RANDY LITLEJOHN INTERVIEW:
STORYTELLING AND INTERACTIVE
ENTERTAINMENT
By Shannon Muir
Some
content also scheduled to appear in other publications
***
SHANNON
MUIR: Your early experience in the
gaming field included sound design and being a director of photography. When and how did you make the switch over to
game design?
RANDY
LITTLEJOHN: During the time I was working as a Director of Photography on
Sierra On-Line games, such as Phantasmagoria and Gabriel Knight II:
The Beast Within, I acquired some allies that came in handy later - people
who believed in me. The most important
of these allies was the video production manager, Bill Crow. Later, when Sierra On-Line and other
companies decided to discontinue doing live action games, rather than sending
me to the wolves, I was given the opportunity to use some old skills from my
rock and roll band days and early college education as a music major to land a
position as a co-sound designer of a game called Lighthouse. During the production of this game I began
lobbying for an opportunity to get into game design, and with the help of Bill
Crow, I did indeed manage to get a job as an assistant game designer. From that time on I remained in game design.
SM: Generally
speaking, how is character development handled in game design?
RL: With rare
exception (Jane Jenson's and Christy Marx's adventure games, for instance)
computer games have been controlled by the idea that they are 'games'. Thus, arcade-like experiences and artificial
puzzle-solving have been the main emphasis in game production, even while the
graphic and sound environments have become more and more realistic - even as
non-player-characters (NPCs) have become embedded with so-call 'AI' (artificial
intelligence). The idea of 'story' has
largely been used to set the stage for first person shooters and role-playing
games. Once the game begins, story
elements become simplistic, linear or at least pre-defined, and
'underwhelming', if they exist at all.
With the exceptions mentioned above, character development is something
left behind after opening movies and seldom-read documents that come with the
game, which outline who's who, and why they're doing what. It is rare indeed to find good character
development and multi-layered, gradually unfolding stories in computer
games.
Half-Life II seems to be a partial move towards a
remedy to this. The NPCs in Half-Life
II have more ability to communicate a range of emotions than perhaps in any
game before, except for the days of live-action games. They are also the most 'life-like' of any
computer-generated characters in a game thus far. Nevertheless, judging only
from the E3 demo, Half-Life II seems still to be basically a 'shooter',
rather than an interactive drama, albeit in a more realistic universe than
usual.
SM: Again,
generally, can you paint a picture of how story is determined in game design?
RL: Today
computer games are often serial incarnations of a good-selling franchise
title. So the 'stories' are extensions
of what has already been set up in previous games. In general, people who are often not professional writers or
professional storytellers, but who may be 'designers' or 'producers' will hash
out a story premise for a game, or will decide on a setting populated by a
certain kind of characters and monsters, and will pre-define game
features. The operating system and the
genre of game will help determine what kind of action will take place in the
game. Sometimes a professional writer
will be brought in to take what has already been decided upon and flesh it
out. The professional writer may write
a background story that sets the stage for the action and/or will write up
biographies for the main characters.
Much of this will never been seen in the game itself, beyond opening
movies and cinematics (non-interactive interludes). Sometimes professional
writers will even get in on dialogue writing.
But in terms of actual game design, my experience has been that in
general, there's little attempt or little interest in interweaving story and
character development into the non-linear, interactive design for the
game. There are exceptions.
The massively
multi-player on-line game Earth and Beyond makes a gallant attempt at interweaving
an evolving story and interesting characters into their game engine. A professional writer with a background in
drama was finally hired (after some false starts) to oversee the narrative
elements of the game. Professional
writers were also called in to help with dialogue writing (Christy and myself,
among others). This game, however, is
an exception to the usual computer game, and missing is any kind of autonomous
narrative activity by NPCs. In
addition, the NPC animations are very limited.
This game does not try to represent a 'real' experience. It's very much a 'game'.
SM: Considering your educational background in
drama, are there things that you feel you be improved in the approach to
character and storytelling, and can you provide an example of the feel of a
game might differ whether or not such principles were applied?
Randy responded
by citing from a work-in-progress paper:
RL: I think that
the masses are ready to spend money for an interactive drama that leaves the
trappings of "computer games" behind. Whoever builds this groundbreaking system is going to get rich.
My intent is the
creation of a new kind of interactive experience that is comfortable and
compelling for the masses. This new art form would immerse the experiencer
inside of a reality very much like what he or she is already familiar and with
- film and television.
My primary
interest can now best be described as R&D in "interactive
drama." By focusing on drama
instead of storytelling I free myself from the restraints of preconceptions of
linearity in my search for a method of 'interactive dramatic narrative
presentation'.
In my imagined
design the moment-to-moment experience is not defined. Nevertheless, a satisfactory dramatic experience demands there to be a definite
beginning, middle, and end, which will support a rising level of tension until
the dramatic climax and resolution are achieved. My goal is to create a system in which the dramatic and narrative
support elements and principles and macro-level structure are pre-defined, in
order to achieve "drama," but in which these elements are active in a
non-linear, non-branching way at the micro-level.
In a nutshell I
want to create an environment in which the player and AI-smart NPCs, each with
their own goals, biases, and methodologies, co-create the narrative at the
micro-level, in real time, as their actions trigger the results of dramatic
situations that are pre-defined.
I have long
believed that combining a story/drama world-authoring engine with something
like Haptek's "People Putty" (www.haptek.com) represents some of the major software
components of such a project. At one
time the People Putty engine was being considered for an adventure game at
Sierra. I was present for long demos
and was able to talk at length with the founder of Haptek, Chris Shaw. So I am very familiar with what they've
done.
People Putty
creates 3D animated agents and provides for their 3D environments. These agents are low-polygon creations
covered by photo-realistic skins. Their
software automatically creates "fidgets," eye blinking, reflections,
shadows, etc. and provides for an environment for the characters to be in.
Agents can
respond to input. The input can be from
a keyboard, mouse, or through spoken words.
Text input can be embedded in scripts with emotional and movement
cues. Code embedded into text input can
also cause the agents to physically morph, change costumes, change backgrounds,
etc. In other words, scripts written
for the agents to speak can also be embedded with code that will cause other
actions as well.
A big deal is
made out of the fact that these characters can morph in real time into new
characters as demanded by the user via scripting. But it is more interesting to me that these agents can be
"taught" to react with "apparent emotion" to objects within
their physical environment - including to other agents.
Much of what
Haptek has achieved is now also available by way of the characters in Half-Life
II. The work that is left to be
done is the creation of an experience that is based on a 'drama engine',
focused on a dramatic experience. The
bias of 'game-thought' is central to role-playing, first person shooters and
massively multi-player on-line games. I
seem room for a new paradigm for the masses that leaves game-thought behind.
I see technology
advancing at an incredible rate, but few people outside of academia seem to be
thinking about how to evolve the tools of drama so that they can work in an
interactive environment. That's my
interest. But this interest needs a
test bed.
I look out there
and see that all of the components (though dispersed in various
non-entertainment fields) are now available, and if combined, could lead to a
new kind of interactive entertainment - call it interactive drama - or
interactive drama worlds - call it working towards an evolution of drama
towards preparation for a real 'Star Trek Holodeck' experience.
I envision a system
combining interacting modules into system to support life-like NPCs with the
ability to 'act' - call them 'synthespians'.
The list of modules would include at least the following: Adaptive
Learning, Pattern Recognition, Expert Systems, Speech Processing, and Text
Parsing. But I do not envision creating
autonomous agents that are truly 'aware', of course.
As a metaphor
let me give an example: stage sets are only designed to the degree that they
will be used. If a door in a flat is to be used, it is built strongly enough so
that it can be used. If the door will
never be used there doesn't even have to be an opening in the flat - just a
door painted on the surface.
Drama is smoke
and mirrors - it only needs to seem real.
There doesn't need to be "real" understanding by the machine,
or "real" communication. It
only needs to appear to the experiencer that there is real intelligence,
understanding, and communication.
This is what I
mean by synthespians: I'd like to explore the potential of creating autonomous
agents with "dramatic character".
In other words, I'd like to see autonomous agents with goals, biases,
and abilities to carry out "intent" - all inspired by the principals
of drama. I'd like to explore the
possibilities of autonomous interaction between agents that move forward by the
principals of drama. These agents would
have as much potential to be "aware of", interact with, and change
their persistent environment as the interactive drama experiencer.
I envision an
experience in which synthespians and the experiencer interact in a
"drama-world" made of theatrically atmospheric environments saturated
with exposition (story elements), dramatic potential and events orchestrated by
a "drama-engine". I see a
dramatic work arising from an environment where, given certain starting
criteria, there can be an emergent and yet dramatic story. This emerging drama
would be co-created by the synthespians with conflicting goals and biases and
the experiencer as a result of their actions in the drama-world.
I am especially
interested in the potential of creating a dramatic situation in which an
autonomous "sidekick" or "partner" would join the human
experiencer in an adventure/ quest. I
envision a human stranger in a strange land, with the sidekick being the
liaison, as well as potential friend, helper, and fighting partner. This sidekick would be an AI-smart
'synthespian' that can apparently learn and reason, who is afflicted with needs
and desires, as we all are, and who is motivated by a strong dramatic goal that
is in conflict with the state of the 'drama-world'.
Invisible in all
of this is the "dramatist" in the background - behind the curtain,
who uses a new kind of tool to 'direct' the theatrical potential of the
experience by inputting narrative elements, inherent conflict, characters (with
wants, needs, goals, schedules and action abilities) and dramatically
"soaked" environments through a software interface, and where the
user does not have to be a programmer - just a dramatist.
What I see is an interactive drama for the
masses who have computers, but who are not 'gamers'. The masses will be drawn to this experience because of three
things: it's familiar like TV and film, the interface is simple and intuitive,
and because the synthespians are emotionally evocative and their plight is
understandable and just. There are no
brainteasers laid artificially and superficially into the design. If there are to be puzzles, they are puzzles
that evolve out of the dramatic backbone of the experience. In fact, everything that can be considered a
trapping of 'game thinking' would be absent from this new kind of interactive
dramatic experience. Though the
designer knows that the experience will have a beginning that sets up the
narrative, a middle with evolving conflict, and an end with a good resolution -
know one knows how the dramatic experience will evolve. Going from A to B to C will be a non-linear,
yet emotionally powerful, experience.
SM: How do you
feel a change in viewpoint could be injected into the existing interactive
entertainment arena?
RL: I don't
know. As large corporations have bought
up smaller game companies the tried and true gaming genres have become dogma,
even though the interactive entertainment industry is just a child compared to
TV, which is a child compared to film, which is a child compared to thousands
of years of dramatic evolution in theatre.
But large corporations are good at making money and loath to take a
risk. This puts the brakes on the
evolution of interactive entertainment - for now.
It will take a
design team to create such an experience - not just a designer. The team will be composed of a programming
lead, a dramatist/ storyteller/ writer, an art lead, and a sound/music lead. There will be no talk of 'levels' and
such. There will be no talk of whether
the experience will be a shooter, a role-playing game, or a massively
multi-player on-line game. There will
be no mention of the word 'game'.
Instead there will be talk of 'narrative environments', synthespians,
synthespian directors, motivations, subtext and goals, emotional environments,
and real-time adaptive music. There
will be talk of the macro-level 'drama engine', which provides for a three-act
structure, like an umbrella, over non-linear narrative development.
I suspect that
some day, someone with vision will be in a position to create a dramatic and
interactive computer experience for the masses. It will become the biggest thing ever. And then everyone one will want in. Suddenly the bean counters and marketing people who now advise
against risk will be clamoring to be a part of the new 'next great thing' -
before it's too late.
SM: How likely do you think it is that this will
actually come to pass?
RL: I think it's
inevitable.
SM: What can
consumers who would like to see this kind of storytelling approach in their
interactive entertainment do?
RL: Support
'games' that include story and character development. Write to the big interactive companies and tell them that you
demand strong, non-linear storytelling and well-developed, believable
characters. Don't have low expectations
about what is possible.
n NO ARTICLE MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY REPRINTED WITHOUT EMAILING SHAN@DUELINGMODEMS.COM FOR PERMISSION. Thank you.