Home
The comments section for the Gamasutra interview that Paul examines has doubled since he first published this article. Check that out and consider whether Sheffield's interview moves games journalism in the right direction. The whole exchange reminds me of a little kerfuffle Bitmob Co-founder Dan Hsu instigated; I hope to see more of this.
An in-depth interview with id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead and game artist Andy Chang, entitled "The Creative Intent of Rage," appeared on Gamasutra this morning, and it deserves your attention.
The article was Senior Contributing Editor Brandon Sheffield's lengthy exploration of what makes Rage such a hotly anticipated release. What's so noteworthy about this piece is that Sheffield, who conducted the interview after a four-hour play session, made a point of repeatedly challenging Chang's and Hollenshead’s talking points in a way that seemed to make some readers uncomfortable -- even angry.
"We don't need investigative journalism for a video game," commenter Mike Worley fumed. "If you don't like the game, then why are you interviewing the developers? Publish an editorial about how much you dislike the game, but don't drag the devs through the mud over it."
The majority opinion in the comments section [as of October 3, when this article was originally published--Ed.] seems to be that Sheffield acted like a straight-up jerk. But what I read was just the opposite: a bona fide games journalist (who, it’s helpful to remember, is writing for an outlet directed at the industry and developers, not gamers) attempting to cut through Hollinshead’s public-relations (PR) speak and get at something meaningful.
Take a look at the opening exchange:
Gamasutra: What do you personally feel is the unique element of Rage that's going to get people really playing it?
Todd Hollenshead: Well, the game has a number of things, but I think it starts off with -- as most games do -- with, "What does it look like?" And when you look at Rage, regardless of what platform you're playing on, it is a game that doesn't look like any other game. It's the only game that has uniquely textured environment, it's the only game that's using id Tech 5, and visuals go a long way toward like, "Okay, this is something."
But we go beyond that with combining, I think, the classic elements of the shooter genre that we invented, with other elements as well, and when it's put all together -- as you play the game -- the whole game is sort of brighter than the sum of its parts. And it's that element of putting these things together as opposed to, "Well, we have this, and we have this, and we have this," and go down a check box list of features or, "We have this and another game doesn't," or, "We have that and another game doesn't."
There isn't a shred of thoughtfulness in Hollinshead's response because it's something we've seen a million times: garden-variety, PR-bred talking points. "Our game looks completely unique"; "our design isn’t paint by numbers" -- we've all read that interview before.
Rather than go along with this line of thought, however, Sheffield addresses Hollinshead's points directly:
GS: I don't actually feel like it looks unlike every other game. It does kind of look like Borderlands or Fallout to me. I mean, I'm sure when you really get into the tech, it looks different. But it does have a similar kind of look and feel.
Chang steers the discussion back onto the game's tech:
Andy Chang: It really came down to the approach of how we constructed the landscapes and stuff. Rather than using procedurally generated mountain programs or stuff like that, we developed our own technique of making unique geometry and used the stamping system to make sure it didn't apparently look like things were tiled and stuff like that. So that's kind of the approach we took to making it unique.
GS: Do you think people will really notice? I mean, on the consumer side?
AC: We notice, and we're gamers. We make an effort to make sure it's visually excellent, so that's pretty much my train of thought on that.
After what some readers characterized as a contentious exchange, Sheffield gives the team an even greater opportunity to discuss their design choices. But neither of them have anything to say:
GS: Driving around the environments, I noticed these bandits are incredibly artistic. They've got art up on the walls, they're building structures and sculptures, and things like that. I feel like I'm going around and murdering an artist colony somehow.
AC: Yeah. Someone pointed it out. He asked me if any of the artists had ever been to Burning Man. And I was like, "No, but we looked at lot of Burning Man pictures, so we tried to get in the heads of these guys." And you're right, they're probably found artists. They found garbage and they thought, "Hey, this looks light enough. Let's take it to our place and decorate with it."
GS: Within the mythology of the game, is there a reason why these guys are so art-inclined?
AC: It's because they were made by guys who were art-inclined.
One of the most important rules of being a good designer or artist (or writer, even): Be prepared to discuss your work and the choices you’ve made in a cogent manner. Good design is purposeful and deliberate. If someone asks you, “Why is this thing the way it is?” and your response is, literally, "Because that’s the way it is," then you’re not doing your job very well.
Another example: Sheffield asks about the variety of accents and motifs that exist amongst the game’s different factions and how the game’s fiction reinforces those design choices. Hollinsworth doesn't even answer the question. He just reiterates Sheffield's point:
GS: You've got some Southern dialects and some British dialects and others. Within the mythology of the world, what's that all about?
TH: The bandit clans tend to be culturally homogeneous, so the Wasted Clan's thing, for example, is that they're kind of punk-rockish -- you've got the Union Jack and all that sort of stuff. We just really tried to create different types of enemies who were distinct enough in all sorts of different ways, so that they sound different, they act different, they have different weapons, they're in different locations, they do different things, they represent different challenges to the player, so that you really get a sense of "these guys are not just bandits generically." It's this, and they do that kind of a thing.
Huh?
If I understand correctly, Hollinsworth is saying that those choices were arbitrary: They serve the gameplay but ultimately don’t mean anything in the game other than "these guys are different from those guys." But hey, maybe that’s not true. Maybe some of the game’s artists would have been able to give a bit more insight into the process of differentiating the clans. But neither of these guys can, and that’s kind of sad.
The harsh reaction to the interview in the comments really shocked me, but it probably shouldn’t have. The games community is so used to reading rote interviews. These questions and answers usually only end up serving the developers, and they don’t offer gamers anything of substance. So when a media outlet asks, "Okay, id, you've spoken a great deal publicly about how unique and your game is. Are you prepared to speak intelligently at length about why that is, precisely?" and they’re met with such a negative response, can anyone really afford to be surprised by the PR fluff that appears on so many video-game websites?
I understand how this thing works. Having good relationships with publishers and PR is important if game journalists want to be involved in coverage and obtain exclusives. But isn’t building a rapport with your readers just as vital?
These aren’t easy questions, and the answer varies depending on the type of coverage a given outlet is dedicated to bringing to their readers. But I, for one, want to commend Sheffield and Gamasutra for a successful attempt at solid journalistic inquiry.
