Facade is an interactive story-turned-videogame. The story goes that you have been invited to the flat of two married friends under false pretenses. As soon as you are in the door you realize that they are having marital issues, and that they wish you to help them sort these issues out.
The game is played from a first person perspective. You can both interact with your environment by way of the mouse cursor, walk around the flat, and, most importantly, talk to the characters -- type in whatever you like, and the characters respond with pre-recorded lines of dialogue.
But what makes this title significant is that the couple, Grace and Trip, are represented as real, breathing, interactive characters. You can change their emotional state with your actions and words. You can solve their "couple problems", or make things much worse (just tell Grace you love her!).
I'd played this game before it was mentioned last week. The game is still significant, though -- nothing new or significant in this vein has yet emerged. The developers of Facade are still working on getting funding for a sequel title, one that is going to be just as revolutionary if they are to be believed.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
How are characters handled in video games?
In movies, character is everything. Plot is secondary, or another way to look at it, is that plot is character.
But in games, things are a little different. The goal of a game is to produce, first and foremost, something fun. An entertaining form of escapism that is also interactive.
Movies are not interactive.
There are different genres of video games, just like there are different genres of movies. And just like movies, each genre of video game has its own conventions of storytelling associated with each. My focus for this blog entry will be the first-person-shooter genre (or FPS).
A first person shooter is exactly what it sounds like -- we control a character from a first person perspective, a weapon visible at the bottom right of the screen and pointing forwards. The game I hope to outline in the coming weeks as part of my proposal/script is a FPS (so stay tuned on that front!).
First we had Wolfenstein 3D -- the initial FPS game. Its World War 2. You are an Allied POW trapped in a Nazi prison facility. The story? You are escaping! The plot? Blast the Nazis! The character you are in control of does nothing except grunt. The game occasionally presents snippets of text on screen in-between chapters, narrating your escape attempt. The game is completely and definitively linear.
W3D was released in 1992. It would be in 1998 that we would have any significant development on the narrative front regarding FPS titles.
In 1998, Half Life was released. The developers, Valve software, hired a novel writer as part of their design team. Games had come before, of course, with properly written scripts, intriguing dialogue, and decently-realised characters. But it would be Half Life that would both bring these developments to the FPS genre proper, while simultaneously advancing the state of narrative in the video game world.
The protagonist, the man you are in control of -- Gordon Freeman -- is a mute. Characters talk to him. Instead of delegating important plot points to pre-rendered cutscenes, the game develops right in front of your eyes. You fight your way through guarded checkpoints, pulling levers, travelling around, making things happen.
Ten years on, and the state of the interactive FPS have not come much further. Games like Half Life 2 and Bioshock continue the trend of well-written narrative, but have not challenged existing paradigms.
Who knows? Maybe my FPS title will. Maybe.
But in games, things are a little different. The goal of a game is to produce, first and foremost, something fun. An entertaining form of escapism that is also interactive.
Movies are not interactive.
There are different genres of video games, just like there are different genres of movies. And just like movies, each genre of video game has its own conventions of storytelling associated with each. My focus for this blog entry will be the first-person-shooter genre (or FPS).
A first person shooter is exactly what it sounds like -- we control a character from a first person perspective, a weapon visible at the bottom right of the screen and pointing forwards. The game I hope to outline in the coming weeks as part of my proposal/script is a FPS (so stay tuned on that front!).
First we had Wolfenstein 3D -- the initial FPS game. Its World War 2. You are an Allied POW trapped in a Nazi prison facility. The story? You are escaping! The plot? Blast the Nazis! The character you are in control of does nothing except grunt. The game occasionally presents snippets of text on screen in-between chapters, narrating your escape attempt. The game is completely and definitively linear.
W3D was released in 1992. It would be in 1998 that we would have any significant development on the narrative front regarding FPS titles.
In 1998, Half Life was released. The developers, Valve software, hired a novel writer as part of their design team. Games had come before, of course, with properly written scripts, intriguing dialogue, and decently-realised characters. But it would be Half Life that would both bring these developments to the FPS genre proper, while simultaneously advancing the state of narrative in the video game world.
The protagonist, the man you are in control of -- Gordon Freeman -- is a mute. Characters talk to him. Instead of delegating important plot points to pre-rendered cutscenes, the game develops right in front of your eyes. You fight your way through guarded checkpoints, pulling levers, travelling around, making things happen.
Ten years on, and the state of the interactive FPS have not come much further. Games like Half Life 2 and Bioshock continue the trend of well-written narrative, but have not challenged existing paradigms.
Who knows? Maybe my FPS title will. Maybe.
Screenplay Structure
Continuing with another Quentin Tarantino production, I will be exploring how Deathproof follows the classic screenplay structure.
Act 1
Introduction of characters -- Three girls in their twenties - Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie. Julie hosts a radio show and is famous town-wide. Shanna and Arlene are her friends.
Imbalance -- An unidentified character, later turning out to be "Stuntman Mike", mysteriously tailing the three girls.
All of these characters, plus a new character called Pam (Jungle Julia's childhood adversary), meet up at a bar. Everyone gets trashed. Stuntman Mike agrees to give Pam a lift home.
Imbalance tipping point -- Stuntman Mike kills Pam.
Plot point 1 -- Stuntman Mike rams his "deathproof" stunt car into a car carrying Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie, killing all occupants. Only he survives.
Act 2
The new world/Introduction of characters -- Fourteen months later, in another town, we are introduced to four new girls - Lee, Abernathy, Kim, and Zoe. Lee and Abernathy are models, and Kim and Zoe are stunt women.
Again, Stuntman Mike is seen mysteriously watching the women.
Zoe wants to drive a 1970 Dodge Challenger, and knows of a man in this small town that is selling one. Arriving there, she convinces the man to let her take it for a test drive. Eventually her true motives are made clear -- she wishes to do an incredibly dangerous stunt involving her riding on its bonnet while it speeds around winding country roads!
Leaving Lee in the "care" of the perverted car seller, Zoe, Kim and Abernathy go for a cruise.
Failing tests/obstacles -- Stuntman Mike, coming out of nowhere, repeatedly bashes the car as Zoe is lashed to the bonnet. Eventually the car crashes.
Belly of the beast -- Kim shoots a gloating Stuntman Mike. Things are turned on their head as Mike becomes the hunted, and the girls the hunters. We are treated to fifteen minutes of crazy stunt driving as the girls chase and ram Stuntman Mike's "deathproof" car.
Passing tests/Plot point 2/Climax -- The girls kill Stuntman Mike.
Act 3
We dont really "see" this -- it is simply assumed that everything ends up A-OK.
Cut to credits.
Act 1
Introduction of characters -- Three girls in their twenties - Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie. Julie hosts a radio show and is famous town-wide. Shanna and Arlene are her friends.
Imbalance -- An unidentified character, later turning out to be "Stuntman Mike", mysteriously tailing the three girls.
All of these characters, plus a new character called Pam (Jungle Julia's childhood adversary), meet up at a bar. Everyone gets trashed. Stuntman Mike agrees to give Pam a lift home.
Imbalance tipping point -- Stuntman Mike kills Pam.
Plot point 1 -- Stuntman Mike rams his "deathproof" stunt car into a car carrying Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie, killing all occupants. Only he survives.
Act 2
The new world/Introduction of characters -- Fourteen months later, in another town, we are introduced to four new girls - Lee, Abernathy, Kim, and Zoe. Lee and Abernathy are models, and Kim and Zoe are stunt women.
Again, Stuntman Mike is seen mysteriously watching the women.
Zoe wants to drive a 1970 Dodge Challenger, and knows of a man in this small town that is selling one. Arriving there, she convinces the man to let her take it for a test drive. Eventually her true motives are made clear -- she wishes to do an incredibly dangerous stunt involving her riding on its bonnet while it speeds around winding country roads!
Leaving Lee in the "care" of the perverted car seller, Zoe, Kim and Abernathy go for a cruise.
Failing tests/obstacles -- Stuntman Mike, coming out of nowhere, repeatedly bashes the car as Zoe is lashed to the bonnet. Eventually the car crashes.
Belly of the beast -- Kim shoots a gloating Stuntman Mike. Things are turned on their head as Mike becomes the hunted, and the girls the hunters. We are treated to fifteen minutes of crazy stunt driving as the girls chase and ram Stuntman Mike's "deathproof" car.
Passing tests/Plot point 2/Climax -- The girls kill Stuntman Mike.
Act 3
We dont really "see" this -- it is simply assumed that everything ends up A-OK.
Cut to credits.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Enlightenment Quotes/Web 2.0 Characters
I'm hitting this one head on. My next blog post will look at capturing the story sequences of a movie. So stay tuned!
First -- quotes that denote character development. For the first quote, I'm going with Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 remake of some terrible hack of a show. Luckily this time around we've got a killer cast of characters, great lines, and fantastic special effects. BSG is often touted as a 'character based sci-fi', because that's what it is.
Background: Thrace is about to organize an incredibly dangerous mission. The Cylons are the evil robotic enemies, but in every other way, this exchange really speaks for itself.
This second example is from Pulp Fiction. For some more background info: Butch, although in a position to escape from his mortal enemy Marsellus, has had a change of heart. Instead he decides to save his life.
Butch: You okay?
Marsellus: Nah man, I'm pretty fucking far from "okay".
(Marsellus has conceded, believe it or not!)
Ok, question two: How are characters defined in Web 2.0?
Well, going off the example of the avatar -- very differently than in the real world. How one presents oneself online defines one's personality. That includes carefully staged (or fake!) photos, how one talks to others, and so on.
But with Web 2.0, the key word is "social dynamics". Once one is in, they are stuck. In Facebook, how one reacts to a situation is immediately published. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing. So the "veil" between one's true self and one's published personal thins. Only so much can be controlled!
First -- quotes that denote character development. For the first quote, I'm going with Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 remake of some terrible hack of a show. Luckily this time around we've got a killer cast of characters, great lines, and fantastic special effects. BSG is often touted as a 'character based sci-fi', because that's what it is.
Lt. Thrace: I never wanted this kind of responsibility.
Commander Adama: The Cylons never asked us what we wanted. Welcome to the big leagues.
Background: Thrace is about to organize an incredibly dangerous mission. The Cylons are the evil robotic enemies, but in every other way, this exchange really speaks for itself.
This second example is from Pulp Fiction. For some more background info: Butch, although in a position to escape from his mortal enemy Marsellus, has had a change of heart. Instead he decides to save his life.
Butch: You okay?
Marsellus: Nah man, I'm pretty fucking far from "okay".
(Marsellus has conceded, believe it or not!)
Ok, question two: How are characters defined in Web 2.0?
Well, going off the example of the avatar -- very differently than in the real world. How one presents oneself online defines one's personality. That includes carefully staged (or fake!) photos, how one talks to others, and so on.
But with Web 2.0, the key word is "social dynamics". Once one is in, they are stuck. In Facebook, how one reacts to a situation is immediately published. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing. So the "veil" between one's true self and one's published personal thins. Only so much can be controlled!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Meddling of Publishers
NOTE: Spoilers ahead! If you haven't played Bioshock before, look away now!
Bioshock. The spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, a game critically lauded for its scary mechanics and interesting (and well written!) story. So this spiritual sequel, Bioshock, had a lot to live up to.
Most reviewers agreed that Bioshock lived up to the hype. Great story. Fantastically written dialogue. Intriguing levels of morality woven into it all. Etc.
But there were two major narrative problems: First of all, the morality 'system' hyped before release was a simplistic 'press A for good/B for evil' type device. Second -- the final boss was a stupid by-the-numbers 'blast the big guy till he falls over' experience.
Later on, months after release, it would leak that the writer of Bioshock had a much more entertaining and very much 'alternate' style of video game ending that completely differed from the norm. You wouldn't just be blasting away a huge baddie. And the morality system? Lack of time money likely helped in the shelving of any complexity in this particular system.
We will never really know what Bioshock's writer and lead designer, Ken Levine, had in mind for this game.
Damn publishers!!
Bioshock. The spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, a game critically lauded for its scary mechanics and interesting (and well written!) story. So this spiritual sequel, Bioshock, had a lot to live up to.
Most reviewers agreed that Bioshock lived up to the hype. Great story. Fantastically written dialogue. Intriguing levels of morality woven into it all. Etc.
But there were two major narrative problems: First of all, the morality 'system' hyped before release was a simplistic 'press A for good/B for evil' type device. Second -- the final boss was a stupid by-the-numbers 'blast the big guy till he falls over' experience.
Later on, months after release, it would leak that the writer of Bioshock had a much more entertaining and very much 'alternate' style of video game ending that completely differed from the norm. You wouldn't just be blasting away a huge baddie. And the morality system? Lack of time money likely helped in the shelving of any complexity in this particular system.
We will never really know what Bioshock's writer and lead designer, Ken Levine, had in mind for this game.
Damn publishers!!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
My very first blog entry (that's not a test)
Here are some definitions. By me, of course.
Web 2.0: "A series of Internet technologies that are primarily designed to enhance the social and creative possibilities and capabilities of the World Wide Web."
Widget: "An application for any interactive device that offers niche capabilities."
I'm very excited by the possibilities presented by this unit. Script writing for a game? Making a proposal for a revolutionary video game? Pretty cool stuff.
"Historically", story has always been the weak point of the new narrative genre that is the video game. I mean, games often have really cool premises. And frequently really damn cool plots. But the actual storytelling? Structure, characterization, lines of dialogue?
So here's the less acerbic and more hopeful perspective: We've got nowhere to go but up at this point!
Web 2.0: "A series of Internet technologies that are primarily designed to enhance the social and creative possibilities and capabilities of the World Wide Web."
Widget: "An application for any interactive device that offers niche capabilities."
I'm very excited by the possibilities presented by this unit. Script writing for a game? Making a proposal for a revolutionary video game? Pretty cool stuff.
"Historically", story has always been the weak point of the new narrative genre that is the video game. I mean, games often have really cool premises. And frequently really damn cool plots. But the actual storytelling? Structure, characterization, lines of dialogue?
So here's the less acerbic and more hopeful perspective: We've got nowhere to go but up at this point!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)