echo all the known ‘emotional’ values of romanticism.
“I happen to believe the future of videogames lies towards the narrative end of the scale, simply because we’ve exhausted almost all possibilities on the ludic end.”
I very much doubt that. Soduku is a masterstroke of game design, as is Bejeweled. They’re both relatively modern.
Games like Halo and Half Life 2 do incorporate elements of narrative and that is part of their appeal, but ultimately I’d argue its their success on the ‘ludic’ end of the spectrum which makes them so enjoyable. We’re getting to the point where gaming elements like pacing and texture and ‘kinetics’ are beginning to be mastered. In the same way that we talking about the pacing and editing in cinema, we’ll begin to talk about the pacing and rhythm in level design…
I guess it all depends on one’s definition of art, though. I consider Chess to be art and I consider those who play chess brilliantly to be artists on some level. I find art in anything thats ‘transcendt’ (and the vagueness of that definition is part of what makes art so instinctive and primitive to me). Others, like Roger Ebert, want Art to be the Work of an Auteur and Express Meaning on a *conscious* level. I find Tetris fascinating because its an entirely self-contained semiotic system - its an absolutely fundmental machine of meaning, it just uses a language that’s entirely nonlinguistic.
BTW, Dave games like Top Spin (on the PS2) allow you to already load your face… go figure.
Comment by Stu Willis — January 9, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Damn. Forgot to close my italics. Sigh.
Steve doth sayeth:
end-user control over the narrative that makes gaming a unique new medium.
Warren Spector said there were two kinds of narratives in the games he designed - the overarching narrative arc (the plot) and the minute-by-minute narrative which is the plays interaction.
I think that’s a wonderful way of understanding it. To use a screenwriting metaphor, the game designers provide the outline, the players provide the beats.
Comment by Stu Willis — January 9, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
“BTW, Dave games like Top Spin (on the PS2) allow you to already load your face… go figure”
Damn, see, there you go (don’t own a console) I knew it had to happen. I’ve downloaded your essay, looking forward to reading it Stu.
cheers
Dave
Comment by Dave — January 9, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
If anyone is interested in 2005 film revenues (domestic and international), I was emailed the following this morning…
Kagan Research estimates that 2005 international motion picture revenue streams will total $25.4 bil. compared to $24.9 bil. for combined domestic movie distribution markets. Slowing growth rates in domestic box office and home video markets in 2005 will continue to flatten in the coming years. In contrast, international movie markets are going to become larger revenue sources for motion picture distributors with emerging entertainment technologies contributing to increased penetration. By 2014, Kagan projects global movie markets will reach $38.2 bil. with international home video constituting the largest portion of that revenue stream at $17.7 bil. Overall, Kagan’s 10-year projections point to total movie distribution revenues (international and domestic combined) reaching $73 bil. in 2014.
Comment by jjbrainstorm — January 13, 2006 @ 12:49 am
Please check the pages about Insurance
Comment by tom — March 16, 2006 @ 7:24 am