Joystiq interview: Games and storytelling according to Vicious Cycle's Dave Ellis

Writing in games has come a long way since players were asked if they were bad enough dudes to rescue the president from ninjas. It's a growing area of game development that Vicious Cycle senior game designer Dave Ellis has certainly taken to heart, having won the 2008 Writers Guild award for writing for his work on the PSP action horror title, Dead Head Fred.

Now Ellis plans to impart some of his wisdom on other aspiring game writers as the keynote speaker for the Writers Guild Foundation's workshop on video game writing, which is set to take place in Los Angeles on October 18. In the run up to the event, however, we had the opportunity to pick his brain on a number of game writing-related topics, including the state of writing in the industry, storytelling's role in game design, and the potential for games like Heavy Rain to push the industry forward. We also took a second to touch on Ellis' passion for collecting classic arcade cabs, all of which you can check out after the break.

Hey, Dave. We appreciate you taking the time to answer a few questions for us, particularly with regards to storytelling in games. So how did you get singled out to keynote the Writers Guild Foundation's game writing workshop?

I guess it was because I won the 2008 Writers Guild award for video game writing. It was the first time an award was given out in that category. I've kept in touch with the WGA since winning in February, and I had mentioned my willingness to participate in any WGA events. I feel the recognition of video games by the WGA is significant, and as a veteran of the game industry, I want to do my part to encourage it.

So, what, in your mind, is the current state of writing in games today?

I think game writing is getting better by leaps and bounds.

Video games have been telling stories pretty much since the beginning. Early home computer games like those by Infocom -- the Zork series, Wishbringer, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- were engaging interactive stories. When all you had was text, the writing was pretty much the ONLY element of the game as far as the player was concerned.

As games progressed and graphics got better, stories kind of fell by the wayside and action was placed at the forefront. For a long time, the writing you got in most games was nothing more than an afterthought -- and it showed. This was especially true of the early CD-ROM games. They had plenty of room for full-motion video with live actors but the dialog and stories could rarely hold a candle to even the worst television and movie writing.

Today, we're looking at a couple of exciting developments. First, story-driven games are becoming more popular. Developers are realizing that writing needs just as much attention as the graphics and other gameplay elements, especially when the story and characters play a key role in the game. Second, technology has reached the point where truly interactive storytelling is emerging. The story can evolve through the gameplay, and it can be affected by the player's actions -- at least to a certain extent.

Game writing is only going to get better as time goes on. Players are getting used to good writing, and soon they won't settle for less.

So with all of that, do you think a story can carry a game in spite of unremarkable gameplay? Or, I suppose a better question is should it?

I guess it depends on what you consider "unremarkable." There are a lot of similarities in video games. For example, every shooter, regardless of the addition of new game mechanics, is essentially a game where you run around killing enemies. Remove story elements, and if you've played one shooter, you've played them all.

On the other hand, if you weave a compelling narrative into a shooter, you might be willing to overlook the "been there, done that" nature of the gameplay because the story draws you into the game. You want to see what happens next.

I don't think that gameplay innovation should be ignored -- after all, the game still has to be fun to play. But as a player, I'm personally willing to overlook the fact that the game mechanics lack certain innovation as long as the story is compelling.

Do you feel that there are any conventions or attitudes that are holding game writing back, or conversely pushing it forward?

Technology is always the sticking point in video games. In life, our "stories" evolve constantly. Every person you meet on the street could potentially set you on a different path.

The ultimate goal in interactive storytelling in games is to emulate -- or at least reasonably simulate -- that kind of experience. As a game designer, you want the game to change based on the player's actions. Unfortunately, even open-world games where players are free to explore and do things in whatever order they want, still have a degree of linearity to the storytelling. You still can't do "mission B" until you've finished "mission A," so the story that links the two isn't revealed until "mission A" is complete. You can't kill "Bob" without losing the game if "Bob" is integral to the main plot of the game. Interactions with the computer-controlled citizens of the game world are limited to responses they are programmed to give. You can't carry on real conversations with any characters that weren't programmed to give you pertinent information.

It would be amazing to create a game where the story truly emerges from actions in the game world, and the characters you meet in that world act like real people. But we just aren't there yet in single-player games.

That said, I think that you can still do some really compelling things with game stories without even incorporating new concepts in terms of game stories. Many think that the idea of presenting a story in cut scenes (non-interactive movies that interrupt gameplay) is something that is holding game writing back. Personally, I don't agree. I think that you can still present a great -- albeit linear -- story in this manner. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a great example. The writing in that game was excellent even though the narrative elements were largely non-interactive.

Good call on Uncharted. So is there a particular example in your mind of game that currently represents the benchmark of interactive storytelling in games?

I think probably one of the best recent examples is BioShock. I have rarely been so obsessed with a game. It's immersive from the moment you start the game to the very end.

BioShock is designed to allow the player to dig as deep as they want. There is a basic layer of story that is always presented to the player, but if you take the time to explore the world and listen to all of the tape recordings scattered through every level, the story just keeps getting deeper and deeper. This is one of the only games I've played in long time where I couldn't wait to get back to playing it every night just so I could see what happened next.

Although the developers still had to deal with the issues I mentioned in my previous answer regarding the linearity of the game experience, the ability to explore and find new story elements blurred the edges of the linear storyline so well that, as a player, you rarely think about the fact that you're still following a set path through the game. The story is just so good that you don't really notice.

What are your thoughts on recent comments by Quantic Dreams' David Cage, who regarding Heavy Rain said that players should ignore using typical game conventions like checkpoints in favor of just living with consequences and letting the story play out.

I guess if the game in question only took about an hour to play from start to finish, that would be okay. One of the problems with games as stories in and of themselves is that the player knows that the main character in the story (the player) isn't going to permanently die. That's the one element of the story that can never change. By taking away saves, you instill a sense of urgency in the player and get them to really invest in the fate of their character in the story.

The problem is, most games these days take 10-30 hours or more to play from beginning to end, and each level in the game can take more than an hour to play. One of my pet peeves as a player -- and one of the things I avoid at all costs as a designer -- is forcing the player to replay long sections of a game because he dies. It's bad enough when you have to replay 20 minutes of a mission in order to get back to where you were when you died. Imagine dying 19 hours into a 20-hour game and having to restart from the beginning because there were no checkpoints!

Personally, I'm a compulsive saver. It would sour my game experience to have to replay a big chunk of the game because there were no checkpoints, and I don't feel like it ruins the story or the experience to be able to restart at a checkpoint or from a manual save for that matter. I must have 50 or more BioShock saves on my Xbox 360 hard drive! Of course, giving the player the option of not using saves or checkpoints is perfectly fine ... as long as players that like to save (like me) aren't forced to do so.

From what I've seen of Heavy Rain, it seems like it will be an amazing game with a really deep story. I can't wait to play it. I just hope it lets me save.

So do you think this sort of storytelling is plausible when talking about games?

There are probably ways to make it work. For example, if you do away with the idea of having a single main character the game could kill the player character permanently without ending the game. The player could restart at that point in the story with a new character and move on from there. Of course, this becomes increasingly difficult the more characters you add. You'd need dialog for every possible character the player could potentially control, for example. You'd also have to have to have alternate interactions with non-player characters tailored to each player character. It would be one thing to have the player character killed off in a pre-determined spot...but allowing that to happen anytime in the game becomes very difficult from a technical standpoint.

At this point in time, I don't really think that games could be engineered to deal with the story consequences of randomly losing the player character. But you'll probably see more and more games that do have divergent storylines based on the fate of characters around the player and actions he takes (or fails to take) during the course of the game.

Okay, I want to switch gears before we wrap up. I know you are a collector of classic arcade cabs. What do you think is the real gem of your collection?

It's really hard to choose one. If I had to pick from among the video games, I'd probably say Spy Hunter and Food Fight are about tied for first place. Spy Hunter was always one of my favorite games in the 80s...I never get tired of it. Food Fight is much more obscure, but I always liked it a lot. The one in my collection is a cocktail table version, and there were only 100 of those ever made! According to the serial number, mine is number 21. It's the rarest game in my collection.

Is there an interesting story as how did you came to own either game?

I get most of my games from coin-op auctions in the area. Spy Hunter was one of two games I bought at my first auction (the other was Time Pilot). It only cost me $150. (I've since put a LOT more into it to keep it running.) Food Fight was advertised in the arcade game collectors' newsgroup ... a dealer I know in Pennsylvania was selling it for an excellent price ($350).