Are Writers & Designers the Same or Different?
GameCareerGuide posted a new op-ed piece by Lee Sheldon (whom I know is on this forum) about the importance of writers in the game industry and the fact that they often get written off, as it were:
http://gamecareerguide.com/features/580/oped_writing_off_game_.php
And back in March, Adam Maxwell had a similar piece that took an opposing view on many issues on Gamasutra:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17902
Their main point of disagreement is about writers versus designers. Sheldon says those are two different jobs for two totally different skillsets, whereas Maxwell says there is no need for writers because the designer should be doing all the writing work.
For this SIG, maybe Sheldon's piece is preaching to the choir, but I wondered what you all thought.
Comments?
The best situation you can have is where a team has a game designer who understands writing and a writer who understands games design.
If they're the same person then great, otherwise you need the parties to work well together otherwise you'll end up with the game being compromised in one way or another
James Parker
Freelance Script Writing and Design
http://www.jamesparkerwriting.com/blog/
Originally posted by J.theYellow
And I think Lee Sheldon will be plugging his book, writing essays, giving interviews and making shows at game industry convention until he drops.
That'll be infinitely faster if he gets his time machine 
Teaching at the university level can be a timesuck.
Sande
Originally posted by jillduffy
Comments?
Originally posted by Brian Upton
Maxwell is dead wrong.
Agreed.
Writing does not equal storytelling.
I think Lee Sheldon will be plugging his book, writing essays, giving interviews and making shows at game industry convention until he drops.
Gah, that was my first article in a looong time. When Jill asked me to, I was happy to write it because this significant disconnect in our industry was brought home to me yet again when the ten quotes I listed were all trotted out like commandments by a single panel discussion at a recent conference.
I do try to find time to write the rare article, and give interviews and speak at conferences when I'm invited. My primary function in life though is writing and designing videogames. And those opportunities I turn down, I try to pass along to qualified friends. Oh, and as Sande mentioned I teach this stuff ten months out of the year now, too.
I'm pleased there's no sign of dropping yet.
Lee
P.S. Oh! I forgot to plug my book! See below!
Jill Duffy says:
Sheldon says those are two different jobs for two totally different skillsets, whereas Maxwell says there is no need for writers because the designer should be doing all the writing work.
Brian Upton says:
Maxwell is dead wrong.
Tom Sloper says:
I tend to agree with Sheldon and to disagree with Maxwell. But this isn't a black and white world.
The game designer is not necessarily the best person to do the writing for a particular game, but sometimes he'll do in a pinch. Most writers are probably unsuited to design games, but ya never know.
Originally posted by tsloper
The game designer is not necessarily the best person to do the writing for a particular game, but sometimes he'll do in a pinch. Most writers are probably unsuited to design games, but ya never know.
For example, I've known modellers who had great level design skills ... or maybe they were level designers who had great modelling skills. They could lay out a level so it was fun to play AND make it look pretty. But it's far more common for someone to be good at one task and not the other. So unless you're on a tiny team where everyone has to double up you're better off treating level design and level modelling as two separate jobs and hiring accordingly.
Some designers can write. Most can't ... not at a level that's appropriate for a commercial entertainment product anyway.
Originally posted by Brian Upton
Some designers can write. Most can't ... not at a level that's appropriate for a commercial entertainment product anyway.
No argument.
Some designers can write. Most can't ... not at a level that's appropriate for a commercial entertainment product anyway. [/B]
Amen.
I must say that I feel closer to Mr. Sheldon's article. I would like to highlight a few of the myths he "deconstructed".
4. Stories are linear, games aren't.
Actually neither is true. Non-linear stories can be found everywhere. Linear games are everywhere (and are often accused of being linear because they tell stories). And boy do we need to get beyond the archaic notion that the only solution to game writing is branching (Italics belong to me.)
Hehe, I'm glad that someone mentioned this. The words "branching" and "interactive" (and "non-linear") seem to be used interchangeable and a lot of confusion is generated through this.
6. Game writing can't be taught.
Writing for games is a craft that can be learned, just as writing for film or journalism are crafts that can be learned.
I'm also glad that substantialist arguments like this one are criticised.
7. Storytelling in games must be an entirely new paradigm that breaks with the past.
[...]
What's required is a combination of the knowledge of storytelling and writing in other media: that which we can directly borrow from the past (surprisingly there's quite a bit); that which we can alter and adapt to the peculiarities of our medium; and whatever new opportunities games provide us through player as character, interactivity, non-linearity, and, yes, emergent behavior.
The answer is not to toss out the past anymore than it was when TV added pictures to radio, but to build on the lessons of the past, to teach all of the above, and to give emergent storytelling a context through which it can grow into something more than public masturbation.
I agree. I think that it "naturally" goes into that direction. A growing industry needs people to make things happen. They either come from industries with similar technology, skills and routines, or they get specific training as the industry institutionalizes and learns to define it's own needs. Game writing will change over the years and I suspect that in a hopefully not so far future we will read game history books about the naive/primitive thoughts on game writing that were once circulated 
8. Designing games and writing them are the same job.
A friend of mine I've known for many years, Warren Spector, is a talented writer who also happens to be a gifted game designer. Similarly, I've been lucky to be the lead or sole designer on many games as well as the sole or lead writer. But the skill sets for writing and designing are very different. They simply must be practiced in concert for both to perform their best.
Being in a position where you can practice them in concert seems to be one of the most exiting jobs in this world.
A few words about Mr. Maxwell's article:
I can understand his decision to hire an additional designer with good writing skills instead of hiring a writer. Who could blame him for such a decision? Especially in projects in which he himself is the lead designer and in which he oversees the writing process, it will work great for him. But that doesn't mean that it would necessarily work great in other projects.
I find his argumentation against writers weak. It is built on myth #4 in Mr. Sheldon's list and assumes that game designers are "natural-born non-linearists" , whereas writer's are thought of as a species that can only think in linear fashion. Well, this conclusion itself seems to be reached in a quite linear fashion. I wish the designer Maxwell had spoken, and not the writer.
Nice! I agree with Tom and the guy from the post above (even the branching part!)
In fact, I am desining and writing my own game, and I can assure you, it is not good idea (in fact I am also producing and programming, as you can imagine, all my time is way TOO divided, and the things that I am working on are crawling), BUT I am seeking for a additional writer (or more than one), and the idea is: I will still write, but not everything, I can write the universe, the setting (that is important even to the game design), but I will leave the actual story-telling to actual writers.
Originally posted by altugi
I must say that I feel closer to Mr. Sheldon's article. I would like to highlight a few of the myths he "deconstructed".
Nice. (^_^)
Naturally I also agree with Mr. Sloper
When you look at the variety of skills that some of the modern game projects require today, it makes really no sense to discuss if a writer or a designer is better or more useful for game development: You simply need someone who is both, and even more, because s/he might need to be a director too. As Sande puts it in her latest article, the top products in todays industry demand versatile people that stand at the crossroads of many disciplines. But interestingly enough, the discourse that still seems to rule the industry insists on the classical divide between "designer" and "writer", although both aren't really any longer instrumental in capturing the broad palette of activities that the creative centres or visionaries of games must perform today.
Interesting enough, after I read Sande's article I saw a job advertisement for the position of a narrative designer. Reading through it, somehow confirmed the problems that the industry has while it tries to express its new needs through an old vocabulary. When I read a sentence that says something along the lines "We need a writer/narrative designer, BUT s/he should also understand what gameplay is", for me this simply means there is a new and central role here, but we cannot express what that role is and need to use "buts" and "too" and "also"s. In addition, this makes me think that it is yet too difficult (or unimaginable) for company managers to change the typical/traditional organizational structure of their company to give the new emerging creative roles in the development process the position they need to be in.
You need someone who can write, design and direct, but this person isn't at the center of the process, it is in a position that still reports to the Lead designer, cinematics director and lead artist. This looks like the order of things needs a change. Maybe the problem is that noone knows yet how to talk of a hierarchy in which a designer might work under a writer or "narrative designer"? Worse than that: you want something more than a "plain" writer, a "narrative designer", someone who can direct and design too, so this is actually a quite big thing in itself; but then you expect this person also to write the game manual and the press release etc. Suddenly the word "writer" means also "typist", "journalist", "copywriter" etc. The girl/boy for everything regarding writing? And that is exactly where the typical (and dead wrong) perception of the writer in the game industry shines through again: "Well we already have a writer, we are not going to hire someone else to write the press release." It's kinda frustrating to be confronted with this mindset.
When I was working at game companies rather than freelancing, I did find that it was true that all the writing- related tasks might get thrown at the writer.
It is because people want to get value out of hiring a writer full-time. So, it doesn't matter if you hired a writer to write a script -- the writer can of course help you with all the technical documents. This occurs especially in small companies.
In one of my earliest jobs, I wrote the blog, the user documentation, and designed the quests. However, I was not credited as a writer or a designer. I actually don't show up in the credits even though the owners of the company gave me a copy of the game and know that I worked on it.
Even on the SIG mailing list, there is a blurry distinction between writing and narrative design. Some people feel that writers should write and ought not to be doing any kind of design. Other people think that narrative design and game writing are the exact same thing. It was my hope, through this article, to help articulate what is the role of the narrative designer.
Sande
On reading both articles, I saw two schools of thought: one story-centric, the other play-centric. Both, in my experience, are perfectly valid.
For many games, Mr. Sheldon is right. When games are reliant on traditional storytelling techniques, a Story-centric approach makes the most sense. Examples include the Half-Life series, the GTA series and any other title reliant on characters and plotting. Even the casual games genre has its "Story Mode" options and "Find the object" detective games which (desperately) need some decent writing to make them work well.
In contrast, Mr. Maxwell focuses on the Play-centric approach. This is about the interactions -- all the buttons and levers, keys and locks, challenges and rewards, platform positions and BFGs -- that matter most. And, again, for many games, Mr. Maxwell is right. Examples include abstract puzzle games like Tetris, Columns and Match-3, or multiplayer-focused shooters, which let the players tell their own stories.
In fact, both articles are arguing for much the same thing, just from different viewpoints. A story is the juice you get when you squeeze a game. When you watch someone playing through a game, you are watching a story being told. The player is doing the telling; the game is merely a framework on which to hang the story. And each time the player plays, he tells a new story. Play and Story are two sides of the same coin.
The trick, from a game design perspective, is to design games that permit the telling of many, rich, rewarding stories. How we achieve this depends on the game's genre, however. In some cases, the genre is so abstract that traditional writing and storytelling skills are less valuable than being able to design rich, rewarding interactions that the player can use. In other genres, traditional writing skills are essential to the success of the game.
It's the difference between being able to write a children's storybook, and being able to design a Fisher-Price Activity Centre. The games industry runs the entire gamut, from simplistic, branching stories, right through to abstract, highly-granular interactive "activity centres". Neither is any more "right" or "wrong" than the other.
Both Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Maxwell are correct: we do have a need in our industry for writers with good traditional Storycrafting skills. And we also need designers who understand the relationship between Story and Play.
Genre is an important consideration here: Hollywood produces comedies, parodies, satires, documentaries, mockumentaries, action flicks, chick-flicks, rom-coms and art-house (i.e. French) cinema. TV goes even further, dedicating entire channels to specific genres, such as pop music, engineering documentaries, movies, news and current affairs (and, if The History Channel's output is an example, even WW2).
The games industry is no different: we have card games, casino games, puzzle games, shooters, racers, platformers, retro games, dancing games, singing games, serious games, educational games -- you name it. And there are doubtless plenty of genres yet to come.
Some genres are Story-focused. Others are Play-focused. And there are plenty which sit somewhere between the two. Just because a game can be entirely interactive and emergent, it's not reasonable to assume that it must be. Many players want a measure of hand-holding and direction.
Besides, interactivity is normal.
Improvisational acting is just a form of role-playing game and I bet most of us have seen "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" No need for a scriptwriter. Yet the result, when great improvisational actors are performing, invariably contains a recognisable Story. All good games result in a Story.
Charles Dickens wrote his novels in episodic form for release in weekly or monthly magazines, even going so far as to modify future instalments according to reader reactions, so interactivity shouldn't be news to writers. The early, oral tradition of storytelling was certainly interactive, while Shakespeare would also argue that acting in his Globe theatre involved plenty of audience participation. (Some copies of Shakespeare's works include remarks made by actors in response to the audience.)
There is no such thing as a truly, 100% linear narrative. Even a novel will paint different images in the minds of each reader. The written word relies on context and shared experiences. Each of us applies our own experiences to interpret any written or spoken word; no two people will get exactly the same result from any story.
There's a damned good reason why we refer to stories written for film, television and theatre as plays.
All of the above is, of course, merely my own opinion. I'll stop now as I'm repeating myself. (The perils of making forum posts while high on Day Nurse.)
Are writers and designers the same or different?
Impossible to say, since virtually every studio defines these roles in different ways. In fact, sometimes these roles can change from project to project at a single studio. For the past two years, I've worked on four projects at two different studios. Each of the four games required me to complete different tasks, specific to the needs of the project and the team.
It's important to define skills. Skills that are needed by the studio, skills that are offered by the prospective writer. Some writers focus on dialogue. Others also participate in the design of narrative, the design of gameplay, the direction of cinematics, the casting and direction of voice actors, and/or the creation of marketing copy, site content, and user manual content.
Clearly delineating the role's required tasks is crucial. The job title, considerably less so.
- Rafael
My original point in the op-ed article is getting a bit blurred. I was not refering to roles or specfic skills, but the difference between the two skill sets a writer or designer brings to the job. Story structure is from a writer's skill set. Balancing gameplay is from a designer's skill set.
Companies may want a single individual to have both skill sets to save money, but this is penny wise and pound foolish because the actual number of people who excel in both is very, very small. As a result when a strong designer who is a weak writer (the most common case) is responsible for both roles, story suffers through ignorance ("I've just invented a new way of telling interactive stories! I'll call them cinematics 'cause they're exactly like movies!") or neglect ("That milestone is next week; the story is fine the way it is, let's concentrate on particle effects.") or shortcuts (stereotypical characters, "borrowed" stories).
When learning institutions decide they won't teach writing, and companies don't hire dedicated game writers, we end up with most of what passes for storytelling in our games these days: derivative, cliched, thematically shallow sketches sandwiched awkwardly between bouts of gameplay. That was the theme of the article.
Lee
Writing and designing are always going to be far less measurable skills than programming or art, and anyone, especially those in charge, are going to think anyone can do them. The risk inherent is that play mechanics turn out not to be fun and the story serves no purpose other than to make the author feel important.
But, like most problems in the game industry, I attribute this to management, not talent. People should be put to work doing what they're good at, and enough people should be put to work to accomplish everything on a proper schedule, no matter what. But that's all got to be decided by who's in charge.
And I was teasing Lee Sheldon. I'm sure he didn't take that much offense.
While I agree that not all game designers can write, I disagree that you fundamentally need writing and game design to be different people in all cases to make a better story. I'll go out on a proverbial limb and say this kind of thinking is dangerously narrow.
For one thing, there seems to be a generalization occurring in the discussion here of what a "designer" and a "writer" accomplish during the process of game development.
"Story structure is from a writer's skill set. Balancing gameplay is from a designer's skill set."
Is this honestly what writers think that game designers do?
In the process of the last two projects I've been on, story structure has been on the forefront of my mind as a Mission Designer. I attempted to craft both interesting and entertaining single-player game sessions and tell the story of the battlefield while linking into the over-arching story of the game. If I wasn't concerned about story, pacing, dramatic structure and visual storytelling I would have been highly likely to create flat and lifeless missions.
I don't want to come off as combative, because I truly believe that game companies have to pay much more attention to the story than we have traditionally done. However, I think trying to segregate the writer and designer aspects of creating a game can lead to stories with no connection to the gameplay itself, a disconnected story with unconnected gameplay sandwiched in between.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by NicholasRiley
In the process of the last two projects I've been on, story structure has been on the forefront of my mind as a Mission Designer. I attempted to craft both interesting and entertaining single-player game sessions and tell the story of the battlefield while linking into the over-arching story of the game. If I wasn't concerned about story, pacing, dramatic structure and visual storytelling I would have been highly likely to create flat and lifeless missions.
Thoughts?
Mission Designer, Content Designer, Quest Designer... are usually considered Writer jobs.
Sande
Originally posted by sk8gundy
Mission Designer, Content Designer, Quest Designer... are usually considered Writer jobs.
Sande
Writing is a skill like any other, not some special psychic talent one is born with. A designer already needs a deep understanding of the many elements that go into a game -- programming, art, animation, audio production, music composition -- so why do so many feel that writing is somehow "special" and can't be added to that list?
Game designers *have* to be good writers. Writing plays a huge part in how they communicate with their colleagues. It's not such a huge leap from there to writing good fiction. A great game designer is perfectly capable of writing good dialogue, pacing, cinematography and more.
I'm not going to claim that all designers are good writers, but this doesn't mean they can't be. Nor should writers enter this industry without learning how games are made too.
I abhor attempts to nail people into small, single-skill niches. I prefer to encourage a multi-skill approach to the game design process. The more you know about how it's all done, the better. It makes for a more holistic approach to game design.
I've worked professionally as a graphics artist and 2D animator, sound designer, programmer, designer, producer, design consultant, technical author and writer since I started in the 1980s*. I left school at 18 and never bothered with a degree, so if I can do it, why can't anyone else? I'm not special.
* (not all at the same time, obviously. I'd be insane by now**.)
** (Right! Come here, help me take this straitjacket off, and say that again!)
Originally posted by stimarco
Writing is a skill like any other, not some special psychic talent one is born with. A designer already needs a deep understanding of the many elements that go into a game -- programming, art, animation, audio production, music composition -- so why do so many feel that writing is somehow "special" and can't be added to that list?
Game designers *have* to be good writers. Writing plays a huge part in how they communicate with their colleagues. It's not such a huge leap from there to writing good fiction.
Sorry, but I actually think it is such a leap, and I think not realizing it is where we run into problems - keep in mind that many people understandably undergo years - if not a lifetime - of studying in order to competently make that "leap." Many have rightfully pointed out that a designer needs to understand "programming, art," as well as writing, but how come nobody's suggesting that this makes programmers and artists as disposable as writers? The truth is, good story/writing just ain't important.
Maxwell appears to somewhat suffer from the same mindset:
Article by Adam Maxwell
Now, I’m not going to talk about methodology specifically, but a writer expresses the plot by putting together scenes. Scene A leads to scene B, which leads to the climax in scene C and finally to the resolution in scene D. By placing particular scenes in a particular sequence, the writer’s plot is fed to the reader in such a way as to evoke the emotional response desired by the writer.
Am I the only one that sees the error in such a soulless and simplistic view? I'm surprised there's not a mathematical equation or "graph for good storytelling" included in his description. If anybody truly thinks this is all that a writer/storyteller does, then I guess I'm not surprised he thinks he can do without one...
Article by Adam Maxwell
No matter how well written, a story can’t make the game better. It can make the game more memorable, perhaps, but when it comes to playing the game, to interacting with the world presented within, a writer has no real power. To have any effect in that realm of what we do, the writer would essentially have to be a designer or at least have the knowledge, skills and sensibilities of one.
Isn't the game "better" if it's "more memorable?" I know, I know - he's talking about two different things - but I think that's part of the problem. It appears "game" and "story" can't get along so he's sent them to their separate rooms and told them not to talk to each other anymore. Of course the writer has "no power," nobody will give him any! This merely illustrates the mindset that has thus far championed mediocrity, not something inherent to the craft within the medium.
Article by Adam Maxwell
Good characters, interesting plots and memorable worlds? Evocative emotional experiences, wouldn’t you say? I would, but when I come to that conclusion, I ask the next question: “Is any of that necessary to make a good game?†Sadly, the answer is no.
In a sense... sure, I can agree - we all love Tetris. But does this justify half-assery (gooooo words!) when a story is called for? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority here, and designers are probably the first to admit that most gamers out there will trudge through even the most horribly written garbage if there's acceptable gameplay to be had. I may even include myself in that description from time to time, but if I limited myself to only playing games with competent writing/storytelling I'd be an incredibly bored (yet possibly rich...) man. Make no mistake, however, there is still a large and growing (shall I say maturing? Probably not...) number of us that begrudgingly play such half-finished games, and I'll readily admit the truth: the majority of games out there that do call for writing are, in fact, poorly written. So feel free to continue marginalizing writers and their talents, but don't expect anything different than what you've been getting for years and years: rotten writing and stupid stories. I'm no doubt biased, but aren't there obvious advantages to having someone that knows the differences between simile, metaphor, analogy, and apostrophe in both definition and execution?
Don't get me wrong, I can easily agree with Maxwell when he says, "a designer who can also write is more valuable than a writer alone" (as others here have also expressed), but can a writer who understands the job of a designer not can be equally as valuable? Still, such people are (not surprisingly) more rare than "just designers" or "just writers", so I'd think that the better solution would be greater cooperation and understanding between the two disciplines.
Originally posted by radfannybandit
[B]Sorry, but I actually think it is such a leap, and I think not realizing it is where we run into problems - keep in mind that many people understandably undergo years - if not a lifetime - of studying in order to competently make that "leap."
Or you could just be a teenaged kid with the good fortune to be the son of parents who just happen to own a publishing company. People clearly don't care about quality, and they never have.
MP3 players are demonstrably worse than CD players for audio quality. The only reason they've sold so well is the same reason nobody bothered trying to make an in-car gramophone player: convenience. Function, not form, is key. Nobody buys name-brand clothing because it'll last longer or is better made. They buy it because they think it makes them look cool. (I think it makes 'em look like morons for willingly advertising corporations and _paying them_ for the privilege. But that's just me.)
MP3 players let you slip the equivalent of *thousands* of albums into something the size of a box of matches, and listen to them in arguably the worst possible settings for music appreciation known to humankind.
Stop assuming the public care about quality! They don't! Only *insiders* care about that. Which is why so many Oscar-winning and Palme-d'Or-winning films tend *not* to be the ones that have done well at the box office. People see entertainment as a function, not a form.
We even define entire genres in terms of their function as entertainment forms. "Casual gamers" are *explicitly* defined as gamers who want a 'quick fix' of entertainment, not a five-hour RPG quest-fest.
Is this a Bad Thing? For some, perhaps. For those who have latched onto that artificial commercial concept known as "High Art", certainly. Most people don't appreciate modern art: they *laugh* at it.
And I agree with them. All those Old Masters' paintings? Mere wallpaper! Michelangelo was a builder and interior decorator first and foremost; he never thought of himself as a Poor, Suffering Artist®. Ditto for Da Vinci -- who rarely completed a single work. What we term Art -- with the capital 'A' -- is a very recent concept. It didn't exist at all until a couple of hundred years ago. It's pure marketing.
Many have rightfully pointed out that a designer needs to understand "programming, art," as well as writing, but how come nobody's suggesting that this makes programmers and artists as disposable as writers?
I'm doing precisely that: Programmers have been perpetuating an archaic programming model for over thirty years. We build games today using the equivalent of flint axes. Programming is for masochists. String 'em up, I say!
Am I the only one that sees the error in such a soulless and simplistic view? I'm surprised there's not a mathematical equation or "graph for good storytelling" included in his description.
How do you know such analysis isn't possible? We're collections of millions upon millions of components. That said components taste nice fried in olive oil is irrelevant. Machines all!
If anybody truly thinks this is all that a writer/storyteller does, then I guess I'm not surprised he thinks he can do without one...
That mechanistic approach to the craft isn't unusual among technical types. It's how they're used to attacking a problem. Writing *is* heavily mechanical anyway. We *do* need plots, characters, settings, logical cause-effect chains and so forth. If anything, fiction is more logical and mechanical than reality. In the real world, stories don't neatly wrap up all their loose ends in roughly 90 minutes of running time.
Of course the writer has "no power," nobody will give him any! This merely illustrates the mindset that has thus far championed mediocrity, not something inherent to the craft within the medium.
Hollywood had a stab at the mythical "interactive movie" way back in the early '90s at the dawn of CD-based multimedia games. They were AWFUL.
Computers have given interactivity *back* to the storyteller -- we had it before! It's only these past couple of hundred years that have seen stories trapped in amber, entombed by the tyranny of linear media.
This industry is less than fifty years old. The movie industry can trace its roots right back to around 180 AD, when the first zoetrope appeared in China. That's seventeen *centuries* to get used to the notion of linear, visual media. And they *still* keep giving work to Joel Schumaker!
Originally posted by radfannybandit
Don't get me wrong, I can easily agree with Maxwell when he says, "a designer who can also write is more valuable than a writer alone" (as others here have also expressed), but can a writer who understands the job of a designer not can be equally as valuable? Still, such people are (not surprisingly) more rare than "just designers" or "just writers", so I'd think that the better solution would be greater cooperation and understanding between the two disciplines. [/B]
I agree that greater cooperation and understanding on this is important, but why do we have to keep separating the disciplines? Sande's recent 'Towards More Meaningful Games':
By espousing this multidisciplinary approach to narrative design, developers can elevate the art of game development as well as increase the bottom line. Meaningful games require advance planning, but players benefit much from the integration of story, art, gameplay, sound, and music.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think we should stop treating writers like a completely isolated citizen of the game-development process. I also think this could be helped along if writers stopped behaving as if there needs to be a wall between the writing and the design of the games.
Is there some reason why an employee traditionally known as a writer would object to being a designer as well, or being called a "designer"? I like the idea of the Narrative Designer - potentially both writer and designer - but do people desire to keep the moniker of 'writer'?
Replacing "Writer" with "Narrative Designer" doesn't really fix anything: both imply linearity in some form or other. We need to get away from the implication that we're going to be forcing the player down a linear path, so the term needs to go up a level, to, say, "Plot".
I'm quite partial to "World Creation" or "Plot Weaver" for these roles.
Where a game really does have a lot of linear story in it, then "Writer" or "Narrative Designer" make perfect sense.
TV and cinema have different terms according to each genre. I see no reason to shoehorn every possibly-writing-related job role into the same heading.
Originally posted by stimarco
Or you could just be a teenaged kid with the good fortune to be the son of parents who just happen to own a publishing company. People clearly don't care about quality, and they never have.
Stop assuming the public care about quality! They don't! Only *insiders* care about that. Which is why so many Oscar-winning and Palme-d'Or-winning films tend *not* to be the ones that have done well at the box office. People see entertainment as a function, not a form.
I would argue that writing is one of the more inherently borne talents out there, but we can save nature vs. nurture for another time.
The only thing that I "assumed", however, was that you would read my post before responding: I clearly acknowledged myself among the minority. I would take issue if I thought you literally believed that the entire public (even non-"insiders") doesn't care about quality, but I don't think anybody has their head that deep in the sand. But you do speak as if "form" and "function" never cross paths; I'm saying that they do, of course, and it's those very instances that make for great gaming. And yes, while it's the "insiders" that might appreciate this the most, I think everybody can feel the effects of it.
Originally posted by stimarco
Is this a Bad Thing? For some, perhaps. For those who have latched onto that artificial commercial concept known as "High Art", certainly. Most people don't appreciate modern art: they *laugh* at it.
And I agree with them. All those Old Masters' paintings? Mere wallpaper! Michelangelo was a builder and interior decorator first and foremost; he never thought of himself as a Poor, Suffering Artist®. Ditto for Da Vinci -- who rarely completed a single work. What we term Art -- with the capital 'A' -- is a very recent concept. It didn't exist at all until a couple of hundred years ago. It's pure marketing.
If gaming were as generally inaccessible as modern art you might have a point, but it's not. A better example might be movies like Robocop or (more recently) The Dark Knight where they enjoy both critical and commercial success. In other words, the writers involved had greater intentions than "A to B to C" - is it so wrong for a game to say something other than what the base words tell us? And don't try and tell me anybody who believes this is just a victim of marketing - that's just a cop-out, plain and simple.
Originally posted by stimarco
How do you know such analysis isn't possible? We're collections of millions upon millions of components. That said components taste nice fried in olive oil is irrelevant. Machines all!
That mechanistic approach to the craft isn't unusual among technical types. It's how they're used to attacking a problem. Writing *is* heavily mechanical anyway. We *do* need plots, characters, settings, logical cause-effect chains and so forth. If anything, fiction is more logical and mechanical than reality. In the real world, stories don't neatly wrap up all their loose ends in roughly 90 minutes of running time.
Whether or not the analysis is merely possible was not my point. I agree that writing is more logical/mechanical than reality, but that's an easy comparison. Even more, I appreciate it when every story isn't "neatly wrapped-up" in a predictable manner - just because it's entertainment doesn't mean all of us switch off our minds for it. Still, your approach makes little sense to me: can you really believe that "taste" is irrelevant? I apologize if I'm missing the sarcasm...
Originally posted by stimarco
Computers have given interactivity *back* to the storyteller -- we had it before! It's only these past couple of hundred years that have seen stories trapped in amber, entombed by the tyranny of linear media.
This industry is less than fifty years old. The movie industry can trace its roots right back to around 180 AD, when the first zoetrope appeared in China. That's seventeen *centuries* to get used to the notion of linear, visual media. And they *still* keep giving work to Joel Schumaker!
You must have missed my other post: "Batman and Robin: The Pinnacle of High Art." :P
Good writing is good writing. Bad writing is bad writing. Good writing is more likely to be produced by educated and experienced people - simple as that. If you and the majority of consumers out there don't care about quality, that's too bad - you're missing out.
Originally posted by stimarco
Replacing "Writer" with "Narrative Designer" doesn't really fix anything: both imply linearity in some form or other. We need to get away from the implication that we're going to be forcing the player down a linear path, so the term needs to go up a level, to, say, "Plot".
I'm quite partial to "World Creation" or "Plot Weaver" for these roles.
Where a game really does have a lot of linear story in it, then "Writer" or "Narrative Designer" make perfect sense.
TV and cinema have different terms according to each genre. I see no reason to shoehorn every possibly-writing-related job role into the same heading.
I agree with you completely about the need to get away from linearity implied in what individuals who both write and design do, but I do think that some form of shoehorning is needed. I don't believe we need one title to rule them all, but it seems many writers tend to think in exclusive terms - as do many designers. I'm wondering if this is necessary, or harmful, to the wider recognition of how important story is to modern games.
Maybe it is necessary to segregate writing and design as two seperate disciplines. I believe, however, that if they became thought of as part of the same wider task of game development from beginning to end then "writing" becomes another facet of the game's core design and everyone is better for it.
Originally posted by radfannybandit
Good writing is good writing. Bad writing is bad writing. Good writing is more likely to be produced by educated and experienced people - simple as that. If you and the majority of consumers out there don't care about quality, that's too bad - you're missing out. [/B]
On the contrary: I do appreciate quality. But I'm not the target market. I've played an awful lot of demos over the past 25 years, but it's been a bloody long time since I played one that genuinely made me sit up and take notice. (I thought "Braid" was crap too.)
Clearly, the public are quite happy with their "Paintball-Lite" multiplayer FPS games; their technically basic, story-as-reward titles and so on. And, again, there's nothing inherently wrong about that. We're reaching the limits of what our input and output devices can achieve. We still use joysticks / joypads coupled to a 2D display. All we've achieved since those were invented back in the '60s is colour and better CGI. Most of the last 10-15 years have seen nothing other than refinement and honing of existing genres. There really hasn't been anything genuinely new out there since the mid-90s. (And even the FPS can trace its roots back to Evans' 3D Monster Maze.)
Guitar-shaped joypads and the like don't change the fact that the player is always physically removed from the action. We can create beautiful characters and stunning worlds for people to play in, but we cannot reach through the looking glass and touch it.
Charlie Chaplin's silent movies are lauded as classics. How come nobody ever complains about their lousy dialogue due to the need for caption cards? Did our Neolithic ancestors complain that Ogg's catgut guitar music would have sounded better played by a full symphony orchestra or as a piece of musique concrète?
The public doesn't know any better. We do. We can strive to make stuff better, but we shouldn't act as if we're already at the peak of the games industry. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that Play isn't Art®. A game is not suited to teaching people lessons. It's about giving them what they need to learn.
Ultimately it's going to be based on individual development teams at particular companies with different producers and hiring managers, making the decisions based on budget, time and talent available. Writing and designing are particular skill sets, both very difficult as a whole for the game industry to quantify, compared to, say, art or programming.
Very little of game development seems to have any sort of "best practices" in mind.
I'm thinking Maxwell's projects are either going to have good writing and weak design, vice versa, or mediocre both. And I think Lee Sheldon will be plugging his book, writing essays, giving interviews and making shows at game industry convention until he drops.