INTERVIEW DRUMLANDER & TALE OF TALES

Drumlander is my collaborative project with Canadian Louis Blackburn. It is essentially a platform to explore the creative potential of computer games. Drumlander has been presenting audio performances with game music and installations with independent games in Belgium, the Netherlands and Québec. 

Tale of Tales is a games development studio, founded by Auriea Harvey and Michaël Samyn in Belgium in 2002. The purpose of Tale of Tales is to create elegant and emotionally rich interactive entertainment. They explicitly want to cater to people who are not enchanted by most contemporary computer games, or who wouldn’t mind more variety in their gameplay experiences. For this purpose, all of their creations feature innovative forms of interaction, engaging poetic narratives and simple controls. 

Around the end of last year Louis and me had a back-and-forth email discussion about war games with Tale of Tales. Time to post that here. 

ToT: Many people like playing games. But rarely is the excitement so great as between a hardcore gamer and a big-budget action game (Doom, Halo, Half-Life, Gears of War, Bioshock, etc.) Even in gamers with a relatively broad taste, such as you, one cannot miss the sparkle in the eye when one of these games is mentioned. What makes them so special? 

DL: There seem to be a few assumptions in your question that we do not completely agree with. First of all you seem to assume that “big budget action games” and more specifically first person shooters are the most intensely desired and enjoyed games within the gaming community. This is obviously not true. There is a wide range of other types of games that are equally popular, maybe even more popular. If you look at sales figures, the FPS games make up only 15-20 percent. 

Secondly you assume that this type of game is not only the most popular, but also exceptionally “special”. This is not true. Every gamer has his personal selection of favorite types and genres of games. Moreover, our personal experience has shown that so-called hard-core gamers are very curious and interested in indie games. “Big budget action games” are not more special than any other type of game. 

Apart from this, we have our reasons to like some mainstream FPS games. Contrary to what many people think, it’s not just about aiming your crosshair and bashing the left mouse button (but to be honest, we think this type of hand/eye coordination game can provide a satisfying experience as well). In a compelling FPS game other skills such as strategy and efficient teamwork are also needed. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is a good example of this. What is definitely a strong point in these games is the way in which they manage to create an immersive, persuasive and genuine atmosphere. You may not like Gears of War, but you cannot deny that it has its own specific and powerful stylization. Sadly, this stylization and this level of art direction are elaborated way better than the script. Most often these games heavily suffer from weak storylines, stereotypical characters and bad voice acting. But this doesn’t automatically render them uninteresting. 

Now we have a question for you: how exactly do you define a “hardcore gamer”? 

ToT: I don't define a "hardcore gamer". But Chris Bateman does. Read his excellent post on Game Literacy here. If you do not consider big-budget action games special, then there is no point to continuing the interview. I want to try and figure out what makes them special. Why the enthusiam for such games is so extreme. And I thought I'd start by asking a player of those games why he likes them. If you think they are not special, then I will ask somebody else. Otherwise, please continue :) Do you think the atmosphere that you mention is enhanced by the challenges and missions of the game? I personally feel that gaming tends to distract me from enjoying it. What do you mean by stylization when you talk about Gears of War? And how is it "powerful"? 

DL: We’re eager to discuss the enthusiasm for big-budget action titles. However, like we said before, their appeal is not unique in the game world. There are other types of games that are equally successful: MMORPGs, sports games, etc. But let’s focus on your last questions. 

There seem to be three defining elements that we’re discussing here: (1) interaction, (2) atmosphere/stylization, and (3) storytelling. The relation between interaction and atmosphere is a dialectic one. Thorough interactivity can enhance the experience of a virtual atmosphere. Discovering that the environment is not a static one, not a 3D painting, but actually pulsating with virtual mechanics can drag you deep into a setting. At the same time a compelling atmosphere enhances the experience of interactivity. In some cases you can almost feel the materiality of the virtual world because of its visualization, sound effects and physical behavior. This can makes interactions very convincing and augment the pleasure of even the slightest change you make in this world. 

Regarding stylization in Gears of War, on a purely aesthetic level there is maybe an obvious, but still very efficient use of soft lighting and a light fog in a war-torn city. Could you switch off the voice acting, you would still strongly feel what this story is about. Sometimes game mechanics and aesthetics combine for very strong effect. For example, an enemy you didn’t see attacks you so you run for cover. When you perform the run action you can’t shoot, the camera pulls away and starts to shake and the depth of field narrows making the background blurry. This combination of mechanic and aesthetic elements induces a very emotional reaction in the player. You do feel panicked when it happens, a lot more than in a game such as Half-Life 2 where the graphics are always very sharp and the camera always moves smoothly. Another example would be a level where your only defense against some types of enemies is to stand in the light. At some point you need to position a follow spot to create a “light bridge” to move safely. You can also move this spot to freely look around the scenery. This exploration too becomes very emotional. It feels like a “calm before the storm” moment. And as you look at it, you kind of wish this city hadn’t been destroyed by the war. It does immerse you in its narrative. It did have a powerful effect on us, anyway. 

ToT: You call the storylines of such games weak. Is this perhaps a result of their game mechanic and rules system? What else can a fast-paced game in which you defeat hundreds of opponents be about? I agree that games can be interesting despite weak storylines. Different games in different ways. How are the big-budget action games that we are discussing interesting? Are they similar to sports? Is it all about the adrenaline that is released by tension and victories? Or is it, as Raph Koster would claim, about the joy of learning to recognize abstract patterns? 

DL: It’s true that fast-paced action and the simplistic goal of clearing subsequent levels is not very conducive to subtle storytelling. However, when interaction and atmosphere are developed in a good way, you don’t necessarily need a highly original storyline to engage the players. These two parameters are so powerful that they almost function on their own. And that’s what you see in a lot of games, both mainstream and independent: the story is just a mere pretext. Nonetheless, we are convinced that it is not impossible to combine deeper psychological and emotional storytelling with pumping action. We believe this is definitely an aspect of future game development. And it’s not that all action games have terrible storylines. Also, gamers really appreciate efforts to build up engaging scenarios. 

To answer your last question about the adrenaline that is released by tension and victories and the joy of learning to recognize abstract patterns, both are certainly aspects that can perfectly work together. 

ToT: I have a few questions in response to "Nonetheless, we are convinced that it is not impossible to combine deeper psychological and emotional storytelling with pumping action." First of all, I was just going to ask you: why do you think so many of these games are set in war zones? Is there a link between games and war, perhaps? Or is it just a convention? 

DL: Conflict, battling, winning & losing are simply inherent in games. This can be in a very literal way such as in FPS games, but also in a way more abstract way such as in chess or Tetris. This inherent character leads naturally to war settings and narratives. There’s no surprise there. Such games are appealing to a large audience and sell well. It’s like a safe bet for a publisher. Of course action should not be narrowed down to war action. There’s so may other types of intense action that are equally popular. Just look at the massive success of the Wii and Guitar Hero. 

ToT: So far, you have been stressing the similarities between these highly immersive big-budget action games and the much more modest independent scene. But can you see something come out of the independent scene that the highly commercial games don't seem to be capable of offering? Different kinds of stories perhaps? Games without "pumping action"? Other emotions than those induced by threat and violence? 

DL: The independent scene is probably the best thing that could happen to gaming. We fully agree with you. Since these people are not bound to shareholders, they are more willing to take risks. For a lot of the small developers there’s also limited risk involved since they work on a shoestring budget or no budget at all. The indie scene is a wonderful lab for exploring both game mechanics and game narratives. Also, this scene is much more accessible and usually the developers specifically ask for feedback that they can implement in improved or new versions. It's this collaborative and open nature of the scene that makes it so attractive to us. Then again, borders are blurring and independent games are also finding their way into mainstream consoles. Good examples of this are flOw and Everyday Shooter which are a big success on the PS3. 

ToT: In all other other art forms, critical praise and commercial success seem to be diametrically opposed. This almost leads to a form of snobbery where anything successful cannot possibly be considered "good". But games seem to go for the other extreme: "good" games sell well, or successful games are good because they are successful. There seems to be an eerie link between winning in the virtual battle of the game and winning in the marketplace. What do you think about the level of testosterone in games culture?

DL: It’s true that mainstream game journalists often lose their critical attitude simply because a game or game series is popular. Look at Halo 2, hardly an innovative or creative game, but when it came out it was hyped to such an extent that no journalist even dared to analyze it in a really critical way. The Gamespot/Jeff Gerstmann scandal also brought to the forefront what had been in most critical gamers minds: how can we be certain that mainstream game critics are free to write what they really think? The gaming press is mostly funded by ads of the same games they are critiquing. In a way game criticism is still very young. It's slowly building its language and finding its references. It also took a while for the first serious film critics to appear after the films of the Lumière brothers. We're quite confident that apart from the current publicity-oriented "criticism", another way of analysing more mainstream games is going to arise. 

It's also important to point out here that here’s currently more than just mainstream journalism. There’s a very active blogging community that writes about independent games, and that’s basically where we get our information from. These people are not bound to publishers or developers and can write in a much more open and critical way. Definitely a healthy counterweight for abysmal mainstream journalism.