Over at rpgcodex, they’ve posted an interview with Jeff Vogel. Jeff’s been getting a lot of press lately, ever since he started his blog and put up the numbers for Geneforge 4. Good move on his part, and I hope he’s picked up some new customers because of it all.
Anyway, it’s an in-depth interview, touching on several topics. That made it tough to choose just one, but I finally settled on story. Because his games are about that more than anything else. As he says:
It really does start with the story. With Geneforge, I had an overarching storyline, and I told that. Same with Avernum. With each game, I try to put in incremental improvements in the graphics and game system, but I really look at these games as writing novels. It’s just, I use pixels instead of paper.
That is why I am so unapologetic about not remaking my game systems all the time. They are just the medium. I care about the message. I try to make changes for a little extra variety or depth, but that’s not where my passion is.
Which explains why it seems we’re always playing the same game: we are, insofar as the mechanics are concerned. The story may change or advance with each one, but in-game play varies little.
On the one hand, that’s good. Good for Jeff, because he doesn’t have to spend much time on the engine; he can put more effort into developing the plot. Good for players, as one game makes them familiar with the mechanics, and there is no steep learning curve in future games.
The downside is that, after awhile, everything becomes over-familiar. I’ve felt this myself, following the Geneforge series. Yes, I’ve enjoyed the story of Shapers vs. Rebels very much. He’s done a better job than many games with big budgets and large teams.
But playing through the story eventually becomes a chore. However fresh the content, tedium settles in. Geneforge went to five games; Avernum will have six. Staleness is inevitable when only the plot advances in each one.
Which points out the problem of focusing too much on any one part of a game, even when it’s the most important part. In the majority of RPGs, that tends to be the graphics, and the stories are often trite. With Jeff’s games, the stories are good, but there is otherwise little that is new.
Look at the great series from earlier days, namely Wizardry, Might & Magic, and Ultima. Each of them eventually freshened up the gameplay and mechanics. Unfortunately, two of those series ended on a dismal note, but that was a content problem.
Jeff has a new project ready to start once Avernum 6 is finished. He hasn’t said much about it; likely it will be another series. If so, I hope gives a bit more attention to gameplay in the new one, and doesn’t continue “same-old, same-old” in each one. Provided, of course, he stays with turn-based combat. But going by his comments in the interview, this is one aspect that won’t change. I can certainly live with that.
Great series from old, huh? M&M huh?
I do seem to remember that a certain Ms. S really panned M&M 2 to death. I wonder whatever happened to her?
I like a good story in a game, but a game ISN’T a novel. The story can only be part of a good game, not the whole thing. If I just want a story, I’ll read a book (which I regularly do, since I love to read).
And frankly, if you’re going to go that way, a text game would work best. Yeah, I know, it wouldn’t sell. Too bad. I never did see a reason why text games couldn’t still be popular, whatever the technology. Sure, they still exist, but only as a tiny gaming niche – and with only amateur developers, I believe.
I think you are correct when you said staleness is inevitable. If you only concentrate on one aspect then the others suffer. I saw that in Doom 3 and Crysis, both were glorified tech demos. They wowed you with the graphics, but left you lacking in gameplay, and both just had the thinnest veneer of a story. Of course those are from major developers, not a small operation like Spiderweb.
Jeff seems to have approached it from the other direction, concentrating on story, but just minor changes to everything else. I didn’t play Geneforge, but from the posted screen shots it didn’t look very different than Exile that I played years ago and the demo I tried of Avernum on the Mac wasn’t radically different in gameplay either. For him that is probably a good thing, he can crank out game after game without worrying about reinventing the wheel regarding the game engine and increasing his development time. That would be a major plus to a small developer.
Presto, yes, I sure did. M&M got off to a good start, but the second game didn’t advance anything and really was awful. But note that M&M 3 was a big step forward for the series, and I liked it very much. Even with “that” monster in it ;)
wcg, we’re not going back to the days of Infocom, except, as you mentioned, in a small niche devoted to IF and the like. Besides, a text RPG wouldn’t go over too well.
Xian, right on about Doom 3 (I didn’t play Crysis, of course). That really disappointed me. As for the graphics in the current series, they are certainly better than the old Exile games. Then again, I’ve never bothered too much about the visuals, so long as they’re adequate. However, the same “adequate” across five games (or eleven, counting Avernum) is a bit much.
Maybe he needs to adopt the standard of sci-fi/fantasy books then… everything comes in a trilogy. It means he would have to update things mechanically more often, or he would extend the life of the engine by telling more varied stories in sets of 3. I agree that letting it sit too long in one story is tough on the series overall.
When you think of it the following series had their engine update regularly:
Ultima with every release.
Wizardry- Wiz I to IV same engine (although Wiz II and III would be considered expansions now days).
Wiz V engine
Wiz VI and VII
Wiz Gold
Wiz VIII
M&M–M&M I and II engine
M&M III, IV, and V engine
M&M VI, VII, VIII engine
M&M IX
Final totals:
Ultima 9 engines
Wiz-5 engines
M&M 4 engines
Bard’s Tale 1
SSI D&D Games 2 engines
Darkbridger, given how Jeff likes to write, he might have trouble holding himself to a trilogy ;) But it’s an idea he should consider.
Presto, yep, those older games did renovate on a regular (more or less) basis. I suspect that’s one thing that kept them fresh.
Some older games did NOT renovate on a regular basis as witness by SSI’s Gold box series. Nine games with the same engine. Granted, the engine was modified a little over time, but not by much. And the second engine yielded 6 games with very little modifications.
Actually, I believe they squeezed 13 games out of the Gold box engine. You probably missed the two Buck Rogers games, Neverwinter Nights and Unlimited Adventures. The last is a game construction kit that must have upwards of a hundred fan made modules out for it. And an extra bit of trivia: There are roughly 28 Wizardry games out now. Boggles the mind, eh?
There’s a great Walt Disney quote relevant to this: “You can’t top pigs with pigs.” What the Spiderweb games remind me of are the old pulp stories. A pulp writer would find a formula that worked and then use it over and over again. I can understand that for a independent developer like Spiderweb it can be safer to find a niche and mine it. Consistent sales puts food on the table. Yet it seems a pity to allow the gameplay to stagnate.